Scoping Culture and Heritage Capital Research
Lead Research Organisation:
University of the Arts London
Department Name: Social Design Institute
Abstract
This project responds to the ambition set by the DCMS Culture and Heritage Capital (CHC) Programme to develop a systematic approach through which culture and heritage can be valued. Delivered by a multidisciplinary team committed to inter- and transdisciplinary ways of working, this scoping study supports the articulation of a comprehensive and integrated set of evidence and guidance for the purpose of valuing culture and heritage assets in the context of decision making. It offers: a) an analysis of the developments prompted by the concept of cultural capital and a preliminary taxonomy linking types of assets with the generated flows of services and the associated values, including special consideration for digital assets and heritage sites; b) methodological recommendations for the development of evaluation guidance operationalising the CHC framework in government decision-making, informed by the considerations of natural capital; c) an overview of key conceptual and methodological challenges, in particular those arising from a multidisciplinary research perspective; d) a priority list of research areas and interdisciplinary avenues of inquiry built around the challenges identified through research and dialogue with the funders, international Advisory Group, Partners and other stakeholders.
| Description | The findings of the scoping study are that the introduction of the CHC framework presents significant opportunities from the point of view of valuing the arts, culture and heritage, as well as policy decision-making as such. However, the scoping exercise shows that developing, operationalising and implementing this framework requires sustained research attention, methods refinement and, crucially, capacity- and capability-building across disciplines and sectors. This is not least because the value of arts, culture and heritage as conceived through the CHC framework is an inter- and trans-disciplinary concept. The recommendations from the Report follow a three-tier nesting structure: starting with Enhancing the theoretical debate, concerning foundational questions for the development of the CHC framework, built around the issues where the three perspectives represented in the report converge and have potential to develop shared concepts and methodologies; Addressing methodological challenges, which focuses on research needs arising in relation to the implementation and operationalisation of the CHC framework; Research capacity and capability building, which addresses the essential need for collaboration in research and practice across different sectors and disciplines. The summary of the recommendations is presented below. Enhancing the theoretical debate 1. From natural to cultural capital: towards an ecosystem services approach Recent developments in the natural capital debate suggest that the parallel between cultural and natural capital should be further explored, in particular, in regard to ecosystem services valuation. Valuing Culture and Heritage Capital: A framework towards informing decision making (Sagger et al., 2021) set the need to understand what types of services and benefits flow from CHC. The scoping study found that research is needed to develop a framework for identifying, classifying and mapping the flows of services from cultural capital, as well as understanding how and why these services may be valued. This represents a priority for the CHC programme. 1.A Developing a taxonomy of CHC services and associated benefits Building a taxonomy of CHC services and associated benefits-either as directly consumed and contributing to wellbeing, or as enabling, i.e. inputs to the production of other goods and services-has been identified as a priority recommendation from the point of the development of the CHC agenda and as an important nexus where cultural economics and arts and humanities can meet. 1.B Developing socio-cultural valuation as part of a CHC framework The scoping study has established that research should explore the link between the reasons why people value the arts, culture and heritage and how this relates to their monetary expressions, as well as non-monetary expressions where relevant. This can be achieved using socio-cultural valuation. As the report explains, socio-cultural valuation is a collective name for approaches-monetary and non-monetary-that are now well-established in the context of environmental and ecological economics (Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services [IPBES], Operational Potential of Ecosystem Research Applications [OPERAs], Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs [DEFRA]). They rely on deliberation- and discourse-based methods and can be supported by a range of arts and humanities methods, and design techniques. 2. Understanding how change and value are related The relationship between the changes in the condition and the status of stocks of assets and valuation is an important point of intersection between economics and heritage science; however, the scoping study has established that this is not well understood. Accordingly, the report recommends that a strand of research is set up to better understand how degradation, deterioration and damage are reflected in valuations, and how this translates into Social Cost Benefit Analysis (SCBA) to support the CHC framework. 2.A Degradation, deterioration and damage Although decision-making frameworks for heritage assets with their foundation in economics have been in operation for many years, the scoping study has found that there is a disjunction between heritage science on the one hand, and the economics of conservation discourse on the other. Some attempts to bridge heritage science and economics have been proposed in recent years but research shows that a linear, analytic relationship between economic value and the transformations of stocks and services is difficult to establish (see Section 3.1, and Appendix 3). Addressing methodological challenges 3. Operationalisation and implementation of CHC The report has addressed multiple methodological challenges arising in relation to the operationalisation and implementation of the CHC framework, including enhancing estimates' reliability and minimising biases, expanding the evidence base and developing appropriate platforms/databases. These have to be addressed further through a combination of academically led research and consultancy work across a number of projects. 3.A Integrated projects addressing complex valuation challenges per units of assessment To enhance the suitability of stated preference (SP) methods in support of decision-making, it is necessary to systematically address similar valuation challenges for different categories of cultural assets. These have been identified in the report as units of assessment, understood as macro categories that can be used as the starting point for a systematic exploration of how to respond to specific valuation challenges. This approach will help catalogue estimates and facilitate their comparisons for regional/national database organisation, via benefits transfers. Per each unit of assessment, it is recommended to use several market and non-market techniques to test the validity and reliability of that estimated for policy purposes. The review of the literature summarised in Appendix 4 highlights some clear gaps here. There is a lack of valuation studies at the urban landscape/neighbourhood scale and this gap should be addressed through integrated projects. 3.B Triangulation of values estimated and biases using different valuation methods Future research should address an ongoing challenge for CHC accounting, namely that valuation estimates for the same CHC asset can produce varying values depending on the adopted method. Therefore, future research should apply different valuation methods to the same CHC asset class/typologies within the proposed units of assessment. Different methodological treatments should be used to identify what methods offer the most conservative estimate per category of good within a specific unit of assessment. At the same time, research should address biases related to the hypothetical nature of the market and test whether the combination of market and non-market techniques might solve such discrepancies. Research should therefore test for embedding and sequencing effects, reliability over time, actual versus hypothetical behaviour and, in addition, welfare weighting. 3.C Exploring the potential of Big Data analysis and Geographical Information Systems (GIS) databases for value acquisition, storage, management and transfer Some variables are known to drive differences in non-market value estimates between sites. To date, these have been mainly based on the visitor demographics at each site, most commonly income levels. However, there is a need to explore datasets that classify the differences in the service-offering at each site, and that can be used at scale to adjust the national average non-market values to be more tailored to each site being valued. This requires further empirical research that links the results of benefit transfer studies to geographical dimensions and local characteristics. Such research should consider the use of Geographical Information Systems (GIS) and will benefit from the organisational accounting and auditing records submitted to DCMS/Arts Council England (ACE)/Historic England (HE), as outlined in this report. 3.D Gaps in the empirical literature concerning asset types The methodological review undertaken in the draft Table of CHC classes in this report, with recommendations for non-market methods to be applied, found a number of research gaps on CHC asset types that should be filled with further valuation research. Research capacity and capability-building 4. Capacity and capability-building The scoping study was built on the assumption that valuing arts, culture and heritage is too important and complex to be left to just one discipline or sector, and that it calls for an inter-disciplinary and cross-sectoral approach. To the contrary, working in disciplinary silos may entrench problems and conceal blind spots, in particular, where the level of methodological specialisation makes conversations difficult. 4.A. Networking grant and a review of the barriers to cross-disciplinary and cross-sectoral collaborations An important finding of the study is that a significant effort is needed to align the terms of the debate and to build a forum for more collaborative and inclusive ways of working between policymakers, arts, culture and heritage practitioners, and the researchers in the relevant areas and disciplines. This includes shared understanding of a range of valuation approaches, including SCBA and socio-cultural valuation, and is essential to ensure the success of the CHC programme. 4.B. Networking grant to enhance theoretical understanding in cultural economics There is the need for cultural economists working on non-market valuation, and ecological and environmental economists working on ecosystem services valuation to be brought together to discuss overlaps, differences and the potential to enhance the economic valuation of cultural capital. 4.C. Training grants for skills development The scoping study has identified the need to develop skills in the cultural sectors, both in terms of training the future generation of researchers and to help stakeholders engage with the theory and practice of cultural capital economic valuation, and to collaboratively articulate guidance for the sectors. At the same time, the team behind the scoping study has identified the need to build a pipeline of future talent in cultural economics in the UK. This is specifically intended to bridge the problems in cultural economics with the concerns of academic economists through training grants, sponsored PhDs and summer schools. Accordingly, investment in training to address the current skills gaps is recommended for both the cultural sectors and academic economics. The detailed list of recommendations can be found in the section Recommendations for future research and research infrastructure in the main part of the report. The report itself is divided into four chapters, starting with an overview of frameworks, definitions and concepts. It, then, highlights the key considerations arising from within the disciplinary perspectives represented in the study with regard to the understanding of the 'ecologies' of cultural services and the importance of socio-cultural valuation in this context. Next, it considers the intersection of heritage science and economics with respect to valuation to establish what change to stocks is acceptable, before turning to the issues arising in relation to the operationalisation of the CHC framework in the context of decision-making, including reliability and validity of economic value estimates and distribution issues. Reflections on the value of the capitals approach from an inter-disciplinary perspective follow, together with the Recommendations and Appendices concluding the study. As noted already, the scoping project was built on the assumption that valuing the arts, culture and heritage is too important and too complex to be left just to one discipline or sector, and that it calls for an inter-disciplinary and cross-sectoral perspective. To the contrary, again, working in disciplinary silos may entrench problems and conceal blind spots, in particular, where the level of methodological specialisation makes conversations difficult. It is hoped that this report will contribute to the building of a collaborative foundation for making the value of arts, culture and heritage more visible across different sectors and disciplines, this in line with the recognition that what is measured, and how, dictates how an object is seen by society. Whether that value is articulated influences the priority it is given relative to other social outcomes, and this is especially important in government decision-making, where multiple societal objectives compete. Set in this context, the long-term success of this scoping study and of the CHC programme is to make the value of arts, culture and heritage an integral part of capital wealth accounts and, therefore, essential to understanding prosperity and wellbeing, now and in the future. |
| Exploitation Route | The scoping project - and further research funded through the accompanying funding call informed by the project's recommendations - will support: - the development of inter- and trans-disciplinary research in the area of valuation of culture and cultural value - new talent and capability pipeline for researchers spanning expertise in the arts and humanities, cultural policy and cultural economics - the ambition set by the DCMS Culture and Heritage Capital (CHC) Programme to develop a systematic approach through which culture and heritage can be valued. The project thus benefits directly the three key stakeholder groups in cultural value research: academics, decision and policy-makers and cultural sector practitioners. |
| Sectors | Communities and Social Services/Policy,Creative Economy,Leisure Activities, including Sports, Recreation and Tourism,Government, Democracy and Justice,Culture, Heritage, Museums and Collections |
| URL | https://www.ukri.org/opportunity/research-culture-and-heritage-capital-with-an-interdisciplinary-team/ |
| Description | The scoping study is accompanied by a AHRC/DCMS funding call for new research informed by the project's recommendations. The scoping study, together with the future research in the areas recommended by the project, will benefit cultural sector organisations and public bodies concerned with decision-making in the sector by contributing to the articulation of a valuation guidance and a comprehensive and integrated set of evidence. |
| First Year Of Impact | 2023 |
| Sector | Government, Democracy and Justice,Culture, Heritage, Museums and Collections |
| Impact Types | Policy & public services |
| Description | The Valuing Culture and Heritage Capital Conference |
| Geographic Reach | National |
| Policy Influence Type | Contribution to a national consultation/review |
| URL | https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1072... |