20 024
Examensarbete 15 hp
September 2020
A NEW FRAME FOR SUSTAINABLE
HERITAGE ASSESSMENT
A Case Study of Biosphere Tourism
Yolanda Bazán Martinez
Teknisk- naturvetenskaplig fakultet UTH-enheten Besöksadress: Ångströmlaboratoriet Lägerhyddsvägen 1 Hus 4, Plan 0 Postadress: Box 536 751 21 Uppsala Telefon: 018 – 471 30 03 Telefax: 018 – 471 30 00 Hemsida: http://www.teknat.uu.se/student
Abstract
A New Frame for Sustainable Heritage Asessment
Yolanda Bazán MartinezThis project considers a new frame for tangible cultural heritage sustainability assessment that is based on the 17 Sustainable Development Goals. For that, we use a methodology of literature research and doing a case study of Biosphere Tourism, a certification company for sustainable tourism entities and destinations. The literature research considers past and present certification
programmes, the concept of sustainability assessment — how it was born and the different methods that currently exist —, and how heritage can be related to tourism and sustainability. It is also seen how tourism exploitation’s impacts on tangible cultural heritage can be shown in many different forms. For the case study, the key points for the Biosphere assessment method are explained, and we can see how their method is framed on both the 17 SDGs and the theory of the three pillars of sustainability. Also, we examine some examples and strategies of what destinations assessed by Biosphere have done to improve their cultural heritage, and examples of cultural heritage entities assessed by them. During this project, we find out that there is a lack of research on the matter of cultural heritage in relation to sustainability assessment. We conclude by proposing a new frame for cultural heritage assessment, a minimum criterion that should be followed when assessing a cultural heritage entity, so as to ensure that there is a base from which we can grow and develop sustainably.
20 024
Examinator: Ulrika Persson-Fischier Ämnesgranskare: Camilla Asplund Ingemark Handledare: Owe Ronström
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION 2
CASE STUDY – BIOSPHERE TOURISM 3
METHODOLOGY 6
FRAMING THE ISSUE 10 ASSESSMENTS AND CERTIFICATIONS 11 ASSESSMENT FOR HERITAGE 13 ASSESMENTS OF HERITAGE 17 BIOSPHERE ASSESSMENT METHOD 20 EXAMPLES OF CULTURAL HERITAGE STRATEGIES 29 CULTURAL HERITAGE ASSESSED BY BIOSPHERE 30 THE PROCESS FOR HERITAGE ENTITIES 30 PROPOSAL FOR A NEW FRAME OF HERITAGE ASSESSMENT 33
CONCLUSIONS 39
1
INTRODUCTION
For this project, the 15cdts Final Thesis, I decided to research the impact of cultural and natural heritage during sustainability assessment for destinations. I am studying the case of Biosphere Tourism, a sustainability assessment company in Spain, which works at international scale. For that I did my Erasmus+ internship with them, online.
As heritage policies have an impact on the sustainability of a destination, the goals of this research are finding out how much heritage is taken into account when carrying out the assessment, and furthermore, looking for an improvement on destination assessment practices. By researching the importance of heritage in sustainability assessment of tourist destinations, I aim to protect cultural and natural heritage from negative tourism impact, and at the same time redefine the assessments themselves. I aim to bring awareness to the topic of heritage in sustainability assessment and why the consideration of it is not always brought up (Nocca, 2017).
However, it is arguably part of the sustainability of a destination and should be taken into account, because heritage, either cultural or natural, is part of the tourism destination in itself. Thus, there is a need for discovering what role it plays within the sustainability goals I want to reach for that destination. The three pillars of sustainability are economic justice and social equity in an environmentally protected area, and heritage can be involved in all three of these.
For that, I developed several research questions:
▪ How can heritage, sustainability, and sustainability assessment be linked?
▪ How does the company I am doing the internship in, Biosphere Tourism, manage sustainability assessment?
▪ Could a minimum criterion for assessment adapted to cultural heritage be developed?
2
CASE STUDY – BIOSPHERE TOURISM
As further explained in the methodology, I chose to do an internship for a few months for my case study. This way, I was doing participant observation in the company Biosphere Tourism, which is part of the Responsible Tourism Institute, an independent NGO outside of the UN. I would like to emphasize that I do have permission to share the information found in this project, as long as I give credit when necessary. To gather information for this part, besides working in the company, I also did a sustainability training course where they teach the interested part about the process of commitment to Biosphere.
The Responsible Tourism Institute defines its mission as: “The Responsible Tourism System (RTS) is a comprehensive methodology of sustainability, competitiveness, quality, differentiation, authenticity and satisfaction that, through the Biosphere seal, measures the sustainability of the 17SDG and climate change with the aim of functioning as a tool for continuous improvement and thus recognize this commitment and bet of tourism destinations, their companies and services.” (Responsible Tourism Institute, 2020)
Biosphere Tourism is a company that develops certifications for both destinations and companies – or entities. They have delegations all over the world, in places such as the Canary Island, Barcelona, Portugal, Italy, Brazil, Canada, Chile, among others.
This is explained during the methodology part, but in short, the planned method was not as successfully done as planned since it was not possible for me to do the internship in the Canary Islands, due to SarS-Cov-19 travelling restrictions in the country. However, the way I managed to do the internship was via Skype, and at the beginning it seemed that the only problem would be some technical difficulties when doing meetings. However, once the internship had started, there was a total temporary lay-off of the workers and it was only my boss, another woman, who was going to end her internship that month, and me.
I was indeed able to work, but I was not able to learn as much as I would have wanted to, because, as I learnt later on, due to the pandemic, sustainability assessments that were expiring this year and needed renovation had been temporarily put to a halt, the
3
company had decided to be flexible with that. Spain is a country where 12,5% of the GDP is made from tourism and hostelry and tourism activity was almost fully stopped, so the company had to be indulgent with renovations and audits.
Health safety became a priority, with ideas like creating a standard for protocols against covid-19. Other activities consisted of updating social media accounts with news about sustainability, which is not as relevant to this project so it is not mentioned during this project. However, in the meantime, I did have time to learn how the process of assessment works, which is explained below after the short summary of my experience there.
But first, let’s situate Biosphere Tourism and the Responsible Tourism Institute. Their system is founded on sustainability, management, and promotion and overall continuous improvement. Whilst “Biosphere” is the brand itself that recognises the destinations or entities that are assessed, the Responsible Tourism Institute has the board of directors, and there are several delegations around the world. The one I was working with works mainly in Spain, but also for other destinations outside Spain. There is also a Community for assessed destinations, where they can benefit from each other and communicate with each other. They also assess experiences and lastly, they offer sustainability training.
Their main goal is working with every stakeholder involved in the destination they are assessing, including tourists, to create an environment that takes into account each of the three sustainability pillars through the 17 SDGs. Further down in this work, we will explain how Biosphere combines both by dividing the 17SDGs in the different pillars.
In 2017, they held four major summits sponsored by the UN through UNWTO and UNESCO, which led to four memorandums each in the city the summit was held. In those memorandums, a commitment was signed where they explained strategies, objectives and goals that should be reached by destinations to achieve sustainable development.
They also aim for tourism “without borders” or cross-borders/transboundary tourism, because creating synergies among tourism attractions means being able to share the culture, the landscape, and go beyond the differences. For example, between Portugal and Spain, they can create strategies for the promotion of tourism resources and products,
4
while putting into value cultural and natural heritage and at the same time, using that as a way to promote sustainable ways of transport between destinations.
So, all in all, they have been working for years on sustainability trough making connections and their assessment method, and going hand in hand with the Sustainable Development Goals.
5
METHODOLOGY
The methodology of this project aims to be of the inductive kind. I first looked for information in already existing literature, other case of studies, and then observe during the participant observation, so I could achieve a theory on the impact of heritage on this sustainability assessment. In this case, generating a theory is part of the aim of the research. In that sense, my strategies are qualitative.
I am using different strategies into studying this case. The first, and main one, should have been participant observation, since I was supposed to be doing my internship with Biosphere Tourism during two months and a half. As (Murchison, 2010) conveys, “As an apprentice, you put yourself in a position to learn from an expert who possesses a great deal of specialized knowledge.” For that, I planned with the Biosphere Tourism that I would work closely with them around the topic of destination assessment, especially around problem resolution in already certified destinations, and that they would ask for my input during the development of a new methodology. My key informant would be my internship supervisor. I had planned to add an appendix with the process of work I had during the internship, from start to finish, sort of a log that would add information on the process if needed. However, that would not go as planned.
On the other hand, during this internship I also planned to gather different people together in this environment for the purpose of doing some interviews. Which takes me to the next strategy.
Interviews were the next part of this process. I was considering conducting interviews with the workers at Biosphere Tourism. This would be later during the internship, with two goals: to achieve clarifications on the things I observed and worked with, and a pre-planned interview about the experience of working in the field and destination assessment. However, as mentioned, this is accessory to the participant observation and the first one, for clarifications, would be less formal than the second one, and it is an option that was supposed to be carried out only if necessary.
However, gathering information through documentation continues being a part of this research. I was supposed to work with destination assessment, and focusing on that during my internship, I planned to develop that information in the thesis, and analyse how
6
heritage is considered and in which ways it is considered. Again, this information was supposed to be available through participant observation.
This is where ethical issues came into play, since I had to ensure that the case study, Biosphere Tourism, as aware of my research. For this, I have been in contact with them and asked them if I could use this experience as a case study for my thesis. Since I was working closely with them, they were aware of the development of my work and I would have the option to ask my internship supervisor any questions or concerns I might have had.
In that sense, I think this research supports a more universalist ethical stance, since the observation is not really disguised and everyone would be aware of the situation. It is the same with interviews, since I would have to present myself to the interviewees before doing the possible interviews.
From the ethical principles, I did not consider this research as harm-causing in any shape, to me or any of the people involved, or that this case could be a harmful environment. The research was supposed to be carried out in an office environment, where people have been working for years. My identity would have been known to everyone and at the same time, they were not forced to participate directly because I would be gathering data from my work and it would not distract them or divert them from their work. At the same time, I was considering getting them to sign an informed consent form, just to alleviate concerns if needed. However, there have not been any concerns or questions raised from Biosphere Tourism, and since it is a qualitative research, it is more difficult to be specific about possible issues that could be encountered. In the case that I would have done a consent form, I would have included issues such as their awareness of my study, that I could ask questions about it and perform interviews, that they can ask for information about what I am writing about whenever they pleased, and that the people involved in this thesis were able to read about their company materials that I would need
—for example: their assessment methods — (Bryman, 2012). Also, I am keeping anonymity on everyone involved in the project, except for the name of the NGO.
In short, I do not think this was a huge problem and that it would affect the quality of the research itself. From the ESRC’s views, the only point that could be applied to this one is “research which may involve data sharing of confidential information beyond the
7
initial consent given”, but as mentioned before, even if there is no signed consent form, there was consent when we talked about it through emails and Skype.
For time-lines and deadlines, the plan was I would be preparing an introduction and research the literature on the topic before leaving for the internship. So, around a month and a half time. By then, I should have had a work frame defined, so I would be able to easily apply what I learned from my internship to the topic. I should have known what I was supposed to find out during the next months. In that sense, I needed to have defined goals for the internship – what do I want to know from the destinations that I work with –, and the interviews for the employees designed in case I needed them.
Then, from the end of March, and until the beginning of May, I should have been collecting the data I needed from Biosphere Tourism, and drawing the conclusions until around the middle of May when I had to submit the thesis work. I would not wait until I had all my data to start drawing conclusions and a theory, so I had enough time for these stages in the research process.
In general, this research project should have been carried out since the middle of February to the middle of May, so I needed to redefine very well how much information I needed for my project, so I could do everything on time. During that time, I should have close contact with my project supervisors to ensure everything was okay.
However, even if this was the planned time-line, I encountered problems such as a global pandemic that affected Spain and my research environment in such a way that I couldn’t perform the internship there in person, I had no other option but to work from home. These are not excuses or justifications, but problems I faced during this time, as I ended up starting this project around the beginning of July, when I finally finalised my internship and, when the problem regarding the pandemic overall had a better prospect and my mental health improved. So, to cut it short, I had to develop the main research to frame the issue during July, and the rest of the study was carried out during August.
At the end, I carried on with my internship, and after that I was able to do the literature research. With that combined, I elaborated the new frame for heritage assessment.
8
My aim here is to ensure that heritage is taken into account when carrying out a sustainability assessment by understanding the importance and the role of it in a sustainable destination. By using a case study, my purpose is to understand which measurements are calculated and which dimensions do they affect, and if possible, re-defining the scale for heritage-driven tourism destinations – and therefore, their assessment. From these results, I would like to compare them to other assessment methods from other organisations – if available to the public.
In case of finding unsatisfactory data, or data I was not anticipating, I would also report it too, in order to find the implications or causes of it.
(Guzmán, Pereira, & Colenbrander, 2016) did a study on the role of cultural heritage during urban development, and pointed out the lack of organised assessment methodologies. Since tourism affects the urban development of a destination, and heritage is a powerful economic tool for development, their call for a “need for complementary indicators to cover the wider aspects of sustainable development” can be directly linked to this research, and, as they indicate, achieving better assessment methods can be significant for better sustainable practices in the long run.
9
FRAMING THE ISSUE
Before going deeper into the impact of heritage, I should define what would be considered cultural heritage, sustainable development in tourism, and how a certification for sustainability works. I have to know our subjects before knowing the involvement between all of them.
As Azcárate T., Benayas J., Nerilli G. and Justel A. (2019) elaborate in their Guide to Sustainable Tourism, at first during the 1950s, economic growth was tourism’s main goal, as people started to have more free time and started being able to afford what is now known as “mass tourism”. So, there was not a negative approach to tourism, and possible damage was not taken into account. It was not until 1972 that sustainability became an issue of worldwide importance and its first precepts were born. There were only 26 principles, but they included up to 109 recommendations. It was not a standard, but it would develop into that further on, and definitely tourism was not their main focus point, but sustainability as a whole.
The concept of sustainability was further developed in 1987 with the Brundtland Commission’s “Our Common Future”, and it was the first time that the importance of intergenerational agreements was developed, as it had not been mentioned before. The idea was that development should grow with future generations in mind, so that they would not be upsetting the future while still amending the past and the present. That same idea was also taken into account in 1992, in Rio de Janeiro, when they refined Agenda 21. The Agenda tried to attain an equilibrium between the three pillars of sustainability that I mentioned before: economic growth, social equity, and ecology/environmental development, and also address the issues that prevented sustainability to develop. In the same year, and up until 2013, the UN founded a Commission on Sustainable Development so as to create a better communication channel for the administrations, policy makers and entities involved in this project.
However, it was not until 1995, in Lanzarote, when tourism began to be linked to the sustainability ideas and projects I have explained before. Empowering local communities through tourism was one of their main points, an idea that still stays within sustainable tourism philosophy. At that same conference, finally, the first standard for sustainable tourism was created: the “Sustainable Tourism Charter”. It defined a model
10
for the development of sustainable tourism that included the ideas previously mentioned, such as intergenerational development, catered to helping locals, and meeting the principles for the three pillars of sustainability. This would be further developed by the UN, and it was taken into account when developing their future Sustainable Development Goals so that 2017 became the Year of Sustainable Tourism for Development. It had been a long way until that point, but finally there was a bigger, worldwide recognition of Sustainable Tourism. As the UNWTO said, “The International Year aims to support a change in policies, business practices and consumer behaviour towards a more sustainable tourism sector than can contribute effectively to the SDGs.”
ASSESSMENTS AND CERTIFICATIONS
For the private sector, for most of the 20th century, there was the Mobil system in the US and the Michelin in the EU as guides for accommodation and restaurant quality standards. They took into account health, hygiene and safety, but they were mostly focused on overall quality, and it was not until recent years that ecology was taken into account too. (Bien, 2007) As it can be seen, there was a need for a mix of all the factors in sustainability, a standard that met all the three pillars, not only the environmental part of it, even if the situation has improved since the 2000s.
In the beginning, when new certification initiatives were emerging, their main aim was to promote sustainability, and thus they wanted to provide an impetus for goods and services from “companies that adhere to high social and environmental standards in their production”. Those initiatives were “non-government, market-based interventions”. (Conroy, 2002: 109)
However, as Laurie Kroshus Medina (2005) points out, there is a certain debate about how developed countries could have easier access to this kind of sustainable initiatives. Whether the company doing the assessment is non-government or not, the certification itself costs money, which puts bigger companies in a position where their standards might be easier to meet. These practices could be making the difference between developed countries and developing countries bigger, since maybe they don’t have resources to carry it through.
When it comes to tourism, I should differentiate between two different types of certification: of processes and of performance/objectives (Labelscape, 2020). For
11
certification of processes, all of them are analysed inside the entity, so there is no need for participation of the tourist or locals. First, the entity is assessed, they must only comply with the basic legal requirements for their kind of entity. After that, there has to be a work of constant improvement around that data, and within an established time frame, there will be another assessment. During the second assessment, there should be a noticeable change. According to Labelscape, this works better for bigger entities or even destinations.
“Entity” should be understood as any company, association of people, NGO, or building that is managed that requires the assessment, and is engaged in a work or management activity. An entity should be understood as a community and as a unit and, in particular, any corporation, company, institution, etc., that is taken as a legal entity.
So, what should happen with small and medium entities? In this case, the second type of certification is more adequate. It is called type “EFQM” (European Foundation for Quality Management) and it ensures that this entity reaches “objective external criteria” which is better to realise a comparison among different entities. It obliges the small or medium entity to create mechanisms or routines that are easy to stick to.
Maybe a mix of these methods could be better for entities, since one of them allows growth but the other one helps create a pathway to act on, and it does not require as much auditing, which is an added cost. For now, this is the most established method.
How does one find the criteria for sustainable tourism assessment? The most official international agreement for this was created in Mohonk in November 2000, when the Institute for Policy Studies gathered several participants from more than 20 countries and defined principles and elements that should be part of a solid certification. They fall into four categories that should meet these minimum criteria (general, sociocultural, ecological and economic) (Mohonk Agreement, 2000). To sum up, there should always be an impact assessment whether it is for the environmental, cultural, or economic pillar, and also fixed mechanisms to reach the sustainability goals. I am not going into deeper detail, but since tourism is such a complex industry, that it involves many different stakeholders, infrastructures and communications, there should always be instruments to be able to measure the sustainability of the use of the means in the environment of the destination or the entity and how locals and tourists interact with them. For example, how
12
would one manage waste disposal, water consumption or local employment? Those are a few examples of the 29 guidelines the agreement sets up.
However, what are the benefits for certified entities? Why should they not put economic profit above everything else, since that is the way the economic system is set up? Moral implications aside, such as caring for the environment or other people’s needs, there are benefits to the entities themselves.
Some benefits for certified entities entail learning, as the process of certification usually implies doing courses on sustainability and learning what were the issues they should overcome, which leads them to more efficiency and thus, happier clients. (Bien, 2007) And even if the monetary cost of making changes is high, in the long run they can save money, by using water saving methods, LED lights, environmentally friendly irrigation, etc.
For example, Biosphere Tourism also mentions marketing as one of the main benefits, since sustainability has never been as popular as now. The entity can differentiate itself from others when the customer is looking for places to visit, accommodations to stay, event organizers, restaurants, etc, and they will look for these kinds of indications. In that sense, “The majority of consumers conceive an eco-label as being a desirable and appropriate instrument to communicate environmental performance, even though they often lack the background information concerning the criteria. Consumers are not likely to ask separately for additional environmental information.” (FEMATOUR, 2000) However, further in this work, it is seen this is not always the case.
But, to know which certification would be better for heritage sustainability assessment, as explained in the introduction, tourism is an industry so complex and widespread that in this thesis I should mostly focus on tangible heritage. I aim to develop a correct way to assess heritage, so first I should know what I am talking about and define heritage, cultural heritage, and how I can relate it to sustainability assessments.
ASSESSMENT FOR HERITAGE
González-Perez and Parcero-Oubiña (2011) define heritage as something that is given “cultural value”, whether it is tangible or intangible, since it is relevant from
13
historical, artistic or scientific points of view. It goes through a process of interpretation between a group of experts in the matter, with the aim of finding a consensus in which it will attain this value. This value will give it importance and relevance, but that also means that the people who find this consensus must be relevant enough and have such background that their decision carries enough weight so that other people will find it valid. For cultural heritage, Ismail, Masron and Ahmad (2014), differentiated between five different values to take into account when explaining why people give value to heritage: “symbolic, historic, informational, aesthetic and economic” (2).
On the other hand, this “cultural value” could also be given by people who interact and live with the “thing” on an everyday basis, or that it becomes interesting to tourists, and it is given “cultural value” through their admiration or absorption. So, not all value is always given by a group of experts. I think this concept should be further studied as now, as a society, we have new forms of communication and even newer concepts such as “influencers” and social media trends that create behavioural patterns that people might imitate. For example, if an influencer takes a picture on a certain or interesting spot, — or, really, any individual can take a picture in that spot and it can go viral — , people might visit that spot to recreate the picture, thus giving value to something that did not have it before.
In that same sense, the value added by the sustainability certification can be the take-off to give “cultural value” to something that did not have it before. So, if it is assumed that the tourist is more interested in sustainability than ever before, maybe the sustainable part of a heritage piece will give it added cultural value to the tourists, and it will attract more people from that relevance. In this respect, sustainability could even help abandoned, non-funded or non-restored heritage to find a way to regain the attention it has the potential to receive. Promotion and re-evaluation don’t have to be the main reasons an entity goes for sustainability, as sustainability is a goal in itself, but it could be an added asset.
Ismail, Masron & Azizul (2014) differentiate between different kinds of tangible cultural heritage:
14
▪ natural environment (rural landscapes, coasts and shorelines, agricultural heritage)
▪ artifacts (books & documents, objects, pictures)
For my research purposes, the main focal point for assessment would be around built environment and natural environment, within cultural heritage, as mentioned before.
Antonini (2010) analyses cities whose main tourist attraction is cultural heritage, and divides tourism’s main impacts into several categories such as economic, cultural, urban structure, among others. When it comes to architectonic sustainability problems, she mentions tourism as a tool for urban regeneration — for example, tourism interest may help get funding for heritage restoration — but tourism can also act as a way for cultural heritage buildings to suffer degradation. When linked with tourism assessment, it should be ensured that the latest is progressively studied. An example of this would be tourists in Greece taking rocks from the Parthenon, or the walls’ erosion at the Great Wall of China.
At the same time, that kind of degradation could be the effect of the heritage policies of the destination. For example, Bora Bora’s Intercontinental Resort & Thalasso Spa is constructed on the same beach, changing the landscape and therefore, affecting the natural resources of the island.
Second, when it comes to sustainable assessment, what is the role of heritage? As Buckley, R. (2012) says, “tourism industry ecolabel, ecocertification and eco-award programmes remain relatively little studied in the literature of tourism research.” In that sense, it can be supposed that its relation with heritage tourism is in need of study too.
As mentioned above, heritage is a part of sustainability and it can affect the three pillars in many different ways.
Sustainability, tourism and heritage can cause tensions when it comes to heritage policies. Tourists can cause changes in the environment they interact with, and I have to be careful because they are sometimes hard to recognise, because they do not always have to be caused by the direct exploitation and use of the heritage. It mostly depends on the resistance and resilience of the place, which comes from a proper management adapted to the context of the heritage itself (Pedersen, 2003). For example, whilst the Cathedral
15
of El Pilar in Zaragoza is open every day and visited by thousands of people every year, free entrance, its management and budget allows it to be exploited that way. However, in the same city, the Basilica of Santa Engracia’s crypt, which has two Paleo-Christian sarcophaguses, can only be visited on guided tours on certain days of the year, and that policy – not much exposition to the public – is what allows it to be open and have resistance to the public. Their resources for preservation cannot be rechannelled to managing tourism, and that is one of the tensions between tourism and heritage.
The same thing could happen to sustainability, if heritage money for preservation goes to sustainability, it might cause tensions and uninterest from heritage managers. They would need strong reasons to start assessing the sustainability of the cultural heritage they are managing, if their budget only allowed them to preserve the heritage itself and that’s it. First, heritage is not always managed and funded by public administration, and second, even if it were, it doesn’t ensure there is an interest that goes further than tourism exploitation.
According to Pedersen (2003), there are different kinds of impacts on heritage: environmental impacts, impacts related to visitor use, and the impacts on communities and culture. While environmental impacts are related to waste disposal, water pollutants, soil erosion and vegetation and wildlife disturbances, tourism impacts are more related to overcrowding, satisfaction decreasing, and the impact of their activities. But this does not mean they are not related to each other, as for example over-tourism might impact wildlife creating path erosion, but bad routes management and water pollution would affect tourists’ satisfaction. In itself, each impact affects the other creating an unsustainable way of managing heritage. This was just an example of what could happen.
For local communities, impacts are even harder to predict. Social equity, one of the three pillars of sustainability, in the context of sustainable heritage tourism, is especially difficult because locals live and consume in the destination itself, and at the same time they receive tourists and are a part of the sustainable development. “The paths of sustainability and authenticity discourse cross”, so there can be no exclusion of the local community (Cohen, 2002. 269).
Local communities are not homogeneous entities where everyone thinks and acts the same, and what might affect a part of a local community, might not affect others. For
16
example, while some people might be mindful and conscious of sustainability issues, others might see economic benefit as their main goal — especially if they have a business related to hostelry and the tourism sector —, whereas people might only be open to heritage preservation or even because of cultural sensitivities they might only want to use the heritage for religious purposes.
Also, some people might not feel identified with the heritage itself, or how it is managed, so they would be more interested in presenting a realistic point of view. “Therefore, undesirable cultural change, cultural commodification and loss of local control over heritage resources are considered as vast negative tourism influences that impose severe barriers to socio-cultural welfare” (Dragouni, 2017). So, this is another of the issues that would be faced when trying to manage heritage, that everyone is equally and fairly satisfied.
According to studies (Asmelash, 2019), tourist satisfaction should always be taken into account when managing sustainability for destinations. Sustainability is as popular as ever, and especially for tourists whose market segment is cultural tourism and heritage tourism. The study even goes to include a fourth pillar to the classic three pillars of sustainability: institutional sustainability, in which decision makers give transparent and real information about the sustainability of the place, and promote communication between local people and tourists. In that sense, total and complete sustainability in their policies is expected from institutions and always thinking about the improvement of the destination itself: satisfied locals equals satisfied tourists.
The UN considers this idea in their 16th and 17th Sustainable Development Goals (UN, 2020). The 16th Goal is about “Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions”, and the 17th Goal is about “Revitalizing the global partnerships for sustainable development”. These SDGs are the last two ones and refer to the previous theory: leadership is key when holding accountable for sustainability, and public administration should pursue sustainable development as their upfront goal.
ASSESSMENTS OF HERITAGE
There have been works on resolving issues in sustainable heritage tourism, where issues like the ones mentioned above were changed into favourable attitudes among the different stakeholders. And although behavioural patterns were difficult to predict,
17
through methods of conflict resolution, there were more positive behaviours. This might change between different cultures, but it is shown that if there is a goal such as this one, there are methods to overcome it (Zhang, Lee & Xiong, 2018). So, the issues I saw before are not impossible to solve, and further research is needed on this perspective, ideally adapting the research and the methods to the culture it applies to.
On the other hand, sustainability assessment for destinations can be more than purely scientific, and can differ depending on who is doing the assessment itself. Within architecture there are certain scientific measurements such as carbon footprint or energy expenditure, but when it comes to heritage’s sustainability, it is more intrinsic. For example, with social equity, it boils down to which dimensions the organisation doing the assessment considers more valuable. During the research, there is a comparison of the different dimensions that were taken into account in Biosphere Tourism and other cases researched.
There is the case, for example, of the Global Sustainable Council’s criteria for Sustainable Destinations. It was revised recently so as to not only focus on local economic benefits but to include both cultural and natural heritage. One of their main points is protecting cultural heritage, with measurements such as the protection of cultural assets and cultural artefacts, intangible heritage, accessibility and intellectual property. However, for natural heritage, the focus is on the protection of sensitive environments, visitor management, or animal welfare, among others (The Global Sustainable Tourism Council, 2019) All of these criteria are focused towards the UN’s 17 Sustainable Development Goals.
This is a very good example of performance indicators from an assessment NGO, and it does include cultural and natural heritage. However, the scope is very broad and its main use is not for entities that provide assessment, but for destinations to use it as a guide. Its broadness is useful because it can be adaptable to many different destinations.
Another not so effective example of sustainability assessment was the MESST (Mediterranean Standard for Sustainable Tourism). Given the success of tourism in the Mediterranean, this method was created to ensure a commitment to creating policies for sustainable development and international collaboration in the area of the Mediterranean. “The policy must include environmental, economic, and sustainability and management
18
commitment policies according to the environmental & cultural policies, economic policies, sustainability policies, management policies” (Zorpas, Tsartas, Aristidis & Theohaurous, 2008).
This project was pilot tested in different destinations, and was also based on the three pillars of sustainability, which divided into two parameters each, and in different indicators for each parameter. However, there were issues in its application (Gkoumas, 2019), such as “greenwashing”, the lack of extraneous verifications (such as audits) — because audits create excessive rates — which caused a lack of trust in the process, so it had no integrity, and overall became a very laborious course of action.
From this, I can understand that an ideal sustainability assessment is not something easy to achieve because it requires involving many different stakes, and requires a philosophy where economic benefit is not put first and foremost, and there is transparency to each part.
Also, it is not usually an easy process, for example and as it is seen in our case study, the Biosphere Tourism process for a destination to get recognised and certified requires around one year of work and continuous improvement from each part, and after that, yearly audits to check this improvement. I am developing this further in the case study, but I should note that its method is largely based on the Sustainable Development Goals by the UN, only that it is adapted to destinations or entities.
So, to sum up, the complexity of cultural heritage destinations and the sociocultural pillar of sustainable development make sustainability assessment a difficult issue to solve. In this work, I aim to further develop a system that can make cultural heritage sustainable whilst solving the possible issues that a heritage manager and a destination manager might face while doing such a task.
There have been studies about whether sustainability assessments at regional level are actually useful or not, but these have not been carried out at company level. According to this research, sustainability assessments are not as successful because the data needed for preparing the assessments (questionnaires, audits) are usually not available at regional level, they are available at national level. (Graymor, Michelle et al, 2007) For example, if the data for water consumption is needed, it is more difficult to describe their situation
19
if that information is not available. So, their recommendation is creating a new method: a holistic approach with less than 40 indicators so they are easier to follow with time.
20
BIOSPHERE ASSESSMENT METHOD
For this method, Biosphere Tourism and the Responsible Tourism Institute divide their assessment into five categories of sustainability that are based in the three pillars of sustainability, and each category contains a few of the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals.
“Fight against climate change” and “environmental protection” relate to one of the three pillars of sustainability: environmental protection and stability. “Social” and “Culture” is related to the social justice or social equity pillar; and lastly “Economy” is related to the economic viability pillar.
▪ Fight against climate change
The SDGs this category was based on are Goal 7 and Goal 13.
According to the UN, Goal 7 is “Ensuring access to affordable, reliable, sustainable and modern energy for all” and Goal 13 is about “Taking urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts”.
In their fight against climate change, they aim to promote sustainable energy, technologies and means of transport, whilst reducing consumption and waste generation.
Here are the assessment questions in relation to the SDGs:
SDG 7.1
Is the responsible use of energy encouraged and requested directly from employees and users/customers of the entity, developing measures for saving and maximum energy efficiency?
SDG 7.2
Has the entity studied its energy consumption data and defined, as a result, objectives for reducing this consumption, as well as
follow-up indicators for monitoring it?
SDG 7.3
Does the entity prioritize the use of renewable energies during the development of its activity, minimizing the use of fossil fuels and gradually replacing them with less environmentally aggressive
21
▪ Environmental protection
The SDGs this category was based on are Goal 6, Goal 12, Goal 14, and Goal 15. According to the UN, Goal 6 is “Ensuring availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all”; Goal 12 is about “Ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns”; Goal 14 is about “Conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas and marine resources for sustainable development”; and Goal 15 is about “Protect, restore and promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, sustainably manage forests, combat desertification, and halt and reverse land degradation and halt biodiversity loss”.
When acting on this area, their main goal is to secure that flora, fauna and any natural resources will be preserved, focusing on not affecting the resilience of the ecosystem itself.
Here are the assessment questions in relation to the SDGs:
SDG 13.1
As an objective to fight against Climate Change, does the entity measure its carbon footprint and make the user, collaborators
and workers aware of it?
SDG 13.2
Does the entity encourage the use of public or low emission transport at the Destination, offering its clients updated and accurate information on the itineraries and alternative means of transport available to travel at the Destination and to the entity,
prior to their arrival? SDG 13.3
Are targets set for reducing the emission of Greenhouse Gases (GHG) emitted as a result of the entity's activity, and/or are
offsetting measures implemented?
SDG 13.4
In the event that the entity hosts events organised, in turn, by another entity or entities: Is it encouraged among the organisers of the events developed in the entity that the carbon footprint of these events is calculated, prioritising in any case the celebration
of those that have obtained a certification in terms of sustainability?
22
SDG 6.1
Is the responsible use of water encouraged and requested directly from workers and users/customers of the entity, developing
measures for saving and maximum water efficiency? SDG 6.2
Has the entity studied its water consumption data and defined, as a result, objectives for reducing this consumption, as well as
follow-up indicators for monitoring it?
SDG 6.3
In the event that the entity has bathing or recreational areas that use water: Does the entity prioritise the acquisition of advanced equipment and technologies for the cleaning, maintenance and disinfection of these areas, so as to guarantee maximum water
savings?
SDG 12.1 Does the entity apply measures to minimize the use of disposable products and consumables in general, particularly plastic?
SDG 12.2
Does the entity have a sustainable purchasing and subcontracting policy, including criteria and requirements relating to social, cultural and environmental factors (local, ecological, kilometre 0,
fair trade, certified or recognised products and services, etc.)?
SDG 12.3
Is separate collection and maximum recycling of the waste produced by the entity encouraged, including food waste, as well
as its adequate disposal prior to treatment? SDG 12.4
Is the handling, collection and/or treatment of the entity's toxic or potentially harmful waste carried out by an authorised
manager (or, where appropriate, by trained personnel)?
SDG 12.5
If the entity makes use of packaging, containers and/or disposables: Does the entity apply eco-design (or ecological design) criteria in the production and/or acquisition of packaging,
containers and/or disposables? SDG 12.6
Recycling of the main product packaging: Is there a separate reuse/recycling program for the bottles, so that the life of the
23
▪ Social
The SDGs this category was based on are Goal 1, Goal 3, Goal 4, Goal 5 and Goal 17.
SDG 14.1
In the event that the development of the entity's activity involves contact with aquatic and/or marine resources: Does the entity
have information and awareness resources to increase the degree of awareness and respect for aquatic and/or marine ecosystems aimed at users and clients, and does it also prevent
their contamination?
SDG 14.2
If the development of the entity's activity involves contact with aquaculture and/or marine resources: Does the entity guarantee the sustainable use of aquaculture and/or marine resources, both
in terms of exploitation and exhibition? SDG 14.3
Does the entity have an informative panel that collects data from the beach in relation to its location, main characteristics, bathing
water quality and access points, among others?
SDG 14.4
Does the entity organize/collaborate in the realization of environmental education/information activities developed on the
beach directed to the users of the beach?
SDG 15.1
In the event that the development of the entity's activity involves contact with terrestrial resources: Does the entity make information and awareness resources available to the client in
order to increase the degree of awareness and respect for terrestrial ecosystems, and also prevent their contamination? SDG 15.2 Does the entity adopt measures to avoid or minimize noise
impacts caused by the development of its activity? SDG 15.3 Does the entity adopt measures to avoid or minimize the effect
or erosion of the land caused by the development of its activity? SDG 15.4 If the entity has green or landscaped areas: Does the entity
prioritize the use of native plant species?
SDG 15.5 If the experience has been designed to be enjoyed in groups, does it avoid a negative impact on the environment?
SDG 15.6
In the event that the partial or total development of the Experience involves the visit, exposure or contact of plant and/or
animal species: Are measures applied to guarantee the correct treatment of the species by trained and qualified personnel, as
well as to avoid the introduction of invasive species? SDG 15.7 Does the entity adopt measures to avoid or minimize light
24
According to the UN, Goal 1 is “End poverty in all its forms everywhere”; Goal 3 is about “Ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages”; Goal 4 is about “Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all”; Goal 5 is about “Achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls”; and Goal 17 is about “Strengthen the means of implementation and revitalize the global partnership for sustainable development”.
For this area, Biosphere focused on ensuring that locals feel identified with a society that tourists can learn from by integrating all the stakeholders and believing in participation.
Here are the assessment questions in relation to the SDGs:
SDG 1.1
Does the entity involve or inform its clients/users about the campaigns and projects with social purposes in which it
participates or organizes?
SDG 3.1 Does the entity encourage users and workers to adopt healthy practices (physical exercise, healthy eating, cycling, etc.)? SDG 3.2 Is there a defined protocol known to all employees for reporting
and responding to possible emergency situations?
SDG 4.1 Are training and/or awareness resources on sustainability offered to both employees and clients/users of the entity? SDG 4.2
Does the entity establish collaboration agreements with educational, teaching or employment centres to incorporate
temporary or trainee staff among its workers?
SDG 5.1 Are non-discrimination guidelines applied in all areas of the entity?
SDG 5.2
Does the entity apply hiring guidelines that facilitate the incorporation of women in management and responsibility
positions?
SDG 17.1
Does the entity organize or participate in working groups through which projects on sustainability are developed collaboratively or through which experiences and good practices in this field are
exchanged?
SDG 17.2
Are agents and suppliers who collaborate with or provide services to the entity asked to make a commitment to sustainability, in
25
▪ Economy
The SDGs this category was based on are Goal 2, Goal 8, Goal 9, and Goal 10. According to the UN, Goal 2 is about “Ending hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition and promote sustainable agriculture”; Goal 8 is about “Promote sustained, inclusive and sustainable economic growth, full and productive employment and decent work for all”; Goal 9 is about “Build resilient infrastructure, promote inclusive and sustainable industrialization and foster innovation”; and Goal 10 is about “Reduce inequality within and among countries”.
The economy should be promoted via helping local entrepreneurs and smaller businesses, and that their benefit impacts on the local population (e.g. hiring locals) rather than foreign companies that might have more economic resources.
Here are the assessment questions in relation to the SDGs:
SDG 2.1
In the case of having restaurant services or commercialization of food products: Does the entity encourage and prioritize the acquisition of products from local sustainable agriculture and livestock, informing customers/users of this practice, also taking
into account seasonal products, avoiding an unhealthy diet or whose production impacts on the environment?
SDG 2.2
In the case of catering or food marketing services: Does the entity adopt measures to avoid the waste of surplus or excess food, such as recycling or donating it (guaranteeing, in the case of
donation, the correct state of conservation and quality)?
SDG 8.1
Does the entity develop measures to support local entrepreneurship and are decent employment conditions
guaranteed? SDG 8.2
Are decent working conditions guaranteed and are measures implemented to reconcile work and family life for the entity's
employees? SDG 8.3
Is priority given to the incorporation of local agents and services to constitute the value chain of the tourism experience (guides,
accommodation, restaurants, transport, etc.)? SDG 8.4
Are internal days or activities carried out to improve coexistence and the working environment among all the employees of the
26
▪ Culture
The SDGs this category was based on are Goal 11 and Goal 16.
According to the UN, Goal 11 is about “Make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable”; and Goal 16 is about “Promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, provide access to justice for all and build effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels”.
Lastly, and this is the one I would like to focus on more, Biosphere works with Culture by allowing the tourist to explore, to get to know the destination, the customs, and the local heritage, in a way that is satisfactory for both the tourist and the local community. Preservation is key for this.
Here are the assessment questions in relation to the SDGs:
SDG 9.1 Does the entity prioritize innovation during the development and creation of its activities, services and products?
SDG 10.1
Have measures of universal accessibility been adopted, where the physical, structural and legal conditions allow for the provision of
quality services?
SDG 10.2
Does the entity have a protocol of attention to guarantee that the communication and treatment of people with different abilities takes place in a fluid way? Does this protocol contain the
guidelines of behavior expected from the entity's personnel with respect to the clients?
SDG 10.3
Are the guidelines for action in case of risk or emergency situations within the entity available and accessible in supports
adapted to people with different capacities (sensory and/or motor)?
SDG 10.4
If the entity has 200 rooms or more: Does the entity have at least 2 rooms totally adapted to the physical and sensory difficulties of
people with any type of sensory or motor disability? SDG 10.5 Does the entity have an identified toilet for people with different
abilities?
SDG 10.6 Does the entity have an amphibious chair service available for beach users with different capacities?
SDG 10.7 If the entity has a vehicle parking service: Does the parking area on the beach include spaces for people with reduced mobility?
27
SDG 11.1
Is the entity's users provided with the guidelines of responsible behaviour that must be assumed in relation to the environment and the local community, thus favouring a respectful attitude
towards the Destination, as well as towards local shops and restaurants?
SDG 11.2
Is information on the environment, values and socio-cultural identity of the Destination, its heritage and natural and cultural
heritage provided to the users of the entity?
SDG 11.3
If catering or food marketing services are available: Does the entity include elements of local gastronomy in the catering and/or food marketing offer and/or provide information on
traditional/local restaurants in the Destination?
SDG 11.4
If the entity has spaces for the development of activities related to the plastic or performing arts: Does the entity give priority to the participation of local artists for the development of cultural
activities in its spaces and facilities? SDG 11.5
If the entity has an entertainment service: Does the entertainment offer include any show related to local history,
culture and/or traditions?
SDG 11.6
Does the entity incorporate elements of traditional and/or contemporary local culture in the design or decoration of its facilities, while respecting the intellectual property rights of local
communities?
SDG 11.7 Does the entity provide spaces and facilities for the celebration of events or activities aimed at the local population? SDG 11.8
Does the entity have standards or codes of conduct expected by users in relation to the use of the beach? Is this information
28
Not all questions apply to each typology, but they adapt them to the kind of entities that are doing the assessment. It is called the “Biosphere 17 SDG” questionnaire.
There is a methodology to the assessment process, as it is not only about answering the questions. There are mechanisms involved, and there is a commitment from everyone’s part to have an honest management of the resources. The method requires continuous learning, growth and improvement from the destination or the entity.
SDG 16.1
Is the Responsible Tourism Policy documented, approved, accessible and translated into the most common languages of the
entity's users and clients? Is this document permanently communicated to all the entity's collaborators, workers, suppliers
and clients, as well as to any interested party? Is the promotional material provided by Biosphere (stickers, plaque, manifests,
messages...) made available to users and workers? SDG 16.2
Does the entity publicly declare its fight against any form of abuse, exploitation or harassment, particularly of vulnerable
groups and minorities?
SDG 16.3
Has the person(s) responsible for implementing the sustainable management system covering the entity been identified, and do
the staff in charge of the system receive regular guidance and information on their roles and responsibilities?
SDG 16.4
Is the user permanently informed of the practices and initiatives developed in the field of sustainability and the sustainable commitment acquired by the entity in relation to the Destination
in which it is located? Is this information published in visible and easily accessible places?
SDG 16.5 Do the entity's promotional messages contain up-to-date, clear, reliable information?
SDG 16.6
Does the entity periodically collect recommendations and suggestions from the entity's employees, and use this information
to improve the provision of its services?
SDG 16.7
Is it evaluated if the entity, through its activity, has managed to improve the knowledge of the clients regarding the Destination and its inhabitants, in all or some of its fields: culture, geography,
29
EXAMPLES OF CULTURAL HERITAGE STRATEGIES
Each destination from the Biosphere Destination Community has its own strategies for sustainable development. Here are some examples that can be related to Heritage and Culture management.
Barcelona, Spain, has different strategies about illegal tourist accommodations,
marketing, accessibility, and business and entrepreneurship. For culture, they have a program named ‘Donation Room’ where they reutilize more than 30 tons of furniture and materials for cultural local festivities, and for that they employ people at risk of exclusion. They combine waste management, recycling, and helping the society, with cultural activities.
Meanwhile, in Vitoria-Gasteiz, also in Spain, they take care of natural heritage by projects for urban landscape, integrating eco-design, natural resources, and the city itself. They also have projects on mobility and public spaces, recycling, water management, and good practices for businesses.
In Arona, Spain, they focus on natural heritage too. They have the “Ocean’s Party” to respectfully promote the fauna and flora on the ocean around the islands of La Gomera and Tenerife, focusing on a colony of whales and dolphins that live in their waters.
Going back to cultural heritage, there are cultural visits in Tossa de Mar, to help tourists engage with local people while discovering their heritage, art and culture. Their other projects are not as focused on cultural heritage, as they also have a very rich, natural environment, and programs on therapeutic trips to their forests.
In Thompson Okanagan British Columbia, Canadá, there is a Specialist in Indigenous Tourism that aims to work with their 33 indigenous communities to make sure their culture and history is as respectfully shared as possible, and that they have the chance to grow economically and not lose their authenticity.
Lastly, in Aldeias Historicas, in Portugal, they go for gastronomic cultural heritage and creating a sense of belonging through food, and the five senses, with participation of the local community. Also, the “Aldeias” themselves are small villages with medieval buildings and small museums oriented to let tourists know the history,
30
religion and culture of the destination, so it is a complete cultural heritage that is formed of 12 interconnected villages.
Also, in Colombia, in Ibagué, they have everything from adventure tourism to Botanical Gardens that involve local communities, tourism and the natural species in the destination. They also promote mythological routes that tell respectfully tales of Colombian folklore.
CULTURAL HERITAGE ASSESSED BY BIOSPHERE
There are entities that are certified by themselves, as explained further down in this document. Here are some examples of these, since they are subject to audits too, as is an accommodation or a travel agency.
For example, Aloe Plus Lanzarote, in Spain, is one of the certified Biosphere museums. It is a museum of Aloe Vera, which is typical of the island, and also specializes on sea salt, wine and volcanic ash.
During the audit, there were some strong points and some “weaker” points made. To improve they should start using renewable energies. An energy supply that is as renewable as possible must be ensured through solar panels, photovoltaic energy, wind energy, geothermal energy, etc., or through an external supplier.
However, a strong point would be that they have an interest in promoting and preserving the legacy of César Manrique, the most important sculptor and architect the Canary Islands – someone who sought harmony between nature and architecture. The whole museum architecture is proof of that philosophy. Another one would be that they actively participate in environmental protection work, collaborating in conservation campaigns and programs developed by the “Ecotourism in Lanzarote Tourism Product Club” by “Lanzarote Biosphere Reserve”, which aims at guaranteeing the least impact possible by tourist activity.
31
If the heritage itself is understood as something being managed by the public administration, it would fall under the questions during the assessment that are related to sustainable destinations. For example, to a destination, they would ask in general if their heritage is correctly managed, and if possible, to add concrete heritage monuments or entities that are managed this way.
However, if I am looking for assessing the heritage piece itself, or if it is managed by a private entity, the entity will have its own questions to answer.
The typologies that are open to be assessed are: ▪ Interpretation centres
▪ Museums
▪ Places of Tourist Interest
There are three steps to this process:
First, there is a basic step where there is an expressed and signed commitment to the process and growing, learning and improving towards sustainability. There is a document elaborated by Biosphere, that is adapted to each entity or destination, and it is open to changes by the receiving entity. Also, it is possible to unlock training and learning resources via the website. This first step is the most public one, as they have to share this commitment in social media, their websites, or even newspapers.
Second, communication is key because as it is explained further down, the next steps are how Biosphere will achieve agreements with the entity, and overall, how to get the information necessary for the next step. It will also be needed to share the information of the entity on their website.
Finally, third step, there will be an audit where the minimum objectives should be complied with and the entity will be given tips and advice to continue growing towards sustainability. That is a never-ending process, since it is expected that the entity will strive for improvement and advancement towards the goal of sustainability. The ending is not the most important part, but the process and the progress. That is why the entity will be given tools for it. It will be evaluated periodically, and so will their results through Biosphere’s indicators.
32
The questions are adapted to each entity that is assessed, for example, if a question about introducing new flora or fauna to the environment does not apply to the museum, they would not have to answer it.
The auditor will decide whether the questions are successfully answered and their minimum requirements are accomplished, and so the heritage entity will have a year to prepare for the next audit, and so on. As mentioned before, it is a process of improvement.
33
PROPOSAL FOR A NEW FRAME OF HERITAGE ASSESSMENT
During this project, examples of sustainability assessments have been mentioned, but none of them were focused on heritage itself. If anything, they did not consider heritage as something to be assessed, or they adapted a method that was created for different typologies to cultural heritage.I aim to create a new model for cultural heritage assessment, based on the information that has been seen during this work. Given that the official sustainability goals are defined by the UN and the Sustainable Development Goals, this new frame should be related somewhat to them.
So, these are my results. There are several points that should be covered, which were decided based on the different criteria that have been seen before but adapted to what was missing for heritage assessment, and the information from the research on literature. Also, a brief explanation is added under each one so as to clarify why it was chosen and how it is related to heritage.
With these several different categories, I tried to keep everything that has been seen so far within the values of the SDGs. These categories try to pick which criteria are the best when it comes to adapting a sustainable assessment to cultural heritage and its management.
- Honesty and Integrity in heritage management
There are many interpretations of what transparency in heritage management is, which creates an issue of being able to evaluate heritage as an “asset” and it is usually linked to a management where accounting is the first and foremost train of action (Biondi, 2014). So the heritage itself, even if creating economic benefit, should have a good funding allocation plan and strategies that advocate its protection, combined with the fact that “assessments of historical significance and use potential should be reviewed regularly” (Fatoric & Seekamp, 2017). Besides, key information should be public to the local community, to help create a sense of belonging and a sense of honesty and integrity. - Measures related to climate change, energy consumption and the environment
