*3.2. Towards achieving the SDG 11.4: Strengthening e*ff*orts to protect and safeguard the world's cultural and natural heritage*

Of the 17 finalised SDGs, one of those, Goal 11, centres on a pledge to "make cities and human settlement inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable" and includes a series of 11 targets, each with politically negotiated indicators [2]. That goal is backed by specific targets and indicators (currently under negotiation), such as eliminating slum-like conditions, reducing urban sprawl and ensuring universal access to safe and sustainable urban transit. Goal 11 marks the United Nations' strongest expression ever of the critical role that cities will play in the world's future. Although none of the 17 SDGs focuses exclusively on culture, the resulting Agenda includes several explicit references to cultural aspects (Figure 4). Under goal 11 is an important indicator for cultural heritage: target 11.4 "Strengthen efforts to protect and safeguard the world cultural and natural heritage" [20]. Other references include target 4.7, which focuses on promoting knowledge and skills and the appreciation of cultural diversity; targets 8.9 and 12.b, which promote sustainable tourism and local culture aligned with target 14.7, promoting the sustainable use of aquaculture and tourism; targets 16.3, 16.8 and 16B promote the enforcement of the rule of law and strengthening global governance [20]. All targets have specific implications in the field of culture. These targets give light to the role that local heritage (that determines the cultural heritage) can play in this sustainable development framework. Indeed, SDGs are supported by international instruments and actions such as the establishment and mandate for a new special procedure entitled "independent expert in the field of cultural rights" through the Human Rights Council, resolution 10/23 [21]. In this context, cultural heritage is centralised in the enjoyment of human rights and in combating fundamentalism and extremism. While national governments of UN member states have set the USDG, the goal and its targets will need to be realised at the local scale. The USDG thus raises the question of the relationship and coordination between cities and other subnational as well as national governments in relation to the implementation of the goals and monitoring. What is uncertain is how another set of goals and targets will enable the appropriation of urban heritage at a local level.

**Figure 4.** Culture in the Sustainable Development Goals.

The SDGs focus explicitly on heritage in one specific goal and indicator: Goal 11, target number 11.4. As illustrated in Figure 5, the indicator is concerned with developing a global picture of financial actions to safeguard cultural and natural heritage made by organisations in the private sector and public authorities at local and national levels. By identifying the spending of public authorities and private expenditure related to heritage, comparisons between countries can be made at a global scale to provide a complementary measure of the level of development and capacity of a nation [20]. Disaggregation for the indicator includes the type of heritage, World Heritage designation; level of government and type of private funding. Therefore, several sources of information are required for the assessment of this indicator. No internationally established methodology or standards are yet available for the indicator, but methodology and standards are being developed; therefore, this indicator is classed as Tier 3 [22]. According to the agency in charge, the UNESCO Institute for Statistics (UIS), work for the development of this indicator began in 2016 [23]. The first step toward the development of a global data collection instrument was to collect information about the availability of data through a completed survey by each country in 2017. The survey response rate varied greatly between global regions [22]. The majority of the results came from Europe and North America (59%) followed by Northern and Western Africa (38%). The results revealed a limitation in the provision of private expenditure and great variations in the level of detail for public expenditure. Initial results show that 71% of responding countries had at least one source of public heritage expenditure data, and 29% of countries had a least one source of private heritage expenditure data [23]. In addition, the UIS SDG 11.4.1 Heritage Statistics Pilot Survey was launched in October 2017 and sent to 14 National Statistical Offices around the world to test and assess the proposed data collection instrument, as well as the data collection process and response burden on countries. Based on the results of the UIS SDG 11.4.1 Metadata and Pilot Surveys undertook in 2017, UIS is designing a detailed global data collection tool that matches the needs of the indicator. Thus, the conceptual accounting treatment of heritage assets faces many challenges [22].

**Figure 5.** Decomposition of SDG 11.4.

Indeed, there are some existing definitional challenges with the indicator and the development of a methodology. The UIS uses the UNESCO 2000 Framework for Cultural Statistics cultural definitions which define Cultural Heritage as including "artefacts, monuments, and groups of buildings and sites that have a diversity of values including symbolic, historic, artistic, aesthetic, ethnological or anthropological, scientific and social significance" [23]. This definition is fundamental to the identification and calculation of heritage expenditure for achieving the SDG 11.4. There is a need, therefore, to identify if classifications of cultural heritage in different nations align with this definition and according to what values. This determines what type of cultural heritage public authorities and private organisations will dedicate to protect and conserve and also why this is done. The UNESCO Framework for Cultural Statistics used for the methodology of SDG 11.4 defines Cultural Heritage as having a diversity of values, including "symbolic, historic, artistic, aesthetic, ethnological or anthropological, scientific and social significance." The articulation of heritage values allows for the consideration of the decision to give a "heritage status and significance", and therefore, the assessment of these values attributed to heritage is a very important activity for the achievement of the SDGs. The Australia ICOMOS (1979) Burra Charter introduced the concept of cultural value-based approaches by defining cultural significance as aesthetic, historic, scientific, social or spiritual value for past, present or future generations [24].

### *3.3. European Heritage Indicators*

At a European level, Eurostat collects statistical data for culture from member states. It compiles databases with information on the main developments for culture-related education, cultural employment, cultural enterprises, international trade in cultural goods, cultural participation, the use of information and communication technology (ICT) for cultural purposes, as well as household and government expenditure on culture for all European Union member states. There are challenges related to the compilation of data on culture from all member states. This includes challenges related to the conceptualisation and definition of culture and cultural heritage as well as methodological and infrastructural challenges [25]. Furthermore, the exact culture indicators used for each country are difficult to obtain [26]. Recent culture statistics 2019 include statistics on the economic dimensions of culture (employment, enterprises and international trade) and cultural participation (from the perspective of individuals) [25]. Although the data give a more detailed picture of the impact of culture in member states, they remain purely quantitative and inconsistent in many cases. This focus on the economic dimension positions culture as having a significant economic impact on society, thereby justifying public expenditure for culture on the grounds of the advantages it can bring to a nation [26]. This can be in the form of socioeconomic factors related to urban regeneration, wealth and job creation and even an increase in cultural participation that can lead to social cohesion and community development. Figure 6 illustrates the percentage total share of expenditure that was devoted to cultural services for the selected countries (Depending on data availability for each country. Source: Eurostat online) in 2017 (Figure 1). The highest percentages are in countries such as Lithuania (2%) and Poland (1.7%), and the lowest countries below the European country average include Portugal (0.5%), Italy (0.6%) and the United Kingdom (0.6%). Public sector expenditure demonstrates the public investment and priorities made. With the growing constraints of the public sector, achieving SDGs requires public-private alliances, and therefore, data should be made available that reflect these joint strategies of action.

Increased employment possibilities, job creation in other sectors and even social belonging and cohesion can all be an indirect consequence of the historic environment [27]. In 2018, there were 8.7 million (3.8%) people across the 28 countries of the European Union working in a cultural activity or a cultural occupation [25]. Figure 7 shows the total number of people working in a cultural activity or a cultural occupation in 2018 in selected countries. Several countries are above average in cultural service employment, including Estonia (5.6%), Slovenia (4.7%) and all of the Nordic countries. The challenge in assessing the scale of employment requires various means of data collection and their categorisation in different countries. Therefore, these numbers should be treated only as indicative.

**Figure 7.** Percentage share of cultural employment (2018).

Figure 8 below illustrates the frequency of participation in cultural activities (cinema, live performances or cultural sites) for over 16-year-olds based on the results of a 2015 survey on social and cultural participation that formed part of EU statistics on income and living conditions (EU-SILC) [25]. The results show that more than half of the adult populations in the selected countries, except, surprisingly, for Italy, participated in cultural activities. Cultural participation can translate to an increase in civic awareness, the knowledge of tradition and history, the awareness of identity and local belonging, as well as influencing the development of other tourism-related activities, such as restaurants and hotel businesses [27,28].

WĂƌƚŝĐŝƉĂƚŝŽŶŝŶƵůƚƵƌĂůĂĐƚŝǀŝƚŝĞƐ;ĐŝŶĞŵĂ͕ůŝǀĞƉĞƌĨŽƌŵĂŶĐĞƐŽƌĐƵůƚƵƌĂůƐŝƚĞƐͿй

A frequently used indicator is the number of visitors to cultural sites, often referring to tourism demand and supply [29]. An example of this is the European Group on Museum Statistics (EGMUS), which has maintained a database that contains statistics on museums in Europe. Figure 9 below presents data on the total number of admissions from the five most visited museums in 2018. The highest numbers are found in the United Kingdom, France, Italy and Poland, indicating high levels of tourism interest. Nordic countries such as Denmark and Finland have lower numbers, although the statistics do not give further detail about visits from local and international visitors. Within this context is an acknowledgment of the central role that cultural heritage plays in heritage tourism and sustainable development [17,30–32]. The promotion of tourism results in economic impacts as well as contributing to the wellbeing of local communities [26]. However, the limited mention of the relationship between tourism, heritage and climate change in academic discourse suggests an absence of exploration of the full impacts of cultural tourism. Nocca [29] suggests that there is a double relationship between the tourism sector and climate change where, firstly, climate change represents a threat to cultural heritage, and consequently for cultural tourism (e.g., reducing attractiveness of places) and secondly, the increase of global CO2 emissions and global warming is a result of tourism (e.g., flights to visit cultural sites), therefore arguing for further development of cultural indicators related to tourism and subsequently accurate data that can support this.

**Figure 9.** Total number of admissions from the five most visited museums.
