*3.4. Beyond SDG 11.4: Developing Harmonised Heritage Data in Europe*

There is a growing discourse on contextualising the SDGs and ensuring that an international agenda can be translated at a local, community level [3,29,33]. For attempts to answer these questions and achieve Agenda 2030, local governments, heritage stakeholders and institutions must have sufficient data concerning their tangible and intangible heritage assets and the ability to infrastructure to monitor. In an effort to capture the progress of member states toward achieving the SDGs, the UN developed a global SDG Indicators Database. This database is regularly updated and is only limited to the country/area level and not the local level. Furthermore, the number of indicators represented in the database is limited. Notably, all the indicators explicitly mentioning culture as illustrated in Figure 5 lack any data. Another monitoring system is the World Bank Development Indicators platform, which allows users to explore the data for the targets and selected indicators.

Therefore, several initiatives and projects have been introduced to build evidence-based indicators that will help to build a multidimensional, coherent and strong narrative on culture and development. One of these projects is the UNESCO Culture 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development Indicators initiative. This project deals with the integration of culture in the implementation of the 2030 Agenda [7]. Its aims to establish a methodology and conceptual framework for countries and cities to assess the contribution of culture to the SDGs as part of the existing implementation mechanisms of the 2030 Agenda at the national or local level. Responses from UNESCO member states in the European region challenge the achievability of these indicators, as illustrated from the member state survey which was launched in May 2019 to develop the framework of thematic indicators. There is unified agreement on the importance of measuring culture and the development of indicators to support and enhance the role of culture in their countries' efforts to implement the 2030 Agenda. However, responses emphasised that the "role and influence of culture is quite difficult to measure" (Estonia) with undeveloped understanding of the "interlinks between culture and human development and their possible undisclosed potential" (Portugal). Furthermore, harmonisation of data is perceived as logistically problematic, requiring "a consensus on a consistent approach so that the different agencies and institutions speak essentially the same language ... it is a compromise result of long-term negotiations" (Czechia). A response from the Netherlands describes the harmonisation and integration of data on culture as "time (and money) consuming ... it needs a central player with a clear mandate to make progress" (Netherlands). Member states such as Latvia and Portugal emphasised the need for qualitative data to give adequate insight on culture's impact on sustainability.

### **4. Results**

This section discusses the results from the analyses in four interdependent thematic areas: (1) cultural heritage's multidimensional impact; (2) safeguarding built cultural heritage; (3) safeguarding intangible heritage; and (4) culture and environmental sustainability. The discourse and the analysed databases demonstrate that culture plays a crucial and diverse role in the sustainable development of urban and rural environments. There is general harmonisation of the conceptualisation and classification of cultural heritage with international frameworks. These results are supported by Figure 10; Figure 11, which illustrate the classification and values of heritage. The responses from the expert informal survey support this finding, with 90% of respondents agreeing that assets, values and instruments in their country reflect the international and European framework of cultural heritage. The safeguarding of built cultural heritage is a central focus in the databases, although the association with intangible heritage is not yet established. Databases for intangible heritage have been developed according to international standards and created from collaboration with local citizens. Evidence of spatial mapping of cultural heritage emerged during the analysis with GIS-based geoportals and the accessibility of spatial data for the public. This last thematic area also explores the relationship between environmental and cultural processes and practices within the area of sustainability.

### *4.1. Cultural Heritage's Mulitidimensional Impact*

The analysis revealed a strong focus on both tangible and intangible cultural heritage as independent and interdependent concepts. Articles included in the analysis presented cultural heritage as evolving, complex and multifaceted. What cultural heritage means and how it has been presented, represented, developed and protected, set against a backdrop of demands and motivations, is depicted as multidimensional [26,29]. Similarly, all the databases used a broad and diverse categorisation of heritage as illustrated in Figures 10 and 11. Built heritage (historical buildings, monuments, etc.) dominates the databases, whereas the academic discourse covers a broader representation of cultural heritage often associated with social aspects of sustainability. The significance of a place embraces the diverse cultural and natural heritage values that people associate with it, or which prompt them to respond to it [34]. The emphasis of layered values is further emphasised in the definition of urban heritage by UNESCO, "urban heritage is for humanity a social, cultural and economic asset, defined by an historic layering of values that have been produced by successive and existing cultures and an accumulation of traditions and experiences, recognized as such in their diversity" [35]. Valuing heritage has become a popular method for the conservation of tangible and intangible heritage in recent years. An alternative definition given by Gravari-Barbas, Bourdeau and Robinson [36] is that value relates to the material being of a site with emphasis upon issues such as integrity and authenticity. In order to make decisions on the preservation of cultural heritage, often undertaken by governments and public administrations, an evaluation of the value of the type of heritage is required [37]. Value-based approaches have been adopted in European countries for an increasing range of categories of cultural heritage, including archaeological and historic objects and sites [24,38,39], historic buildings [40] and urban and rural landscapes [34,41,42]. Often, predominance is given to what Michael Petzet [43] refers to as classical values. This emphasis is illustrated in value typologies used for the databases such as: "architectonic and urbanistic" (Czech Republic); "archaeological" (Poland, Scotland, Ireland, Italy, Estonia, Portugal); "historical" (England, Scotland, Ireland, France, Italy, Estonia, Portugal, Czech Republic); and "cultural-historical" (Belgium, Sweden, Ireland, Denmark, Czech Republic). The academic discourse rather demonstrates a move beyond the material bias of 19th and 20th century practitioners to a more holistic view of interpreting cultural heritage [31]. Values of cultural heritage are considered plural [44] due to the fact that heritage is considered significant for multiple reasons. This is reflected in other value types included in the design for the databases: "environmental" (Denmark); "artistic" (Scotland, Poland, Ireland, Italy, Portugal); "Evidential" and "communal" (England); "social" (Scotland, Ireland, Portugal); "traditional" (Scotland); "technical" (Ireland, Portugal); Demo-ethno-anthropological (Italy); "Scientific and Technological" (Italy), "civilizational" (Slovenia) and "creative" (Ukraine). This representation aligns with the cultural heritage storyline described in the scientific analysis work of Soini and Birkeland [45]. It demonstrates heritage as temporally and spatially embedded, emphasising the importance for the future. Supporting this perspective is the work of Nocca [29], who demonstrates the multidimensional role that cultural heritage plays, including contributing to community wellbeing and social cohesion. Although stating that this impact is poorly considered, the author identifies an indicator from analysis which includes the engagement and participation in cultural activities. Participating in creative and cultural activities may have a considerable impact on strengthening mutual understanding, an individual's quality of life, contributing towards overall wellbeing and enhancing the sense of belonging within society [25].

In introducing the notion of interpretation [32] in this view of culture, the concept of heritage can be broadened into notions of local identity, ethnicity, nationalism, liveability of urban areas and social cohesion. Such an example is given in the context of the sustainability of Lithuanian towns and cities [46] and the sustainable development of Scottish towns [47]. Considering urban planning and development policies, the literature confirms that the holistic integration of cultural heritage is still relatively immature in many European countries. For example, Axelsson et al. [6] showed that more work needs to be done in Sweden to identify cultural indicators and target levels to support the inclusion of cultural values in a planning context. Some of the challenges of this integration from a case study of Slovenia [48] are described as inadequate public participation that relies on conventional strategies instead of bottom-up, direct involvement of users in the spatial planning process. The value of cultural heritage is often constructed through processes of selection criteria appropriated internationally or nationally and [29] then objectified to become worthy of political, economic and tourist attention and conservation. There is therefore a need to safeguard and respect the inherited values and significance of cultural heritage in cities. Analysis of cultural practice in the context of sustainable tourism shed some empirical light on its relevance and utility. The examination of the integration of cultural sustainability in Denmark [49], particular in areas of material and nonmaterial wellbeing, equitable relationships between host communities and tourists and quality of life concludes that cultural practice is not only a useful mechanism for successful competence development but a legitimate and integral part of sustainable tourism.

### *4.2. Safeguarding Built Cultural Heritage*

Preserving and protecting built heritage is revealed as a central focus in the analysis. In particular, all the databases showed a significant effort in developing and maintaining monuments and protected historic buildings of national importance and significance. This is often supervised and updated by national Government ministries or Government-funded agencies. Countries such as Italy, France and England lead in the availability of data pertaining to cultural heritage. This is largely because these countries own a noteworthy number of world cultural heritage sites listed by UNESCO under the Convention concerning the protection of the world cultural and natural heritage as ratified in 1972 (Figure 2) [50]. In fact, Italy has a comprehensive database catalogue called SIGECweb which contains over 2,700,000 records of archaeological, architectural, historical heritage and intangible assets. In England, The National Heritage List for England (NHLE) is the only official, up to date, spatial database of all nationally protected historic buildings and sites in England led by Historic England, the UK Government-funded agency for heritage in England. The statutory list is a public platform that is continuously updated and holds over 400,000 entries which allows for both text and map-based searching. The lists were proposed to support the enactment of the Ancient Monuments Protection Acts of 1882 and 1900 by providing definitive lists of buildings and monuments that could be used to identify those most worthy of protection [10]. Scotland has a similar categorisation of heritage within their monument register, created and maintained by Historic Environment Scotland. The classification of heritage resembles England's with the exception of historic marine protection areas and conservation areas. Historic Environment Scotland maintains a schedule (a list) of monuments of national importance. The classification of cultural heritage in France is quite different to that of other

European countries. The databases are managed by the Department of studies, and documentation and inventory and assisted by the General Inventory of Cultural Heritage, Historical Monuments and the Media Library of Architecture and Heritage in maintaining them. Firstly, the database categorises "Architecture" (Mérimée), which lists buildings in which movable heritage such as Furniture (Palissy) can also be found. Further categories include "Images" (Memory), which contains still images, and "Bibliography" (Archidoc), which contains bibliographic records which can also be related to the records of Mérimée and Palissy.

Building surveys and registers are used in some countries to act as a publicly accessible national inventory of buildings worth national importance and protection. This is the case in Denmark, Sweden and the Netherlands. In Sweden, the National Heritage Board is the authority that is responsible for issues concerning cultural heritage and cultural environments. The Buildings Register (BeBR) contains information on the built cultural heritage. The information comes from regional museums, the Swedish Church, county administrative boards, municipalities, universities and colleges in collaboration with the National Heritage Board. The information in the Settlement Register is updated continuously. The building typologies used are wide-ranging and include industrial sites, sites of agriculture and sites related to folk movement. In the Netherlands, The National Service for Cultural Heritage manages the national monument register. This website contains data on all real estate in the Netherlands that are a national monument, because they are of national significance. These categories range from administrative buildings, farms and mills to animal enclosures and mooring provisions. In Denmark, the FBB is a building register which contains information for approximately 9000 protected buildings and approximately 355,000 buildings whose conservation value has been assessed. In some cases, basic information is provided for buildings which have historical value and are not nationally protected. For example, the Denmark building and housing register has listings of more than 4 million buildings.

Other countries such as Portugal, the Netherlands, Ukraine, Lithuania and Poland have developed databases using the UNESCO framework as a significant catalyst. The cultural heritage database in Portugal is managed by the DGPC (Direcao-Geral do Patrimonio Cultural/Directorate-General for Cultural Heritage) in Portugal. The DCPC is the heritage authority that ensures the management, safeguarding, enhancement, conservation and restoration of assets. Similarly, the database in Poland uses the same language found within the UNESCO Heritage definition. According to the Monument Protection Act of 2003, three types of register of monuments: A (architecture and construction), B (movable monuments) and C (archaeological monuments) are used in the geoportal. Subcategories of immovable monuments include: cultural landscape, small architectural forms, spatial layout, sacred, defensive, industrial, park and garden, residential, public, utility, site of remembrance, cemetery and other. Although, in this classification, there is a certain freedom and for example, immovable archaeological monuments included modern earth bastion fortifications, and in the group of movable monuments, there were some roadside shrines or monuments. The Republic of Lithuania distinguishes between immovable and movable cultural heritage and is inscribed in the Register of Cultural Property, which is a state database.

The analysis showed that built heritage databases are populated from multiple sources and require cooperation from different departments. Estonia's national register of cultural monuments is linked to several other databases and registers, including the population and land registers, the database of the rural architectural heritage and the register of shipwrecks and external registers, such as the burial site register and war graves register. The Finnish Heritage Agency developed the built cultural environment database through cooperation and consultation with municipalities, regional environment centres, regional museums and the Regional Councils. The database is included among the national land-use objective inventories defined in the Land-Use and Building Act, forming the foundation for the land-use planning. The online database provides a free download of spatial data and research reports on the sites.

### *4.3. Safeguarding Intangible Heritage*

The interdependent relationship between tangible and intangible cultural heritage and its crucial position in sustainability is established in the results from the discourse analysis. Indeed, intangible heritage is often represented as being materialised and constructed by tangible heritage as well as playing a vital role in creating tangible heritage itself [17,18,51–53]. When considering the databases, the inclusion of intangible heritage assets is inconsistent in the approaches. UNESCO's 2003 Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage gives recommendations for signatories to develop a database of national intangible cultural heritage (Figure 2). The classification used the databases reflects the UNESCO classification of intangible cultural heritage (Figures 10 and 11) and includes diverse categories such as: oral tradition and folk literature, performances, customs and habits, knowledge of nature and the environment, economic knowledge and skills, traditional physical practices and games. In some cases, intangible heritage is classified and included in the main heritage database to be viewed and understood as a holistic representation of cultural heritage. This is the case for the PACI Integrated Project for Intangible Cultural Heritage and Cultural Diversity in Italy, which maintains over 300 intangible heritage entities integrated in the General Information System of the SIGECweb Catalog. This database has developed into a collaborative platform for the cataloguing of archaeological, architectural and landscape, demo-ethno-anthropological, photographic, musical, naturalistic, numismatic, scientific and technological, historical and artistic assets. In France, the Directorate General of Heritage maintains the online intangible cultural heritage databases made available on the website of the Ministry of Culture linked to the main built heritage database. In most other cases, intangible heritage assets are represented as seemingly separate from Government departments and national databases. This can be seen as a means to allow the public to engage and contribute to the development of the database. For example, Scotland has a separate database for its intangible cultural heritage, populated by contributions made by anyone and assessed by the Museums Galleries Scotland. Collaboration and participation in the development of the site is promoted through social networks and platforms. Another database is through the Netherlands Intangible Heritage Network and Register of Inspiring Examples of Heritage. Communities and individuals can register intangible heritage with the Intangible Heritage Network, showing the variety of cultural expressions through which heritage is recognised locally. The Register of Inspiring Examples of Heritage illustrates examples developed by heritage communities, groups or individuals. Similar local participation approaches can be found in Slovenia, Sweden, Denmark, Poland, Finland and Estonia. There is an absence of intangible heritage data included in any publicly accessible database for countries such as Ukraine, Ireland and England.

## *4.4. Culture and Environmental Sustainability*

Findings from the discourse analysis suggest that the cultural aspects (social and spatial) are increasingly being considered in achieving environmental sustainability. Discourse suggests that the concept of landscapes has an identity that has historical, geomorphological, cultural and other aspects that are complementary to ecological aspects [54]. Sustainability is therefore achieved through intentional interaction with cultural aspects such as in the case study of sustainable rural development of a high mountain national park in France. Thompson [55] describes the careful balance needed to take actions to conserve the built environment and advance public awareness of cultural heritage and achieving ecological sustainability in a national park of high tourist interest. Intangible living practices and traditional knowledge are increasingly valued in the sustainable development of forest and woodland practices. However, this integration and the systems that can support it are being threatened. This is the case in Ukraine's mountain villages which are experiencing socioeconomic and technological changes in agriculture, industrial forestry and natural resource management [56]. In a place transitioning from socialism to market economy, the traditional village system based on sociocultural values is at risk. The authors argue for further evaluation of local and regional concepts that satisfy economic, ecological and cultural dimensions of sustainable landscapes. However, there

is little mention of the impact of climate change and its relationship with culture within the context of sustainability. The impact of climate change on heritage has wide consequences ranging from structural damage, atmospheric moisture and temperature changes, new interactions between natural and anthropogenic factors to more socioeconomic factors, such as tourism demand and supply, as mentioned earlier in this paper.

Many of the databases analysed developed or are in the process of developing geoportals that use geographic information systems (GIS). The National Heritage Institute (NHI), as part of the Ministry of Culture of the Czech Republic, organises and manages cultural heritage in the Czech Republic. In 2015, a new geoportal was developed to ensure the availability of map services and geodata of the NHI from one single platform. The geoportal combines several map applications, including the historical catalogue for the Czech Republic and interests of monument care in terms of the current legal status of protection, and particularly relevant for risk management is the information for monuments threatened by natural and anthropogenic influences. Similar GIS-based heritage maps include databases from England, Scotland, Sweden and the Netherland register, which can be searched online and downloaded as GIS software packages free of charge for the public. Portugal's ATLAS database integrates the country's immovable, movable and intangible cultural heritage and constantly updates the ATLAS of classified heritage. The ATLAS can perform georeferencing searches of immoveable heritage with spatial information about the exact location of the monuments and sites as well as general searches. The information in the geodatabases is structured based on the INSPIRE (Infrastructure for Spatial Information in Europe) Directive 2007, which produced further guidelines for heritage assets in 2017, "INSPIRE data specification on Protected Sites—Technical Guidelines". In accordance with the Inspire Directive, the Member States of the European Union should provide spatial geographic data according to consistent standardised format. INSPIRE aims to develop "interoperability" across the European Community, which is the possibility to combine spatial data and services from different European countries in a singular way. However, much of the focus on research and development from INSPIRE is upon the management of natural environmental and security/asset information. Although there is a clear mandate for increased information to be published under INSPIRE, the relevance of information about built heritage is still largely ambiguous [57].

Systematic geographical positioning of cultural heritage can assist in effectively manage risk and contributing to the sustainability of urban and rural landscapes. The application of GIS allows for the integration of different data from multiple sources at an early point in planning processes that can allow for allowing for increased understanding and participation from stakeholders through planning and development conflicts. Furthermore, data on climate change can be incorporated with information about the historic environment. The overlay of spatial maps of vulnerable heritage and risk factors can communicate in a simple and effective manner, the overall scale of the problems presented by climate change. To successfully utilise the potential of GIS in achieving sustainability, there must be a reliable knowledge of European cultural heritage stock [58], and this includes, for example, a technical description of the materials and structures applied, or any information about its current state, all of which is decisive for its vulnerability to adverse natural actions. Furthermore, challenges are present—a lack of availability, quality, organisation, accessibility and sharing of spatial information is common to a large number of policies and activities and experienced across the various levels of public authority in Europe.


### *Sustainability* **2020**, *12*, 926


**Figure 11.** Cross-comparative review of value typologies used in databases.
