Sustainability of Cultural Heritage-Related Projects: Use of Socio-Economic Indicators in Latvia

Abstract

The main objective of the current study was to contribute to the creation of a practically usable set of heritage development project performance indicators and check their usage possibilities in the Latvian context. For this purpose, the authors have studied scientific literature, regulatory acts, international methodologies, as well as 22 EU co-financed projects related to the cultural heritage objects’ development. The developed list of indicators was tested through a sociological survey in all Latvian municipalities, other institutions and organizations. The study results showed that the use of indicators can increase public awareness and support for planned and implemented projects. The possibility of obtaining relevant measurement data (not applicability of the indicators alone) plays a very important role in the use of indicators. In addition, municipalities better accept indicators that are directly related to project results, do not require resource-intensive financial and economic analysis and are not related to long-term socio-economic impact. The study revealed that greater attention on the national scale (both by project implementers and supervisory institutions), should be paid to the acquisition and processing of the necessary data at the municipal level, paying special attention to the impact of implemented projects on well-being of population, environment, economy, finances, social inclusion, local production, education, science, real estate and infrastructure.

1. Introduction

Indicators are the variables that produce comprehensive information about the systems shaping sustainable development [1] (pp. 6–7). For more than 40 years, sustainability indicators have been used across a variety of sectors to measure the performance and progress of environmental, social, economic, urban and regional planning (see, e.g., [2,3,4,5,6]).

Cultural heritage is increasingly defined as an economic development tool [7,8,9] and resource for sustainable development [10,11]. For instance, culture is seen as a resource contributing to each of the goals of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development [12] (In 2015, the United Nations’ General Assembly unanimously adopted the 2030 Agenda, comprising 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and 169 targets grouped around three objectives: the economic, social and environmental. While the Agenda explicitly refers to protection of the world’s cultural and natural heritage only once (SDG 11.4), culture is seen as a resource contributing to each of the goals transversally. To see the many ways in which heritage can address the SDGs, please see ICOMOS Heritage and the Sustainable Development Goals: Policy Guidance for Heritage and Development Actors [13]). The United Nations New Urban Agenda ([14] the twenty-year roadmap to guide sustainable urban development adopted in 2016) confirms and strengthens the role of cultural heritage in transforming cities toward achieving sustainability. Both documents are not binding, but their unanimous approval [15,16] is a strong signal of the readiness of the Member States to contribute to achievement of the set goals.

With the reference to, inter alia, the 2030 Agenda, the EU has repeatedly affirmed cultural heritage in all its diversity and forms as a value in its own right and a strategic resource for the sustainable future of Europe (see, e.g., [17,18]). There have been many similar initiatives of regional and global level confirming the crucial role of protection and enjoyment of cultural heritage in effective global governance. Hence, cultural belonging, cultural rights, cultural voice, and cultural inclusion–for both individuals and groups–now constitute claims which can be incorporated into demands for the realization of economic, political and social rights [19]. The mentioned documents also stress the need of implementation of these “claims” by way of adequate financial, planning and evaluation mechanisms.

The 2030 Agenda states that the measurement of progress in implementation of the “claims” requires “quality, accessible, timely and reliable disaggregated data” (Par.48) which should be obtained through the developed list of indicators (Par.48, 75). These indicators can help in producing empirical evidence about cultural heritage objects’ multidimensional benefits [20,21,22,23] and express how these benefits may be consistent with sustainable development goals [24]. Thus, it is acknowledged that a comprehensive evaluation of the contribution of cultural heritage requires a holistic approach. However, to date no universal list of indicators has been developed to measure this contribution, and research studies focusing on such indicators are insufficient (See, e.g., CHCfE project [25], which has singled out four domains (economic, social, cultural and environmental) that together form a holistic approach in assessing the value of cultural heritage as a strategic resource for a sustainable Europe. According to the project, only 6% of all identified studies were conceived as holistic studies covering all four domains) [26,27,28], even though the need for them is undeniable and acute.

As pointed out by UNESCO, “making decisions without reliable indicators is like driving without road signs” [22]. However, while driving towards sustainability requires adequate indicators across all dimensions, there should be a strong understanding about the selection and correct use of the applicable measures.

For instance, the only indicator developed in support of the SDG 11.4 of the 2030 Agenda is “total per capita expenditure on the preservation, protection and conservation of all cultural and natural heritage, by source of funding (public, private), type of heritage (cultural, natural) and level of government (national, regional, and local/municipal)” [29]. F. Nocca in her research describes why this indicator alone is not effective in achieving its main goal (11.4 of the SDGs; [27]). On the other hand, in research that analysed the indicators of sustainable tourism, which is frequently invoked to assess sustainability of cultural heritage, Tanguay, Rajaonson and Thereen [30], identified 768 indicators—a number which obviously is unreasonable (if not impossible) to implement.

The aim of the current research was to evaluate the utility of socio-economic indicators in understanding and explaining the rationale of cultural heritage development projects (projects contributing to unlocking of socio-economic potential of immovable cultural heritage objects; cultural heritage potential means a potential to generate sustainable socio-economic development based on cultural resources which extracts, exposes, and appreciates cultural heritage components, emphasising their cultural (and social) value and economic significance ([31], p. 2) using a Latvian example. Until now, despite a sufficiently large number of cultural heritage object development projects in Latvia (altogether from 2017, there were 22 approved EU co-funded Latvian projects’ applications in the field of preservation, protection and development of important cultural and natural heritage and development of the related services (19 municipal and three state-led projects for the total amount of M120+ euro) [32]), a list of indicators that would reflect the achieved progress in social, economic, cultural, environmental, well-being and other areas has not been developed. Thus, it is difficult to explain the need and usefulness of projects to local residents in order to gain their support for project implementation, to attribute the return on investment from projects to their implementers, and to help the supervising institutions to evaluate both project applications and the results achieved by the implemented project.

The research question for the authors, therefore, was whether there is a need for changes in existing approaches to and use of socio-economic indicators for reasonable substantiation and measuring of the impact of cultural heritage development projects in Latvia. The current study was intended to fill the research gap and contribute to formulation of a comprehensive set of heritage development project performance indicators, to check the applicability and data acquisition possibilities for evaluation of these indicators in the Latvian context.

In the course of the analytical work, the authors have proposed a hypothesis that the effective implementation of the indicator system is hindered by (a) the lack of necessary measurement data, and (b) insufficient awareness/understanding of the broader socio-economic impact (and impact in other areas) of cultural heritage object development projects by the involved parties (project implementers, local residents and project supervisors). Thus, the focus is shifted towards the indicators that are mostly directly linked to project results and that do not characterize long-term development.

A tangible benefit of project planners, implementers and supervisors from the study of indicators is related to the possibility of immediate application of the corresponding indicators in practical work throughout all project stages–from initial planning to assessing the results. A set of indicators developed within the research constitutes an essential element for the further development of the methodology of immovable cultural heritage management and socio-economic development. Additionally, it may serve to improve the quality, competitiveness and sustainability of cultural heritage development projects.

The methodological part of the article is dedicated to the process of formulation of the comprehensive set of socio-economic indicators related to cultural heritage development projects. This part also reflects construction of the survey according to which the offered indicators have been evaluated by the project implementers (municipalities) and other professional heritage-related stakeholders throughout Latvia. The middle part describes the obtained results. The final part contains concluding remarks and recommendations.

2. Methodology, Target Audience and Construction of the Survey

In order to make a holistic, yet workable list of applicable indicators, the authors have extensively analysed the available scientific literature on:

• Economic indicator systems (see, e.g., [33,34,35,36]);
• Heritage economics (see, e.g., [8,37,38,39,40,41,42]);
• Cultural heritage performance indicators (see, e.g., [4,27,28,43,44,45,46,47]).

Compiling results of the above analysis and internationally developed methodologies [29,48], the authors then identified the holistic list of indicators provisionally applicable to the Latvian situation. The identified list was then put against the indicators used in Latvia in the field of cultural heritage project development, i.e., when submitting a project application in order to qualify for co-financing by EU financial instruments, these indicators (if they apply to the project) must be carried out. These few monitoring indicators are defined in regulatory acts and guidelines. For instance, regulations related to implementation of heritage protection and development projects (Point 9, [49] (Regulation No. 635 provides for one additional indicator: “energy consumption figure (megawatt hours) (if applicable)”), Point 8, Regulation No. 130 [50], Point 9, Regulation No.322 [51], for the applicant to be eligible for co-financing under EU structural funds) provide for the following indicators to be reached:

• the expected increase in the number of visits to the supported cultural heritage objects and tourist facilities,
• the number of supported natural and cultural heritage objects,
• the number of newly created services in the supported objects of cultural heritage,
• result indicator–the number of nights spent in tourist accommodation in the territory of Latvia during the year.

The regulations-related guidelines provide for a couple of more precise indicators, e.g., improved or constructed infrastructure that promotes safeguarding and development of cultural objects, improved attainability of the cultural objects [52], benefits from increased tourism flow and from tax revenues for newly created jobs [53].

To check the practical applicability and viability of these measurements, the list of identified indicators was then put against approved EU co-funded projects’ Latvian applications [32]. The approved project applications predominantly appeal to only 5 indicators:

• number of renovated/supported (cultural and natural) objects,
• number of newly created objects,
• number of newly introduced services,
• increase in object visits,
• arrangement/installation/improvement of infrastructure.

The other indicators mentioned much less frequently are:

• number of new jobs,
• new opportunities for tourism development,
• local belonging/local patriotism,
• rehabilitated degraded areas,
• benefits for society,
• archaeological research.

As a result of thorough research of the mentioned sources, the authors assumed that respective measurements (a) only partially relate to sustainable development, (b) are largely oriented towards benefits for visitors rather than for the local community and other stakeholders (e.g., [54,55]), and (c) do not reflect a whole spectre of socio-economic benefits, as they do not touch several areas positively affected by the development of heritage objects, for example, the development of cultural activities, local production, increase in welfare, etc. Comprehensive analysis of all the above scientific literature, internationally developed methodologies, national legal acts and confirmed project applications led to the development of the list of indicators to assess the multidimensional benefits produced by conservation/regeneration of cultural heritage objects. These indicators were subdivided into ten impact categories (certain major categories were subdivided into sub-categories) that composed the comprehensive matrix for impact assessment–altogether 96 individual indicators. The authors performed pilot testing of this initially created, pre-final list and respective division of indicators into categories in one of the municipalities. As a result, the following division was created (

Table 1. Structure of indicators.

Category and Subcategory (Number of Indicators)	Measurement Area (Changes to Be Measured)/Predominantly Short/Long-Term Impact */Direct/Indirect Relation to Results	Currently Measured in Latvia in the Project Development Area
1. Tourism development (27): 1.1. demand (8) 1.2. supply (15) 1.3. economic impact (4)	Flow of visitors, subsequently resulting in public economic benefits. 1.1. Short-term impact and direct relation 1.2.–1.3. Long-term impact and indirect relation	Number of local/foreign tourists visits (one or several day trips) × average amount left by the traveller per day; number of newly created services in supported cultural heritage sites
2. Cultural activities (15) 2.1. demand (3) 2.2. supply (6) 2.3. economic impact (6)	Development of cultural life and related public economic benefits. 2.1.–2.2. Short-term impact and direct relation 2.3. Long-term impact and indirect relation	-
3. Local production (8)	Local craftsmanship/food production and related public economic benefits. Long-term impact and indirect relation	-
4. Social inclusion (7)	Involvement of local inhabitants (incl. less protected groups of people) in cultural activities, development of NGOs et al. in the field of culture. Long-term impact and indirect relation	-
5. Real estate and infrastructure (12)	Construction (incl. public infrastructure), rent, buildings usage et al. areas, and related public economic benefits. Long-term impact and indirect relation	-
6. Restoration of cultural property (8)	Condition of historic buildings and other sites, usage of sites et al. areas, and related public economic benefits. Short-term impact and direct relation	Number of supported cultural heritage sites
7. Financial impact (3)	Changes in tax revenues (at both national and local level), income of local population, etc. Long-term impact and indirect relation	Benefits from tax revenue on jobs created in supported cultural heritage sites
8. Well-being of the residents; Environment (8)	Level of local residents’ satisfaction in the field of public infrastructure, environment, employment, public revenues et al., as well as level of pride in belonging to particular territory. Long-term impact and indirect relation	-
9. Education and science (6)	Scientific research, publications, heritage object-related education, student practice, etc. Long-term impact and indirect relation	-
10. Mass media and social networks (2)	Mass media interest and social networks activity. Short-term impact and direct relation	-

* Terms are conditional and refer to time limits of how soon after the completion of the project the socio-economic development affected by the results of the project will be identifiable. it is assumed that short-term is up to 1 year, long-term–more than 1 year (in some cases–several years).

).

2.1. Target Audience

The list of indicators was handed over for evaluation to all Latvian municipalities (N = 43, n = 20 (13 municipal governments and 7 State cities (By administrative division, Latvia is divided into territories of local governments of State cities, hereinafter ‘State cities’, and territories of municipal governments, hereinafter ‘municipal governments’ (Part 1, Sec. 4, [56]). There are 10 State cities altogether, covering around 1% of the territory of Latvia [57] and comprising the total population at the beginning of 2022 of M1,05+ [58]. This is 56% of the total Latvian population (total population of Latvia at the beginning of 2022 was M1,87+ [59]). State cities are considered to be development centres of national significance. As per the previous Law on Administrative Territories and Populated Areas (no more in force), Republican cities (in the current law replaced with State cities) were cities with developed commercial activities, transport and community facilities, social infrastructure and a significant complex of cultural institutions, having at least 25,000 permanent residents (the cities with more residents could receive status of a Republican city even without conforming to the above requirements) (Sec. 6, [60,61]. The remaining 44% of the Latvian population live in the sparsely populated rural areas and towns, covering around 99% of the territory, which are divided into 33 administrative units (municipal governments)); 46.5% from the municipalities replied, covering territories with about 67% of the total Latvian population). Responding municipal governments represent a total population of K369+ residents or 45% of all their residents (or almost 20% of the total population of Latvia). Responding State cities represent a total population of K880+ or 84% of all the residents of State cities (or about 47% of the total population of Latvia) (altogether regarding municipalities, hereinafter ‘respondents’).

For supplementing the results, the list of indicators was as well handed over for evaluation to Local Action Groups (3 replied) (Local Action Group (LAG) is an association for the implementation of the local development strategies and LEADER approach, giving local residents, businesses and municipalities the opportunity to determine the development of their territory [62,63]. The received answers represented Local Action Groups from three (out of four) Latvian regions), certain state authorities engaged in development of heritage and tourism (2 replied) (e.g., (1) the Tourism Department of the Latvian Investment and Development Agency (LIAA), whose goal is to develop Latvian tourism products and services and increase their competitiveness, as well as to make Latvia internationally recognized as an attractive tourist destination [64] and (2) the Rural Support Service that is the state’s direct administrative institution, which is, inter alia, responsible for the unified implementation of the state and European Union support policy in Latvia, agricultural and rural support policy [65], as well as LEADER program which is thought to promote the economic growth of the coastal area (including renovation of cultural heritage objects within the co-financed projects)) and associations (1 replied) (e.g., The professional association “Association of Latvian Castles and Manors” that aims to promote the preservation of Latvian cultural heritage, its research, restoration, maintenance, adaptation for use and development; promotes the development of tourism, culture and creative industries and related infrastructure and services in castles and estates; expands the accessibility of castles and manors to the public; develops public awareness of cultural heritage and promotes public participation in the protection of cultural heritage [66]). The survey was primarily focused on municipalities, since municipalities are (a) among the major owners of immovable cultural monuments in the country [67], (b) most actively implementing cultural heritage object development projects (for instance, out of 22 EU co-funded projects based on SAM 5.5.1., 19 were initiated and driven by the municipalities), (c) ensuring tourism development (tourism information providers in municipalities are basically a municipal structural unit (its department or an individual employee) or a municipal institution (or a structural unit of an institution), less often a municipal agency or its structural unit, also as an individual specialist or a specialist with partial responsibility for tourism development ([68], p. 74)), (d) deriving financial or other benefits from the use of cultural heritage objects, which, in turn, are used for the benefit of the local population. Each municipality (other institution and organization) was asked to fill out only one questionnaire from the institution (in certain cases up to 5 structural units of the respondent participated in filling out the questionnaire).

2.2. Construction of the Survey

The questionnaire given to the respondents for evaluation consisted of the following data:

• pre-given data sets: Category/subcategory (unifying category of indicators), Indicator (particular indicators under every category/subcategory), Suggested measurement (EUR, number, percentage or other measurement units);
• data sets to be filled in: Applicability (level of applicability of every indicator on a scale from “0” (not suitable) to “3” (well-suited)), Data Accessibility (ability to obtain data for measurement on a scale from “0” (impossible to obtain measurement data) to “3” (easy to obtain measurement data)) and Other possible measurement data acquisition sources/comments.

Respondents were asked to evaluate the indicators “Applicability” and “Data accessibility” (hereinafter ‘the dimensions’). It should be noted that for some indicators it may be relatively easy to obtain measurement data, for example “the number of local traditional food and drink companies/producers”, but it may suit less well certain respondents (for example, Riga State city, since it is generally less characteristic of them to follow, promote or specially support local food and drinks producers). It also happens that the indicator is well suited, but it is difficult to obtain measurement data, for example “municipal budget revenues from the tourism sector” (respondents have also mentioned, inter alia, difficulties in obtaining data for the indicator “visits to the site/designated area”, where site visits can be measured by the number of sold entrance tickets, while visits to the designated area (e.g., the town, etc.) is much harder to measure. The other comments concern the size of the municipality. Considering that 32% of the total population of Latvia lives in the capital city of Riga, which is the highest rate in the countries of the EU [69], the answers showed that some indicators are applicable to Riga/Riga metropolitan area (e.g., construction of new residential areas, because far from Riga (100+ km) it is hard to get grants for housing stock construction, while in Riga it is comparatively easy). On the other hand, some indicators are not directly applicable to Riga (e.g., the number of companies involved in tourism (both with and without tourism NACE codes, e.g., family-operated farms, home manufacturers, etc., involved in tourism, which have offers for tourists or parking lots)).

Respondents could have supplemented “Measurement data acquisition sources”, making notes on the already filled-in “Measurement” field, commenting on each indicator, mentioning other indicators that, in their opinion, should be used in development projects of cultural heritage objects.

The survey assumed that:

• all indicators describe the situation in the specified time period and on a particular territory (in this case, the territory was considered a municipality or a settlement if the indicators could be attributed to the specific settlement within the municipality for some reason);
• indicators are not always directly related to the development of cultural heritage objects, as their changes may be influenced by other factors;
• the indicators describe a development useful to society, without taking into account possible risks (e.g., with a significant increase in the number of tourists, environmental pollution increases, etc.);
• indicators of different categories are interconnected and can characterize several areas of socio-economic development (e.g., the indicators belonging to one category do not always refer to only one socio-economic area and the indicators belonging to another category may also apply to this area).

According to the Respondent comments, municipalities see the practical benefit of the application of indicators at different project realisation stages, including in convincing local residents and supervising authorities about the necessity of the projects’ development and implementation, in proving the usefulness of the implemented project, as well as in the drafting and implementation of public policy.

3. Results of the Survey

3.1. Informing the Local Residents and the Usefulness of Indicators

Before evaluating the indicators, the respondents were asked to answer questions about:

• informing local residents about the intention, initiation or implementation of development projects,
• the impact of local residents’ opinions on the possibilities of implementing a tangible cultural heritage development project,
• whether the use of socio-economic indicators can make the process of informing the local residents about the socio-economic utility of the project more effective.

Are the local residents informed about the socio-economic usefulness of the project at the planning, starting or implementing stages? (n = 20). Please see Figure 1.

Although 55% of municipalities inform local residents about the socio-economic usefulness of a planned or implemented project, 35% do so irregularly, and 10% usually do not inform local residents. In general, municipal governments inform citizens more regularly than the State cities.

How are the local residents being informed number of responses, multi-response? (n = 20). Please see Figure 2.

Residents are usually informed through the municipal website and mass media, or through the resident meetings. Other forms of outreach and engagement are less common, perhaps because they are more resource-intensive or dependent on citizen activity. It should be noted that municipalities also combine different ways of providing information.

Does the residents’ opinion affect the implementation of the project? (n = 18). Please see Figure 3.

Although the residents’ opinion on the implementation of the projects is largely important for municipalities (in total, 61%), it is generally more important for State cities than for municipal governments. Therefore, even though State cities are less likely to inform their citizens in a targeted way, they are still more sensitive to their opinion if it is expressed.

Can the use of socio-economic indicators make the process of informing local residents about the socio-economic usefulness of the project more effective? (n = 20) Please see Figure 4.

Of all municipalities, 65% believed that it would be useful to use socio-economic indicators to inform local residents. No municipality considered them to be completely useless, while 35% could not give an unequivocal answer. Significant differences in the answers to this question are between the State cities and municipal governments. All State cities explicitly believed that it is useful to use indicators, but almost half of the municipal governments found it difficult to give an unambiguous answer. Such a difference of opinion may be related to greater experience in using indicators, a more monolithic economy, as well as peculiarities of accounting and reporting procedures in State cities. Another explanation is related to more express consideration of residents’ opinions in planning or implementing a project in State cities.

Socio-economic value of heritage sites is often not obvious (e.g., [70]) for the local residents and other stakeholders. They do not always realise that cultural heritage objects, apart from the purely aesthetic view and as tourist attractions, ensure, inter alia, a positive impact on different economic areas and additional public income to cover actual social needs of the community [54,71]. Thus, many individuals do not connect their socio-economic benefits with the development of heritage sites. This leads to underestimation of advantages of investing in cultural heritage objects (e.g., [72,73]). Lack of informing and not taking into account opinions of the stakeholders deprives the projects of societal support, while local residents are deprived of understanding the additional sources of improvement of their well-being. Consequently, proper informing of the local residents and other stakeholders serves as a key factor in ensuring the success and sustainability of the cultural heritage development projects.

3.2. Evaluation of Indicators

The indicators in

Table 2. Ranks of indicators categories/subcategories.

Category and Subcategory	Applicability (a)	Data Accessibility (b)	Difference (a − b)	Average ((a + b)/2)	Rank by Average
Cultural activities (supply)	2.39	2.42	−0.03	2.41	1
Restoration of cultural property	2.44	2.31	0.13	2.37	2
Tourism development (demand)	2.49	2.24	0.25	2.37	3
Mass media and social networks	2.37	2.26	0.11	2.32	4
Cultural activities (demand)	2.28	2.12	0.16	2.20	5
Tourism development (supply)	2.14	2.26	−0.12	2.20	6
Wellbeing of the population; environment	2.36	1.91	0.45	2.14	7
Cultural activities (economic impact)	2.04	1.96	0.08	2.00	8
Social inclusion	2.04	1.90	0.14	1.97	9
Local production	1.90	2.02	−0.12	1.96	10
Education and science	1.89	1.86	0.03	1.87	11
Financial impact	1.77	1.75	0.02	1.76	12
Tourism development (economic impact)	1.89	1.62	0.27	1.75	13
Real estate and infrastructure	1.45	1.69	−0.24	1.57	14

Respective values were established by Average function (sum of values/number of values where the lowest value equals 0 and the highest equals 3; empty responses were ignored; the number of responses regarding both “Applicability” and “Data accessibility” dimensions were equal). Dimension values that exceed the value of the other dimension by 10% are marked with Bold.

are arranged by the combined value of “Applicability” and “Data accessibility” (for illustration purposes combined value of “Applicability”, “Data accessibility” and “Average” is shown in Figure 5 as well). It is important to note that ranking the indicators by one of the dimensions, e.g., only by applicability, would have produced different results.

For some categories of indicators, the difference in dimension values is significant. For example, for “Wellbeing of the population; environment”, the difference exceeds 19% (“applicability” prevails), “Real estate and infrastructure”—16% (“data accessibility” prevails), “Tourism development (economic impact)”—14% (“applicability” prevails), “Tourism development (demand)”—10% (“applicability” prevails). The fact that “applicability” prevails might in certain cases indicate the municipalities’ understanding of the potential importance of this or another group of indicators, but signals difficulties in obtaining relevant data (non-accumulation or insufficient use) at the municipal level. As the cause for these difficulties, the respondents mentioned, inter alia, shortage of resources of the municipalities (incl. tourism information centres) in collecting and processing of data, difficulties in obtaining data from private parties and NGOs. In certain cases, the municipalities acknowledged non-collecting of specific data since they have not previously seen the usefulness of the particular indicator.

Cases where “Data accessibility” prevails indicate a smaller apparent or real interconnection (according to the respondents’ opinion) between the category of indicators and its potential impact on the results of the implemented project. This is especially characteristic of groups of long-term development (impact) indicators, such as “Real estate and infrastructure”.

The results show that the indicators that are easier to measure (tourism demand and supply, cultural activities, mass media and social networks) were rated the highest. Similarly, indicators directly related to project results (restoration of cultural property) were highly rated as well. Thus, from the six categories/subcategories of indicators (Cultural activities (supply), Restoration of cultural property, Tourism development (demand), Mass media and social networks, Cultural activities (demand), Tourism development (supply)), which shared the first five places, five categories are characterized by short-term impact and direct relation to project results.

Indicators related to financial calculations and forecasts (economic and financial impact), long-term development (real estate and infrastructure), social inclusion, scientific and educational development have been evaluated most modestly by all the municipalities. Indicators related to the well-being of the population and the environment were evaluated at the average level.

Analysing the categories of indicators that were not highly rated, in connection with the usefulness of informing citizens, it should be noted that for a large part of the local population, the economic benefit or the very “takeaway” of the project is relatively important. Thus, more attention should be paid to the economic and financial impact of the implemented projects. Infrastructural solutions are often important for visitors and other stakeholders (for example, the castle has been renovated, but it is difficult to approach it or park the car nearby). Young families care about the environment and the health of their children, so well-being and environmental indicators are important for them. Social inclusion might be important for retirees who are or want to be socially active, and as long as they are good artisans and local food makers, then also indicators of the development of local production. Indicators that characterize the long-term socio-economic impact are important for those wishing to settle down, work or develop a business in a stable and well-maintained environment. These indicators can be successfully used for creating a positive image of the area. Thus, as pointed out by F. Nocca, diverse social groups could have different values and beliefs, with different perceptions about what is relevant for their identity, attributing different values to a heritage place [27].

It should be noted that despite quite modest evaluation of indicators showing long-term and/or indirect impact, their importance should not be underestimated. Understanding of long-term outcomes is essential, if not vital, to performance of comprehensive socio-economic analysis and sustainability of cultural heritage development projects.

The analysis of the results leads to the assumption that sometimes the indicator is well suited, but there is not enough data to measure it (for example, there are no relevant statistics at the municipal level), or on the contrary, the data is or can be available, but the indicator is used less often because it is not really clear whether and how to apply it. The former cases, therefore, require paying more attention to the acquisition and processing of data, the latter to the possibilities of using the indicator itself, addressing it to the relevant interested parties.

Analysing the survey data of LAG (n = 3), State agencies (n = 2) and Association of Latvian Castles and Manors (n = 1) for comparison, it should be noted that their evaluation of categories/subcategories of indicators differs from the evaluation of municipalities. For example, LAG ranked Cultural activities (supply), Mass media and social networks, Cultural activities (economic impact), Local production and Cultural activities (demand) the highest (in the first five places). Focusing on categories of economic indicators, which sometimes have long-term impacts and an indirect relation to project results, is more visible here. LAGs, similarly to municipalities, rated the Real estate and infrastructure category of indicators the lowest. State agencies ranked Tourism development (demand), Cultural activities (demand), Cultural activities (supply), Education and science, Mass media and social networks the highest (in the first five places). This ranking of indicator categories can be explained by the nature of the activities of the surveyed state institutions (development of the tourism sector and promotion of the economic growth of the territories). State institutions rated the Social inclusion indicator category the lowest. The Association of Latvian Castles and Manors ranked Wellbeing of the population; Environment, Education and science, Mass media and social networks, Local production and Restoration of cultural property the highest (in the first five places). This ranking of indicator categories can be explained by the main field of activity of the surveyed association. The surveyed Association rated the Real estate and infrastructure category of indicators the lowest.

Dimension values that exceed the value of the other dimension by 10% are marked with the corresponding colour.

Figure 6 shows significant differences in the opinions of the State cities and municipal governments regarding several groups of indicators, which are most likely grounded in the solution of current social issues. Thus, the State cities place more emphasis on well-being, environment, social inclusion, restoration of cultural property, mass media and social networks, while municipal governments stress the importance of local economic traditions (local production). State cities value the use of financial and economic impact as well as tourism development (demand) indicators a little higher.

In general, the lowest ranks got indicators related to financial and economic impact, education and science development and especially real estate and infrastructure development. Most probably, such a ranking indicates complexities with their estimation and connection to the long-term development.

It should be noted that the State cities have a more pronounced tendency to evaluate the usefulness of using indicators (both applicability and data accessibility) higher than municipal governments.

Table 3. Top 10 indicators (ranked by total, applicability and data accessibility).

Indicator	Unit of Measure	Average Score (Max = 3)			Rank (Out of 96 Indicators)
		Total	Applicability	Data Accessibility	Total	Applicability	Data Accessibility
6.1. immovable cultural monuments in the territory of the municipality (distributed by type and significance)	number	2.711	2.684	2.737	1	2	1
1.1.4. in-person visits to tourism information centres	number or %	2.675	2.650	2.700	2	3	3
2.2.4. cultural institutions (including museums, galleries, theatres, etc.)	number or %	2.658	2.579	2.737	3	5	2
1.1.1. visits to the site/designated area	number or %	2.625	2.950	2.300	4	1	22
1.2.15. cultural heritage objects (hillforts, castles, castle ruins, historical buildings, etc.) that are accessible to visitors	number	2.575	2.550	2.600	5	8	7
1.1.5. visits to the municipality’s tourism website (if possible, with data on cultural object (separating those that were covered by the projects) lookups in it)	number or %	2.575	2.500	2.650	6	11	4
6.7. renovation/restoration projects of historical buildings and other cultural objects	number	2.526	2.526	2.526	7	9	11
2.2.5. material exhibitions	number or %	2.500	2.556	2.444	8	7	15
2.2.2. organized cultural events	number or %	2.474	2.368	2.579	9	20	8
1.2.11. cultural objects included in the Latvian language materials of the tourism destination	number of copies per year; number of objects included	2.466	2.300	2.632	10	34	5
10.1. reports, broadcasts, publications in the mass media	number	2.447	2.526	2.368	11	10	18
1.2.12. cultural objects included in the foreign language materials of the tourism destination	number of copies per year; number of objects included	2.425	2.300	2.550	13	35	9
4.7. song, dance, etc. collectives that operate in (use) cultural objects	number	2.421	2.211	2.632	14	43	6
1.1.3. domestic visitors	number or %	2.325	2.600	2.050	21	4	50
3.4. licenses issued for trade during cultural events (e.g., holidays, festivals, etc.).	number or %	2.275	2.000	2.550	28	57	10
8.1. residents who are satisfied with the supply of cultural services	%	2.263	2.579	1.947	30	6	58
	Indicator is in all three tops
	Indicator is in two tops
	Indicator is in one top only (either in the top by applicability or data accessibility)

The serial number of the indicator shows its belonging to the particular unifying category and/or subcategory of indicators. The indicators marked in italic are the ones partially corresponding to the current project evaluation criteria, provided for in the legislative acts (including methodologies and guidelines).

shows those indicators that are included in the top 10 (in bold in the Table 3) both by total average score and by applicability and data accessibility average scores (the full list of indicators with total average, applicability and data accessibility average scores, as well as ranks by total and ranks within categories, is attached in Appendix A). As can be seen from the table, only four indicators by total average score are included in the top 10 by applicability or data accessibility average scores. Indicator applicability or data accessibility average scores mostly (sometimes significantly) differ. This means that the inclusion of an indicator in the applicability or data accessibility top 10 does not guarantee its inclusion in the top 10 by total average score and indicates that both dimensions must be taken into account when evaluating the implementation of indicators in practice.

Looking at the top 10 indicators by the total average, it can be assumed that they are largely chosen according to interrelated criteria:

• direct links with the object visits/tourism (seven out of 10, e.g., visits to objects and websites, accessibility of objects, marketing materials, cultural events and organizing exhibitions, etc.),
• ease of measurement (seven out of 10, e.g., organizing cultural events, visiting tourist information centres, statistics of marketing materials, etc.),
• direct links with project results.

Some of the indicators included in the top 10 are static in nature and do not directly relate to the results produced by the project (e.g., number of immovable cultural monuments in the territory of the municipality or number of cultural institutions) but rather describe the pre-project environment. On the other hand, if the indicators are indirectly related to the project results or refer more to the well-being and satisfaction of the needs of local residents, they appear relatively more often in the top 10 by applicability or data accessibility average scores (e.g., domestic visitors, song, dance, etc., collectives that operate in (use) cultural objects, licenses issued for trade during cultural events, residents who are satisfied with the supply of cultural services). Most likely, the reason for this is (a) the indirect connection with the results of the project, e.g., less understanding of economic benefits which the municipality and the local residents get from trade during cultural events (which are often organized in cultural objects or in their immediate vicinity, thus, objects play the role of the cultural-historical background) or that it is useful for folk dance and song collectives to operate in a cultural-historical context in their activities (thus enriching the performances and attracting visitors) or (b) difficulties in obtaining relevant measurement data (e.g., residents who are satisfied with the supply of cultural services or attraction of domestic visitors).

It should be noted that indicators reflecting financial and long-term economic impact, social inclusion, education and science were not included in the top 10.

Looking at the top 10 indicators both by total average score and by applicability and data accessibility average scores, it can be seen that only some indicators partially correspond to the current project evaluation criteria defined in Regulation No. 635 [49], Application filling methodology [53] and Methodology for applying the criteria for evaluating project submissions [52] (see Table 1 above).

When analysing the results presented in Table 4 mathematically, it can be concluded that the highest ranks within the categories are mostly achieved by indicators with higher data accessibility (in 57.1% of cases, the data accessibility score is higher than the applicability score; average data accessibility score is 2.370, average applicability score is 2.308). The lowest ranks within the categories are mostly achieved by indicators with higher applicability (in 85.7% of cases, the applicability score is higher than the data accessibility score; average data accessibility score is 1.689, average applicability score is 1.899). This means that data accessibility is the more important dimension in the ranking of indicators, which has a greater influence on the assignment of the respective overall rating to the indicator. It can be found that the lowest places (ranks) in each category are taken by indicators which:

• require larger investment in obtaining measurement data (e.g., require financial analysis, conducting surveys, etc.), for instance, local residents who are satisfied with the use of public revenues, tax revenues from visiting cultural sites, related businesses and real estate, municipal budget revenues from the tourism sector. Additionally, several municipalities indicated that the surveys are not applicable for collecting specific data, as a very small percentage of local residents participate in them (in some cases no more than 1–2%).;
• relate to long-term impacts, e.g., average value of living space in residential areas (the value tends to rise in well-developed areas around cultural objects);
• relate to the results of the project indirectly, e.g., persons employed in the production and trade of crafts and local traditional food and drinks. If a cultural object is developed, it affects the inflow of visitors, which accordingly affects auxiliary spending and, thus, the demand for local crafts’ products, drinks and food, thereby increasing the number of employed persons, solving social problems, diversifying the economic activities of local residents and, accordingly, positively affecting their well-being;
• require additional investments (which tend to be long-term as well), e.g., students’ practices in cultural objects (Students’ practices and related scientific research, e.g., in archaeological objects, help to find the scientific basis for the international recognition of a cultural object. For instance, Grobiņa archaeological ensemble, despite its importance, was not accepted for inclusion in the UNESCO World Heritage List because, according to ICOMOS, the current state of knowledge and research on the object and its context is not sufficiently well advanced to justify the proposed Outstanding Universal Value ([74], p. 36) as well as otherwise positively affect visibility and acknowledgement of objects, but the organization of students’ practices and the support of scientific activity may require additional administrative and financial expenses from municipalities).

Table 4. Indicators with highest and lowest ranks within categories.

Category/Subcategory	Indicator	Score (Max = 3)			Total Rank (Out of All 96 Indicators)
		Total	Applicability	Data Accessibility
1.1. Tourism development (demand)	in-person visits to tourism information centres	2.675	2.650	2.700	2
	average length of stay of tourists	2.175	2.200	2.150	47
1.2. Tourism development (supply)	cultural heritage objects (hillforts, castles, castle ruins, historical buildings, etc.) that are accessible to visitors	2.575	2.550	2.600	5
	private apartments for rent	1.550	1.800	1.300	86
1.3. Tourism development (economic impact)	turnover of the tourism sector (accommodations, catering companies, tour operators, etc.)	1.850	1.950	1.750	68
	municipal budget revenues from the tourism sector	1.579	1.737	1.421	85
2.1. Cultural activities (demand)	tickets sold to cultural events	2.316	2.316	2.316	22
	visits to culture-related websites (number of lookups, unique visitors, returned visitors)	2.026	2.053	2.000	57
2.2. Cultural activities (supply)	cultural institutions (including museums, galleries, theatres, etc.)	2.658	2.579	2.737	3
	cultural programs (including creative workshops, exhibitions, etc.), their projects	2.158	2.211	2.105	48
2.3. Cultural activities (economic impact)	attraction of investment to cultural activities	2.079	2.158	2.000	52
	use of local cultural objects in branding, advertising activities, etc.	1.895	2.211	1.579	66
3. Local production	licenses issued for trade during cultural events (e.g., holidays, festivals, etc.)	2.275	2.000	2.550	28
	persons employed in the production and trade of crafts and local traditional food and drinks	1.450	1.550	1.350	91
4. Social inclusion	song, dance, etc. collectives that operate in (use) cultural objects	2.421	2.211	2.632	14
	persons with special needs in cultural development projects, events, etc.	1.588	1.706	1.471	84
5. Real estate and infrastructure	implementation of public infrastructure projects (roads, bridges, etc.)	2.421	2.316	2.526	15
	average value of living space in residential areas	1.320	1.167	1.474	96
6. Restoration of cultural property	immovable cultural monuments in the territory of the municipality (distributed by type and significance)	2.711	2.684	2.737	1
	residents who are satisfied with the condition of historical buildings and other cultural objects	2.079	2.368	1.789	51
7. Financial impact	average income of the local residents	1.947	1.632	2.263	64
	tax revenues from visiting cultural sites, related businesses and real estate	1.658	1.842	1.474	80
8. Well-being of the residents; Environment	residents who are satisfied with the supply of cultural services	2.263	2.579	1.947	30
	local residents who are satisfied with the use of public revenues (from the development of cultural objects) for the development of social and other services	1.737	1.842	1.632	76
9. Education and science	restoration projects	2.105	2.158	2.053	50
	students’ practices	1.711	1.684	1.737	78
10. Mass media and social networks	reports, broadcasts, publications in the mass media	2.447	2.526	2.368	11
	information in social networks	2.184	2.211	2.158	43

Table 4. Indicators with highest and lowest ranks within categories.

Category/Subcategory	Indicator	Score (Max = 3)			Total Rank (Out of All 96 Indicators)
		Total	Applicability	Data Accessibility
1.1. Tourism development (demand)	in-person visits to tourism information centres	2.675	2.650	2.700	2
	average length of stay of tourists	2.175	2.200	2.150	47
1.2. Tourism development (supply)	cultural heritage objects (hillforts, castles, castle ruins, historical buildings, etc.) that are accessible to visitors	2.575	2.550	2.600	5
	private apartments for rent	1.550	1.800	1.300	86
1.3. Tourism development (economic impact)	turnover of the tourism sector (accommodations, catering companies, tour operators, etc.)	1.850	1.950	1.750	68
	municipal budget revenues from the tourism sector	1.579	1.737	1.421	85
2.1. Cultural activities (demand)	tickets sold to cultural events	2.316	2.316	2.316	22
	visits to culture-related websites (number of lookups, unique visitors, returned visitors)	2.026	2.053	2.000	57
2.2. Cultural activities (supply)	cultural institutions (including museums, galleries, theatres, etc.)	2.658	2.579	2.737	3
	cultural programs (including creative workshops, exhibitions, etc.), their projects	2.158	2.211	2.105	48
2.3. Cultural activities (economic impact)	attraction of investment to cultural activities	2.079	2.158	2.000	52
	use of local cultural objects in branding, advertising activities, etc.	1.895	2.211	1.579	66
3. Local production	licenses issued for trade during cultural events (e.g., holidays, festivals, etc.)	2.275	2.000	2.550	28
	persons employed in the production and trade of crafts and local traditional food and drinks	1.450	1.550	1.350	91
4. Social inclusion	song, dance, etc. collectives that operate in (use) cultural objects	2.421	2.211	2.632	14
	persons with special needs in cultural development projects, events, etc.	1.588	1.706	1.471	84
5. Real estate and infrastructure	implementation of public infrastructure projects (roads, bridges, etc.)	2.421	2.316	2.526	15
	average value of living space in residential areas	1.320	1.167	1.474	96
6. Restoration of cultural property	immovable cultural monuments in the territory of the municipality (distributed by type and significance)	2.711	2.684	2.737	1
	residents who are satisfied with the condition of historical buildings and other cultural objects	2.079	2.368	1.789	51
7. Financial impact	average income of the local residents	1.947	1.632	2.263	64
	tax revenues from visiting cultural sites, related businesses and real estate	1.658	1.842	1.474	80
8. Well-being of the residents; Environment	residents who are satisfied with the supply of cultural services	2.263	2.579	1.947	30
	local residents who are satisfied with the use of public revenues (from the development of cultural objects) for the development of social and other services	1.737	1.842	1.632	76
9. Education and science	restoration projects	2.105	2.158	2.053	50
	students’ practices	1.711	1.684	1.737	78
10. Mass media and social networks	reports, broadcasts, publications in the mass media	2.447	2.526	2.368	11
	information in social networks	2.184	2.211	2.158	43

It should be noted that the indicator “average length of stay of tourists”, which partially corresponds to the current project evaluation criteria defined in Regulations No. 635 [49] and No. 130 [50], Application filling methodology [53] and Methodology for applying the criteria for evaluating project submissions [52] (see Table 1 above) has received the lowest rating in its category.

The highest ranks, respectively, are taken by those indicators that do not meet the above-mentioned conditions, are more directly and, perhaps, more demonstrably linked to project results.

4. Conclusions and Discussion

The socio-economic indicators currently recommended by the project supervisors (see, e.g., [49,50,52,53]) incompletely describe the impact of the implemented projects in the socio-economic and other areas. Several areas are essentially not affected, so the project implementers are guided by these indicators only partially.

Although project implementers mostly support the use of indicators to inform local residents about the socio-economic returns of projects during their planning, initiation and implementation phases, local residents are not always informed about the socio-economic benefits provided by these projects. Opinions of the local residents are not always taken into account during project planning and implementation. Moreover, State cities find it more useful to take into account the opinion of the local residents than municipal governments.

Most municipalities inform residents about project plans and implementation (predominantly through the municipal website or mass media; sometimes residents’ meetings are held). Municipal governments inform the residents more often than the State cities. Notwithstanding the rarer informing, it is more characteristic of the State cities to take into account residents’ opinions in implementation of the projects.

The majority of indicator categories (economic benefits and financial impact, local production, well-being, social inclusion, education and science, real estate and infrastructure) is currently not particularly used to inform residents or the supervising authorities.

Indicators characterized by easier quantification, data accessibility and easier/faster visualization of the achievements (showing short-term impact) are rated the highest, while the indicators requiring financial calculations and forecasts as well as surveys (showing long-term development (impact)), incl. social inclusion, scientific and educational development, are rated the most modestly. Perhaps this is due to a need for a substantial period of time and/or additional administrative and material investments in the aforementioned fields for the indicators to show development. Indicators showing changes in well-being of the local residents and the surrounding environment are evaluated at medium level.

The use of many indicators is hampered by the difficulty of obtaining measurement data at the municipal level or the need to invest more significant administrative resources to obtain them. This is especially relevant to the indicators showing financial and economic impact, changes in the well-being, real estate and infrastructure.

The fact that some categories of indicators, in particular the ones not reflecting an obvious direct connection with the implementation of projects (a direct causal relationship is not immediately visible), were evaluated less strongly (such as the impact on education and science) shows that municipalities may not have sufficient experience in using them or that there is an absence of deep-rooted traditions in the use of these indicators.

There are significant differences in the opinions of the State cities and municipal governments regarding several categories of indicators, which are most likely related to solving current social issues as well as local economic activities. State cities rate the use of financial and economic impact indicators slightly higher.

The socio-economic indicators currently provided by the project supervisors incompletely describe the impact of the implemented projects in the socio-economic and other areas (several areas are essentially not affected); moreover, the project implementers are only partially guided by these indicators.

Thus, the results of the conducted research confirmed the proposed hypothesis and allowed the authors to conclude that project implementers are generally less supportive of indicators that:

• are associated with a larger investment in obtaining measurement data;
• refers to the long-term impact;
• are indirectly related to the results of the project;
• might be related to additional further material investments.

Although the research was focused on Latvia, it is relevant to internationally shared problems (e.g., linking individual socio-economic benefits to the benefits of developing cultural heritage sites in the local area, sustainability aspects of cultural heritage development projects, etc.). It can therefore be assumed that the findings of the research can also be used in the context of other countries. The use of socio-economic indicators in practice is in itself a significant step forward. However, it should be noted that the effect of use of the socio-economic indicators may be reinforced by introduction and shared acceptance of the methodology of immovable cultural heritage management and socio-economic development. Socio-economic indicators form one element of the relevant methodology at national and regional/local level, where other elements include, inter alia, analysis and implementing of practical measures to address the impact of several groups of political, economic, social, legal and administrative, technological, environmental, and cooperation-related factors. The development and implementation of such a methodology is a matter for further research.

The current research was only focused on project implementers (municipalities) and less affected the development projects of cultural heritage objects implemented by subjects of private law (individuals, companies), because the number of responses received from local action groups (whose members are, inter alia, businessmen) was not sufficient for the analysis and drawing the relevant conclusions. Another limitation of the conducted research concerned the clarification of local residents’ opinions. Thus, the directions of further research should be related to the analysis of socio-economic indicators used by private individuals and merchants, as well as to clarifying the needs of local residents in the field of socio-economic indicators provided to them.

Recommendations

Since within the survey the respondents specified several indicators, proposed several new indicators and supplemented the measurement units of the indicators and ways of obtaining measurement data (suggesting and specifying the sources of obtaining measurement data), the initially developed list of indicators has been improved and can be used in practice. The authors propose to provide a full list of indicators to both the respondents and the supervisory authorities in order to promote the discussion on the selection and approval of such indicators at the national level, which would comprehensively picture the results of project implementation. Thus, the quality of projects will be improved, awareness of local residents will be raised, and funding will be more effectively allocated for the implementation of projects in the field of cultural heritage objects development.

Recommendations to project implementers:

• it is important to evaluate the possible socio-economic impact and the use of indicators at the very initial stage (design phase) of the project,
• it is beneficial to use socio-economic indicators to inform local residents and supervising institutions to increase support for project implementation (by linking personal benefits and project implementation) and the competitiveness of projects,
• it is necessary to determine how the implemented project will affect the socio-economic needs of local residents. Strengthening cooperation with local NGOs, businessmen and other stakeholders in order to receive information about their practical interests and to obtain measurement data necessary for the use of indicators (to measure “where we were–where we are–where we want to be”) is one of the key aspects for successful project implementation,
• it is expedient to use different categories of indicators to inform local residents and different social groups,
• the indirect impact (e.g., on employment, infrastructure development, businesses, well-being of the local residents) of the cultural heritage object development projects should not be underestimated (in particular because of the high additional value of these indicators for different groups of stakeholders), and the use of relevant indicators should be facilitated.