Page 120 - World Heritage and Tourism Innovation

Urška Starc Peceny, Tomi Ilijaš Matevž Straus Digital Innovation of Cultural Heritage

interpretation, awareness-raising, and documentation Investments in cultural heritage have already
of (immovable) cultural heritage. shown both direct and indirect positive impacts. In
The Ministry aimed to support leading tourism de- 2003, Nypan (2006) identified a ratio of 1:27 between
velopment organisations conducting complex devel- direct job creation by heritage institutions and indi-
opment, documentation, and interpretation projects rect job creation (creative and cultural industries,
at the cultural heritage and tourism crossroads. Such tourism, etc.). The exact ratio of direct to indirect job
projects were envisioned to directly result in tourism creation for the automotive industry is 1:6.3. Moreo-
development and indirectly support creative and cul- ver, a study found that 1 million USD invested in the
tural industries, advance technology in cultural tour- rehabilitation of cultural heritage generates 31.3 jobs,
ism and cultural heritage, and contribute to local 3D making the impact more significant than manufactur-
digitisation goals and cross-sectorial cooperation. ing (21.3) (Rypkema, 1998).
The proposed paper examines Slovenia’s ‘digital In addition, only 16% of the jobs created from in-
innovation of cultural heritage’ processes. As part of vesting in cultural heritage are located at the heritage
the team that led training and workshops for leading sites (Greffe, 2002), which means that the positive
tourist destinations at the beginning of the processes impacts are felt mainly in the vicinity and for neigh-
in 2019 and 2020 and implemented several projects as bouring communities. For example, Nypan (2006) at-
the main contractor, the authors have insights and ex- tributes only 6–10% of all heritage tourism spending
periences worth sharing with the broader public. to the objects of cultural heritage. The largest share
The article looks at the projects’ results, quality, of spending happens in the broader community (ac-
and relation to existing tourist offers, as well as the commodation, food, related cultural offers, and other
processes, know-how, and skill sets at leading tourist local businesses …). Although the impact of culture is
destinations to conduct such projects. increasingly analysed by (cultural) economists (Doyle,
In the final chapter, we envision the actions/ pro- 2010; Navrud & Ready, 2002; Srakar, 2010; Seaman,
grammes/ projects necessary to achieve the mission. 2003) and conceptualised as a part of macroeconom-
ics, cultural heritage within development lacks a real
Heritage as a Developmental Field working formula that can be used in the practice of
Cultural heritage is widely understood as a powerful ‘polishing diamonds’. Consequently, despite the broad
economic, educational, and social resource, a ‘de- agreement on the need to (socially) innovate at the in-
velopment asset’ (Loulanski, 2006), a ‘value-adding tersection of heritage and economy, many of the chal-
industry’ (Cernea, 2001), and ‘the most significant lenges remain.
product of the 21st century’ (Ogino, 2002). Heritage
and culture, in general, are especially valued for their Recent Developments in the Heritage Sector
contributions to social innovation (Napolitano, 2018) Heritage institutions, GLAMs (galleries, libraries, ar-
– for their creative and innovative capacity, identity chives, museums) and others involved in research,
and capacity to generate attractiveness and as a cata- preservation and promotion – public, private or
lyst for urban transformation, as discussed in sever- non-governmental – have a long tradition: from the
al UNESCO publications (UNESCO, 2013; 2016; 2018); first private collections of rare and curious objects and
This is where local culture and cultural heritage are artefacts (cabinets of curiosities) to the gradual open-
often seen as ‘unpolished diamonds’ that can be trans- ing to the public of collections starting in the late 18th
formed into assets by ‘polishing diamonds’, a process century, to the development of a contemporary mod-
of ‘turning underused or unused resources, situa- ern public and private institutions. In the 21st century,
tions, facilities or features into socio-economic assets’ heritage institutions balance their debt to tradition
(Schwedler, 2012), as the URBACT OP-ACT Thematic and history with their commitment to contemporary
Network (Schlappa & Neil, 2013) suggests. communities (Anderson, 2005).

116 | Proceedings of the 7th UNESCO UNITWIN Conference