Cultural Heritage Monuments and historic buildings as value generators in a postindustrial economy.
With emphasis on exploring the role of the sector as economic driver
By Dr. T. Nypan, Directorate for Cultural Heritage, Norway
Año de publicación:
Patrimonio y desarrollo sustentable
The most important findings of this paper are:
- Historic rehabilitation creates 13% higher return on investments than new construction and 16,5% more jobs. It also produces 1.243 times less waste.
- Historic rehabilitation creates app. 10% higher return on investments than highway construction and 26,6% more jobs.
- The ch sector creates app 26,7 jobs for every direct one, compared to the auto industry where the factor is only 6,3.
- Cultural heritage tourism generates incomes in trade and services to Europe in the order of Euro 335 billion per year.
- The European cultural heritage sector assures employment for more than 8.000.000 persons.
- Investments in maintenance and upkeep of cultural heritage buildings are capitalised to society at a rate of 1/10.
- Only 6-10% of daily spending left at cultural heritage site, the remaining money flows to society around the site.
In this conclusion we must also emphasise the following important facts:
1. These studies and the figures given are of an explorative nature. From a social science methodology point of view the empirical data is insufficient to be able to sufficiently verify the figures and conclusions. But, on the other hand, we posses sufficient data to develop hypothesises for future testing. This is exactly what needs to be done. More research needs to be done to verify what the present explorative study expounds. The first step would be to collect all the available empirical data which is presently ‘lying around’ in national administrations, tourist institutions and NGO’s working with cultural heritage.
2. We intend to continue this work in the future, given adequate funding.
3. We have tried to make conservative estimates and not exaggerate, taking into account the
methodologically inadequate empirical data and the ensuing need for calculations and stipulations. Similarly our conclusions are also based on not wanting to exaggerate. In all I believe the figures are conservative rather than radical. But, anyway, these findings need to substantiated through more valid and reliable empirical data.