Cultural Heritage Management

International conference Cultural Corridor Via Pontica Cultural tourism without
boundaries, Dyuni Royal Resort, 21-25.09.2012

CULTURAL HERITAGE MANAGEMENT: CASE STUDY IN BULGARIAN
ARCHITECTURAL RESERVES
Ilinka Terziyska, PhD
Vyara Kyurova, PhD
South-West University Neofit Rilski

Abstract: Cultural heritage is considered to be one of the most important tourist assets
for Bulgaria. The competitiveness of the countrys cultural resources, however, did not receive
a high assessment in the Travel and Tourism Competitiveness Report 2011
1
. This study
focuses on cultural heritage management in architectural reserves in Bulgaria, as its
unsatisfactory condition might be one of the causes for the insufficient exploitation of cultural
potential for tourism development.
Key words: cultural heritage management, architectural reserves, intangible heritage,
tangible heritage
Introduction
Management of cultural assets is a complex activity that needs to reconciliate two
often opposing aspects preservation of cultural values and profits from tourism exploitation
of assets. When approaching this issue, the first question that needs to be clarified is what
exactly is meant by management of cultural heritage and what activities it includes. In the
theory and practice of English-speaking countries, there are two concepts: management of
cultural resources, more common in the U.S., and management of cultural heritage in
Europe. One of the most frequently cited definitions for the management of cultural heritage
is:
An umbrella term for activities affecting cultural resources; includes the
preservation, use, protection, selective investigation of, or decision not to
preserve, prehistoric and historic remains; specifically, includes the
development of ways and means, including legislation and actions, to
safeguard extant evidences or to preserve records of the past.
2

1
Travel and Tourism Competitiveness Report 2011: Beyond the Downturn, World Economic Forum
http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_TravelTourismCompetitiveness_Report_2011.pdf, visited on 23.01.2012
2
Kerber, J. E. (1994) Introduction. In J. E. Kerber (Ed.), Cultural Resource Management: Archaeological
Research, Preservation Planning, and Public Education in the Northeastern United States (pp. 1- 14). London:
Bergin&Carvey.

Quite reasonably, UNESCO also pays great attention to this field, stating that "effective
management involves a cycle of long-term and day-to-day actions to protect, conserve and
present the nominated property.
3

In the Bulgarian Law on Cultural Heritage its management is not mentioned. Instead,
the term is replaced by preservation of cultural heritage, which is defined as a process of
"tracing, identification, documentation, conservation, restoration and socialization of cultural
heritage, which includes the training of specialists in the respective field."
4
Similarly are
formulated the activities associated with cultural heritage by Krastev, namely: research,
education, preservation, promotion
5
. To them a no less significant element was added:
adaptation.
In order to be transformed into a cultural heritage asset to be used by tourism, most
often this asset needs to be adapted. This adaptation should not necessarily be considered a
negative sign. As noted by T. Krastev, "Preservation and development are not antonyms, but
two sides of a comprehensive policy on environment quality, supported by these tools of
integrated conservation. Adaptation is considered as a complex method of preservation and
development of cultural value, complementary conservation and restoration. Cultural tourism
has emerged as a fruitful field for the resource capabilities of heritage, as long as its authentic
value is not violated."
6

This study seeks to assess the degree to which the above mentioned activities are
successfully implemented. In line with the latest trends in both tourism supply and demand
showing a clear shift from tangible to intangible values
7
, the focus will be on the balance
between tangible and intangible heritage management.
Methodology of the study
The method chosen to evaluate the preservation of cultural heritage in the three
destinations is a survey. Respondents were selected among recognized experts in heritage

3
Operational guidelines for the implementation of the world heritage convention, 112, UNESCO,
http://whc.unesco.org/en/guidelines/
4

5
, . (2006) : ,
: - - , (Heritage: ESPRIT)
http://liternet.bg/publish25/t_krystev/istoricheski.htm
6
, . (2008) :
, http://www.icomos-bg.org/filebank/att_28.pdf
7
Richards, Greg (2008), Creative Tourism and Local Development, Santa Fe International Conference on
Creative Tourism

protection, including professors from Sofia University, New Bulgarian University, the
University of Veliko Tarnovo, Plovdiv University "P. Hilendarski", South-West University of
Neophyte Rilski, and the Academy of Arts, scientists from the Institute for Historical
Research, National Institute of Archaeology, Institute of Ethnology and Folklore Studies and
the Institute for Balkan Studies at BAS, as well as members of the Association of Restorers in
Bulgaria. As the needed data is primarily quantitative in nature, consultation takes place in the
form of an online survey consisting of predominantly closed-ended questions. Questions
include the activities associated with preservation of cultural heritage as described in the first
paragraph of this paper. A 5-point Likert scale is used, and verbal scores are converted to
numeric as follows:
Poor 1
Unsatisfactory 2
Average 3
Good 4
Very good 5
Forty-four out of the 67 questionnaires distributed via e-mail were returned, with
respondents indicating the following professional fields:

Figure 1: Professional experience of respondents
This distribution and the abundance of different but related to cultural heritage
professional fields enable us to say that the survey reflects the views and expertise of the full
range of specialists that are relevant to the topic.

Professional experience of respondents
16%
29%
23%
18%
9%
5%
ethnology and folklore
preservation of tangible cultural
heritage
archaeology
history
medieval history
cultural anthropology

Results and analysis
The assessment that cultural heritage management in the three reviewed destinations
received is not favourable. Most of the activities that comprise it were assessed as average,
which was also the overall assessment (Table 1).
Table 1: Assessment of Cultural Heritage Management

Variables
N
o
.
o
f

o
b
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
s

N
o
.

O
f

m
i
s
s
i
n
g

v
a
l
u
e
s

M
e
a
n

S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d

e
r
r
o
r

o
f

m
e
a
n

1. Identification and documentation of
tangible cultural values. [Koprivshtitsa]
44 6 3.33 0.256
1. . Identification and documentation of
tangible cultural values. [Melnik]
44 4 3.75 0.176
1. . Identification and documentation of
tangible cultural values. [Zheravna]
44 7 3.24 0.235
2. Conservation/restoration of tangible
cultural values. [Koprivshtitsa]
44 6 3.56 0.202
cultural values. [Melnik]
44 4 3.20 0.186
cultural values. [Zheravna]
44 7 3.13 0.189
3. Presentation of tangible cultural
values. [Koprivshtitsa]
44 6 3.44 0.271
values. [Melnik]
44 4 3.40 0.197
values. [Zheravna]
44 7 2.94 0.181
intangible heritage. [Koprivshtitsa]
44 7 2.82 0.300
intangible heritage. [Melnik]
44 7 2.71 0.206
intangible heritage. [Zheravna]
44 8 2.63 0.221
2. Interpretation and presentation of
intangible heritage. [Koprivshtitsa]
44 8 3.06 0.347
intangible heritage. [Melnik]
44 9 2.80 0.279
intangible heritage. [Zheravna]
44 10 2.71 0.286
1. Partnerships with scientific
institutions. [Koprivshtitsa]
44 9 2.87 0.336
1. Partnerships with scientific 44 9 3.00 0.239

institutions. [Melnik]
1. Partnerships with scientific
institutions. [Zheravna]
44 13 3.09 0.211
2. Partnerships with tourist
organizations. [Koprivshtitsa]
44 11 3.31 0.308
organizations. [Melnik]
44 11 3.46 0.332
organizations. [Zheravna]
44 12 3.33 0.284
3. Partnerships with cultural
organizations. [Koprivshtitsa]
44 11 3.08 0.309
organizations. [Melnik]
44 11 3.15 0.222
organizations. [Zheravna]
44 12 3.17 0.207
1. Educational programmes for
specialists in cultural heritage.
[Koprivshtitsa]
44 10 2.50 0.344
specialists in cultural heritage. [Melnik]
44 10 2.14 0.312
specialists in cultural heritage.
[Zheravna]
44 12 2.25 0.279
1. Purposeful policy for preserving the
authenticity of the cultural landscape.
[Koprivshtitsa]
44 6 3.28 0.253
[Melnik]
44 4 3.25 0.190
[Zheravna]
44 8 3.37 0.256
Overall assessment of cultural heritage
management. [Koprivshtitsa]
44 5 3.11 0.228
management. [Melnik]
44 3 3.10 0.168
management. [Zheravna]
44 6 2.94 0.127

Interestingly, evaluations of individual destinations are not significantly different on
most indicators showing that the problems are not destination-specific, but common to the
whole country. The results, albeit under the umbrella of alarmingly low figures, however, can
be divided into two groups - above average and below average rating.
Above average or average score is given to the following indicators: "Identification
and documentation of tangible cultural heritage in the region of destination",

"Conservation/Restoration of tangible cultural heritage in the area of destination, presentation
of tangible cultural heritage, partnerships with scientific institutions, partnerships with
tourism organizations, implemented partnerships with cultural organizations and purposeful
policy to preserve the authenticity of the entire cultural landscape. The indicators which are
generally rated slightly above average are those related to tangible cultural heritage,
partnerships and policies implemented to preserve the integrity of the overall cultural
landscape. Of particular concern is the status of the following activities, which received
unsatisfactory rating for all of the three destinations:
identification of intangible cultural heritage;
interpretation and presentation of intangible cultural heritage;
training programs for professionals in the field of cultural heritage.
An interesting fact is that, compared to higher than average values for the
identification and documentation of tangible cultural heritage, these for intangible heritage are
significantly lower - below 'average' for the three studied destinations. Especially large is the
gap for Melnik, where the assessment is at variance with a whole unit. Unfortunately, these
data confirm the trend of paying more attention and consequently directing more resources
and efforts to the identification and exploitation of tangible heritage at the expense of
intangible values. Such a disparity does not have a positive impact on tourism development
and the competitiveness of destinations.
Another major conclusion that can be drawn is the misbalance between tangible and
intangible heritage. One of the major trends in cultural tourism demand is the shift from
tangible to intangible assets. This makes the intangible heritage - folk music, local cuisine,
legends, traditions and customs - an asset with enormous potential for the tourism industry,
which is currently insufficiently used. In addition, we should not forget that a physical object
is inseparable from its history and meaning. Only through a unity of tangible and intangible
manifestation and expression of an object may its full and true cultural value be disclosed.
A closer look at the results, however, reveals an evident priority of activities related to
the preservation and exploitation of tangible heritage (Fig. 2). For all three destinations the
identification of tangible cultural heritage was assessed significantly higher than that of
intangible cultural values.

Figure 2: Identification of cultural heritage comparison between tangible and intangible
heritage

This unfavorable trend of neglecting intangible heritage is observed with respect to its
interpretation too. Compared with the socialization of tangible cultural heritage, interpretation
of intangible heritage obtains estimates lower by nearly half a unit. (Figure 3)

Figure 3: Interpretation and presentation of cultural heritage comparison between tangible
and intangible heritage

Conclusion
The study has shown that there are serious problems in cultural heritage management
1.000
1.500
2.000
2.500
3.000
3.500
4.000
Koprivshtitsa Melnik Zheravna
Identification of cultural heritage
identification of tangible
cultural heritge
identification of intangible
cultural heritage
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
Koprivshtitsa Melnik Zheravna
Tangible heritaige
Intangible heritage

in architectural reserves in Bulgaria. The overall assessment is average, with certain activities
receiving below average score, such as: identification and documentation of intangible
cultural values, interpretation and presentation of intangible heritage, educational
programmes for specialists in cultural heritage. Efforts should be focused on intangible
cultural values although this should not be done at the expense of tangible heritage. The
shortage of specialists in could sharply harm the competitiveness and the sustainable
development of this type of tourist destinations, so measures should be taken for training
professionals in cultural heritage management preservation and management.
Lastly, if we seek to preserve or recreate the authentic atmosphere, it can only be
achieved through a combination of tangible and intangible elements - the absence of any of
the two would greatly compromise the authenticity of both the place and the tourist
experience.

REFERENCES
1. , . (2006) :
, : - - ,
(Heritage: ESPRIT) http://liternet.bg/publish25/t_krystev/istoricheski.htm
2. , . (2008) : ,
http://www.icomos-bg.org/filebank/att_28.pdf
3.
4. Kerber, J. E. (1994) Introduction. In J. E. Kerber (Ed.), Cultural Resource
Management: Archaeological Research, Preservation Planning, and Public Education
in the Northeastern United States (pp. 1- 14). London: Bergin&Carvey.
5. Operational guidelines for the implementation of the world heritage convention, 112,
UNESCO, http://whc.unesco.org/en/guidelines/
6. Travel and Tourism Competitiveness Report 2011: Beyond the Downturn, World
Economic Forum
http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_TravelTourismCompetitiveness_Report_2011.p
df

Cultural Heritage Management

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Cultural Heritage Management

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

International conference Cultural Corridor Via Pontica Cultural tourism without

boundaries, Dyuni Royal Resort, 21-25.09.2012

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen