Papers by Anna Koziol
Mega-events and heritage: the experience of five European cities. D. Ponzini, Bianchini, G. J.-Tzortzi N., J. Sanetra–Szeliga (eds.), International Cultural Centre, Krakow , 2020
In the past, many cities used mega-events as a strategy to boost development. The creation of new... more In the past, many cities used mega-events as a strategy to boost development. The creation of new facilities and infrastructures for mega-events typically targeted areas of expansion outside of historic city fabric. Today, on the contrary, mega-event organizers are increasingly opting more for the re-use of existing facilities and areas. This paradigm shift represents both a potential opportunity and threat for heritage-rich cities in Europe. This book explores the relationships between the planning and implementation of mega-events and cultural heritage through the in-depth study of five cases: Genoa 2004 European Capital of Culture, Milan Expo 2015, Wrocław 2016 European Capital of Culture, Hull 2017 UK City of Culture, Pafos 2017 European Capital of Culture. The book draws on these case studies in order to spark further research and policy debate regarding the emerging opportunities and threats for context-specific policies and projects, for long-term urban development, for cooperation among actors and capacity building at different levels, for the multiple social and cultural identities that help heritage and cities to flourish.
Events through the COVID-19 pandemic: Evidence from Europe., 2021
The booming mega-event and festival industry was sharply halted in March 2020 with the outbreak o... more The booming mega-event and festival industry was sharply halted in March 2020 with the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic. When examining the impact of mega-events on heritage-rich cities, the HOMEE research team could not ignore the new situation and prepared a report that reviews the problems faced by mega-event organisers, the strategies used to overcome them and likely trends for the future. The conclusions presented in the report are based on a literature and press review, statements and arguments presented by experts during numerous webinars, as well as in-depth interviews with event organisers (6 interviews conducted in July-October 2020) and Charter validation workshops with event organisers, political decision-makers and other stakeholders of the Charter (5 workshops conducted in April, November and December 2020). The aim of the report is to supplement the research conducted on mega-events and contribute to the discussion on the organisation of events in post-pandemic heritage-rich cities, also using the recommendations of the Charter for Mega-events in Heritage-rich Cities.
Special report on intangible cultural heritage of displaced Ukrainian communities - the perspective of Poland, 2022
In recent years, Poland has become a primary destination
for work migrants from Ukraine in Europe... more In recent years, Poland has become a primary destination
for work migrants from Ukraine in Europe.
Furthermore, following the Russian aggression of
24 February 2022, more than half of people fleeing
Ukraine crossed into Poland. Consequently, Poland
has become an immigration country in a global
perspective - it currently hosts the second largest
community of refugees in the world numbering
an estimated 3.4 million.
The war poses a serious threat to the preservation
and continuity of Ukraine’s cultural heritage.
For the bearers of intangible cultural heritage,
leaving the country is tantamount to detachment
from the community and the cultural space that
has so far provided the context for the cultivation
of traditions and customs. Creating an environment
that would allow for a continued practice of
intangible heritage among refugees is not only
an expression of respect for cultural diversity
and human creativity, but also a sign of utmost
care for the safeguarding of this priceless cultural
wealth for future generations. This report serves
as a point of departure for further development
of activities aimed at safeguarding of intangible
cultural heritage elements among Ukrainian
communities in Poland.
A. Kozioł, B. Skaldawski, A. Chabiera (red.), Dziedzictwo kulturowe w badaniach. Tom 2: Rozwój lokalny, ochrona i strategiczne zarządzanie rozwojem gminy w oparciu o dziedzictwo kulturowe, Narodowy Instytut Dziedzictwa, Uniwersytet Jagielloński, Warszawa 2021, 2021
Prace Geograficzne, 2022
Heritage management instruments available to local governments in Poland and spatial distribution... more Heritage management instruments available to local governments in Poland and spatial distribution of their usage and its intensity
Heritage management in a municipality involves many entities, including owners and holders of heritage, local authorities and public administration, scientists and specialists, and non-governmental organizations. Among them, the local government is one of the most important entity due to the broad competences it has as a guardian, i.e., the owner of historic buildings, and the entity legally designated to protect heritage as a public administration body (Murzyn-Kupisz 2010, 2012; Góral 2012; Gwiazdowska 2016; Pawłowska 2016). Thus, the local government has a wide range of instruments that enable the use of various categories of heritage in local development. These instruments include: the municipal register of monuments, the creation of municipal conservation services, the program of care for monuments, municipal revitalization programs or granting subsidies for conservation work on private buildings entered in the register and included in the register of monuments. The scope of the commune’s influence on heritage is not limited only to monuments, but also extends to intangible heritage, e.g., by co-financing cultural events, supporting artists, organizing museums, community centres and libraries. Such a wide range of heritage management instruments requires full cataloguing and classification, which has not been done so far. In the article, the author attempts to describe and organize the tools at the disposal of local governments, proposing their classification. At the same time, despite the possibility of using cultural heritage in local development tools of heritage management, their use is not complete, and the degree of their use varies territorially. Therefore, the author attempts to assess the actual use of these instruments by communes and to present regional differences. This part of the article will be based on a GUS survey conducted in cooperation with the National Institute of Cultural Heritage of Poland in September 2019 entitled KK-2 Report on the protection of monuments and the care of monuments in the local government. The study conducted allowed for the collection of such a rich statistical database for the protection of monuments in communes in Poland for the first time. The information obtained enables characterisation of the scope and scale of activities undertaken in communes.
Niniejsza publikacja zawiera krajowe analizy przypadków i odpowiada jednemu kluczowemu wynikowi w... more Niniejsza publikacja zawiera krajowe analizy przypadków i odpowiada jednemu kluczowemu wynikowi w finansowanym przez JPICH projekcie "HOMEE - Możliwości / zagrożenia związane z dziedzictwem w ramach wielkich wydarzeń w Europie". W przeszłości wiele miast stosowało wielkie wydarzenia jako strategię przyspieszenia rozwoju. Tworzenie nowych obiektów i infrastruktur dla wielkich wydarzeń zazwyczaj ukierunkowanych na obszary ekspansji poza historyczną strukturą miasta. Wręcz przeciwnie, organizatorzy wielkich wydarzeń zaczynają coraz częściej decydować się na ponowne wykorzystanie istniejących obiektów i obszarów. Ta zmiana paradygmatu stanowi zarówno potencjalną szansę, jak i zagrożenie dla bogatych w dziedzictwo miast w Europie. Projekt badawczy HOMEE po raz pierwszy bada związki między planowaniem i wdrażaniem wielkich wydarzeń a dziedzictwem kulturowym. Projekt bada przeszłe wydarzenia i wykorzystuje je przy opracowywaniu nowych narzędzi politycznych, które radzą sobie z po...
Wrocław 2016 European Capital of Culture. A new urban vision based on culture, heritage, and social dialogue, J. Sanetra-Szeliga, J. Purchla, P. Knaś, A. Kozioł, A. Dąbrowski,
Wrocław 2016 European Capital of Culture. A new urban vision based on culture, heritage, and social dialogue [in:] Mega-events and heritage: the experience of five European cities. D. Ponzini, Bianchini, G. J.-Tzortzi N., J. Sanetra–Szeliga (red.), International Cultural Centre, Krakow , 2020
With its slogan, Spaces for Beauty, Wrocław 2016 European
Capital of Culture tried on the one han... more With its slogan, Spaces for Beauty, Wrocław 2016 European
Capital of Culture tried on the one hand to tackle the
complicated multicultural past (it is the biggest city in the
world that had its whole population replaced after WWII),
and, on the other, to make the city a true contemporary
meeting point for diverse cultures and people. One of the key
aims was to restore the presence of art, culture and beauty in
public space, public life and people’s daily habits. Heritage
was present in the ECoC concept and in projects related to
memory, identity and history, as well as in the revitalization
of neglected neighborhoods and in adapting historic,
sometimes post-industrial buildings, for new functions.
POSSIBILITIES TO UNLOCK THE HERITAGE POTENTIAL IN POLISH CITIES. RESULTS OF THE SOCIAL STUDY, 2017
The heritage represents a great variety of values. In today's world one of the widely discussed i... more The heritage represents a great variety of values. In today's world one of the widely discussed is its value to act as a development asset, capable of creating social and economic benefits to the community. Economic and social potential, however, can only be unlocked only under certain conditions. The author will discuss the subject of social approval and recognition of the heritage values, linking the heritage's potential to influence local development with the social need to participate in, benefit from, and evaluate such development. The reasoning will be based on a nationwide social study commissioned by National Heritage Board of Poland in 2015, which focuses on citizens' opinions, and in which cities can be seen as fast-growing development entities in search of new development assets.
Projekt okładki: Dorota Bryja-Wiśniewska Projekt grafi czny, skład: Dorota Bryja-Wiśniewska Seria... more Projekt okładki: Dorota Bryja-Wiśniewska Projekt grafi czny, skład: Dorota Bryja-Wiśniewska Seria wydawnicza Dziedzictwo kulturowe w badaniach Tom 1: Polacy wobec dziedzictwa. Raport z badań społecznych
In the past, many cities used mega-events as a strategy to boost development. The creation of new... more In the past, many cities used mega-events as a strategy to boost development. The creation of new facilities and infrastructures for mega-events typically targeted areas of expansion outside the historic city fabric. Today, on the contrary, mega-event organizers are beginning to opt more for the re-use of existing facilities and areas. This paradigm shift represents both a potential opportunity and threat for heritage-rich cities in Europe. The HOMEE research project explores, for the first time, the relationships between the planning and implementation of mega-events and cultural heritage. The project investigates past events and draws on them in the development of new policy tools that deal with these emerging opportunities and threats in planning and implementing mega-events in heritage-rich cities.
In 2013 National Heritage Board of Poland published the report “The social and economic impacts o... more In 2013 National Heritage Board of Poland published the report “The social and economic impacts of cultural heritage. The report from the social survey” which presented the outcomes of the social survey conducted in Poland in 2011, with particular focus on heritage as a driver of socio-economic development.
The survey is a review of the attitudes, opinions and preferences of the general public regarding socio-economic potential of the cultural heritage. The study comprised of two phases, one qualitative and the other quantitative. The former was based on pre¬defined focus groups, the latter - on representative sample of 1005 adults. The qualitative approach was meant to shed light on the sources of opinions and was designed to improve the understanding of the quantitative phase. In this study, NHBP collected respondents’ demographical data, which can be analysed according to age groups, gender, income, place of residence, education etc. NHBP studied villages, small towns and cities separately.
Among others, the report investigated the role of heritage in building social coherence and social capital. It also addressed how heritage improved the quality of life and how it could be employed in urban and sustainable countryside development. 89% of the respondents agreed that heritage played an important social role. On the question of what the most important value of a monument is, over half of the interviewed (62%) answered that the most significant value of heritage was that it provided a testimony to our common history. The survey showed that less than half of the respondents (44%) believed that monuments made them proud of their local environment. Around half of the participants of the survey (54%) answered that monuments played a role in tourism development, which was a source of income for the local community but only just under half of the respondents visited a heritage site recently (49%). The majority of the interviewed (82%) said that it was worth investing public money in heritage.
The survey is unique on a national scale, as subject of the cultural heritage and its potential was not exploited to that extend in any other survey. It reveals if and how the importance of the heritage and its impacts are visible for the society.
The data obtained from the survey has also been developing a methodology for collecting data with regards to the socio-economic impact of heritage.
Books by Anna Koziol
Poradnik, autorstwa ekspertów Narodowego Instytutu Dziedzictwa
oraz Instytutu Rozwoju Miast i Reg... more Poradnik, autorstwa ekspertów Narodowego Instytutu Dziedzictwa
oraz Instytutu Rozwoju Miast i Regionów, opisuje relacje między rewitalizacją i dziedzictwem kulturowym i proponuje konkretne rozwiązania dla gmin chcących w większym zakresie uwzględnić dziedzictwo w rewitalizacji. Stanowi podsumowanie doświadczeń płynących z wdrażania ustawy o rewitalizacji, a przede wszystkim współpracy, jaką Narodowy Instytut Dziedzictwa podjął z samorządami w ramach Centrów Kompetencji NID ds. Rewitalizacji. Wypracowywano wówczas standardy, narzędzia, a także sposoby postępowania z dziedzictwem kulturowym w rewitalizacji. Poradnik prezentuje także zgodne z przepisami ustawy o rewitalizacji, jak i zasadami postępowania z dziedzictwem kulturowym zweryfikowane i rekomendowane dobre praktyki uwzględniania dziedzictwa w rewitalizacji.
Publikacja wydana w 2022 r. przez Narodowy Instytut Dziedzictwa pt.: „Życie między zabytkami. O d... more Publikacja wydana w 2022 r. przez Narodowy Instytut Dziedzictwa pt.: „Życie między zabytkami. O dziedzictwie w rewitalizacji” – stanowi ważny głos w dyskusji na temat miejsca i roli dziedzictwa w rewitalizacji. Łączy interesujące poznawczo, często odmienne, podejścia do problematyki rewitalizacji z udanymi projektami realizowanymi w różnych miejscach Polski tj. Rybnik, Wałbrzych czy Gorzów Wielkopolski. Monografię wyróżnia niezwykle przystępna czytelnikowi forma – mamy przed sobą dziesięć wywiadów z różnymi ekspertami, zarówno ze środowisk konserwatorskich czy samorządowych, jak i praktyków zajmujących się na co dzień rewitalizacją.
Dziedzictwo obok Mnie – poradnik zarządzania dziedzictwem w gminach, 2016
(in Polish) This publication is a comprehensive manual of heritage management for local authoriti... more (in Polish) This publication is a comprehensive manual of heritage management for local authorities, NGOs, leader and other interested actors.
It presents topics in a useful way (measures, advices, traps, step-by-step proceures and so on).
Covered topics:
HERITAGE ASSETS IDENTIFICATION; MAKING A LOCAL HERIATGE DATA BASE
I.1. Local heritage identification;
Immovable heritage;
Movable heritage;
Museum objects;
Archives and historical books collections;
Cultural landscape;
Intangible heritage;
I.2 Heritage assets and their value
Basic values of tangible heritage and their assessment;
Basic values of intangible heritage;
Social and economic values of cultural heritage;
Assessment of social values;
Assessment of economic values;
I.3 Diagnosis of state of preservation and dangers to local heritage
Dangers typical to elements of heritage and their values;
Diagnosis of heritage preservation – how to do it –a proposition for local governments;
LOCAL DEVELOPMENT – CULTURAL HERITAGE POTENCIAL
II.1 Cultural heritage in communities/local development process
II.2 Assessment of heritage potential for local development in the process of local development planning
II.3 Assessment of obstacles of heritage use in development and how to overcome them;
Obstacles in the process of heritage management;
Recognition and assessment of key obstacles for development – how to do it for local heritage;
Overcoming obstacles connected to local heritage;
PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTING HERITAGE MANAGEMENT – INSTRUMENTS AND METHODS
III.1 Heritage protection and care – legal rights and duties of local governments
Monuments register;
Monuments of history title;
Cultural park;
Local inventory of monuments;
Community programme of monuments care;
Pre-spatial planning and spatial planning documents:
- Study on directions and conditions of local spatial plans and zoning Policy;
- Local plan of spatial development;
Study of cultural values protection and its role in conservation policy – supporting municipality promotion;
Substitute performance, Temporary seizure of monument, Expropriation of historic property;
Statutory right of historic property pre-emption;
III.2 Eliminating most common dangers to heritage;
Search of a new function for monuments, in respect for authenticity and heritage values;
III.3 When and how to design a heritage management strategy – programming local development
Programming local development – the core of the process;
Models of local development programming;
Model smart of local development programming and possible embracing of heritage issues;
Heritage in chosen local government documents;
Goals of development and goals of heritage management;
Monitoring;
III.4 Instruments stimulating local enterpreneurship and economy
Instruments supporting enterpreneurship;
Social entrepreneurship; Clusters – possible cooperation based on heritage;
Possibilities of heritage use and founding economic initiatives;
III.5 Community involvement in heritage management – participation mechanisms and methods;
Community involvement in heritage management – social and public participation;
Stages of the public participation process;
Building communication strategy supporting activities for heritage;
Meaning of the role of social life leaders in c-governing of municipality;
III.6 Sociological instruments – methods and way of use
III.7 Tools of heritage knowledge dissemination and local community activation
Education and social development,
Education and economic development;
Review of tools and methods of using heritage in tourism, education and promotion development;
III.8 Financial instruments supporting local heritage management;
From idea to the Project;
Financial measures in the state budget;
Financial measures in European Funds;
Self-government financial measures;
ATTACHMENTS:
Measuring values of cultural goods of UNESCO world heritage ;
Protection of intangible heritage: national list and listing criteria;
Directory of regulations, legal rights and duties of municipalities
concerning heritage;
Example of a questionnaire of personal interview (social research);
Book Reviews by Anna Koziol
Recenzja Monika Murzyn-Kupisz, Dziedzictwo kulturowe a rozwój lokalny, „Zeszyty Naukowe Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego w Krakowie”. Seria specjalna: „Monografie”, nr 221, Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego w Krakowie, Kraków 2012, ss. 350
Uploads
Papers by Anna Koziol
for work migrants from Ukraine in Europe.
Furthermore, following the Russian aggression of
24 February 2022, more than half of people fleeing
Ukraine crossed into Poland. Consequently, Poland
has become an immigration country in a global
perspective - it currently hosts the second largest
community of refugees in the world numbering
an estimated 3.4 million.
The war poses a serious threat to the preservation
and continuity of Ukraine’s cultural heritage.
For the bearers of intangible cultural heritage,
leaving the country is tantamount to detachment
from the community and the cultural space that
has so far provided the context for the cultivation
of traditions and customs. Creating an environment
that would allow for a continued practice of
intangible heritage among refugees is not only
an expression of respect for cultural diversity
and human creativity, but also a sign of utmost
care for the safeguarding of this priceless cultural
wealth for future generations. This report serves
as a point of departure for further development
of activities aimed at safeguarding of intangible
cultural heritage elements among Ukrainian
communities in Poland.
Heritage management in a municipality involves many entities, including owners and holders of heritage, local authorities and public administration, scientists and specialists, and non-governmental organizations. Among them, the local government is one of the most important entity due to the broad competences it has as a guardian, i.e., the owner of historic buildings, and the entity legally designated to protect heritage as a public administration body (Murzyn-Kupisz 2010, 2012; Góral 2012; Gwiazdowska 2016; Pawłowska 2016). Thus, the local government has a wide range of instruments that enable the use of various categories of heritage in local development. These instruments include: the municipal register of monuments, the creation of municipal conservation services, the program of care for monuments, municipal revitalization programs or granting subsidies for conservation work on private buildings entered in the register and included in the register of monuments. The scope of the commune’s influence on heritage is not limited only to monuments, but also extends to intangible heritage, e.g., by co-financing cultural events, supporting artists, organizing museums, community centres and libraries. Such a wide range of heritage management instruments requires full cataloguing and classification, which has not been done so far. In the article, the author attempts to describe and organize the tools at the disposal of local governments, proposing their classification. At the same time, despite the possibility of using cultural heritage in local development tools of heritage management, their use is not complete, and the degree of their use varies territorially. Therefore, the author attempts to assess the actual use of these instruments by communes and to present regional differences. This part of the article will be based on a GUS survey conducted in cooperation with the National Institute of Cultural Heritage of Poland in September 2019 entitled KK-2 Report on the protection of monuments and the care of monuments in the local government. The study conducted allowed for the collection of such a rich statistical database for the protection of monuments in communes in Poland for the first time. The information obtained enables characterisation of the scope and scale of activities undertaken in communes.
Capital of Culture tried on the one hand to tackle the
complicated multicultural past (it is the biggest city in the
world that had its whole population replaced after WWII),
and, on the other, to make the city a true contemporary
meeting point for diverse cultures and people. One of the key
aims was to restore the presence of art, culture and beauty in
public space, public life and people’s daily habits. Heritage
was present in the ECoC concept and in projects related to
memory, identity and history, as well as in the revitalization
of neglected neighborhoods and in adapting historic,
sometimes post-industrial buildings, for new functions.
The survey is a review of the attitudes, opinions and preferences of the general public regarding socio-economic potential of the cultural heritage. The study comprised of two phases, one qualitative and the other quantitative. The former was based on pre¬defined focus groups, the latter - on representative sample of 1005 adults. The qualitative approach was meant to shed light on the sources of opinions and was designed to improve the understanding of the quantitative phase. In this study, NHBP collected respondents’ demographical data, which can be analysed according to age groups, gender, income, place of residence, education etc. NHBP studied villages, small towns and cities separately.
Among others, the report investigated the role of heritage in building social coherence and social capital. It also addressed how heritage improved the quality of life and how it could be employed in urban and sustainable countryside development. 89% of the respondents agreed that heritage played an important social role. On the question of what the most important value of a monument is, over half of the interviewed (62%) answered that the most significant value of heritage was that it provided a testimony to our common history. The survey showed that less than half of the respondents (44%) believed that monuments made them proud of their local environment. Around half of the participants of the survey (54%) answered that monuments played a role in tourism development, which was a source of income for the local community but only just under half of the respondents visited a heritage site recently (49%). The majority of the interviewed (82%) said that it was worth investing public money in heritage.
The survey is unique on a national scale, as subject of the cultural heritage and its potential was not exploited to that extend in any other survey. It reveals if and how the importance of the heritage and its impacts are visible for the society.
The data obtained from the survey has also been developing a methodology for collecting data with regards to the socio-economic impact of heritage.
Books by Anna Koziol
oraz Instytutu Rozwoju Miast i Regionów, opisuje relacje między rewitalizacją i dziedzictwem kulturowym i proponuje konkretne rozwiązania dla gmin chcących w większym zakresie uwzględnić dziedzictwo w rewitalizacji. Stanowi podsumowanie doświadczeń płynących z wdrażania ustawy o rewitalizacji, a przede wszystkim współpracy, jaką Narodowy Instytut Dziedzictwa podjął z samorządami w ramach Centrów Kompetencji NID ds. Rewitalizacji. Wypracowywano wówczas standardy, narzędzia, a także sposoby postępowania z dziedzictwem kulturowym w rewitalizacji. Poradnik prezentuje także zgodne z przepisami ustawy o rewitalizacji, jak i zasadami postępowania z dziedzictwem kulturowym zweryfikowane i rekomendowane dobre praktyki uwzględniania dziedzictwa w rewitalizacji.
It presents topics in a useful way (measures, advices, traps, step-by-step proceures and so on).
Covered topics:
HERITAGE ASSETS IDENTIFICATION; MAKING A LOCAL HERIATGE DATA BASE
I.1. Local heritage identification;
Immovable heritage;
Movable heritage;
Museum objects;
Archives and historical books collections;
Cultural landscape;
Intangible heritage;
I.2 Heritage assets and their value
Basic values of tangible heritage and their assessment;
Basic values of intangible heritage;
Social and economic values of cultural heritage;
Assessment of social values;
Assessment of economic values;
I.3 Diagnosis of state of preservation and dangers to local heritage
Dangers typical to elements of heritage and their values;
Diagnosis of heritage preservation – how to do it –a proposition for local governments;
LOCAL DEVELOPMENT – CULTURAL HERITAGE POTENCIAL
II.1 Cultural heritage in communities/local development process
II.2 Assessment of heritage potential for local development in the process of local development planning
II.3 Assessment of obstacles of heritage use in development and how to overcome them;
Obstacles in the process of heritage management;
Recognition and assessment of key obstacles for development – how to do it for local heritage;
Overcoming obstacles connected to local heritage;
PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTING HERITAGE MANAGEMENT – INSTRUMENTS AND METHODS
III.1 Heritage protection and care – legal rights and duties of local governments
Monuments register;
Monuments of history title;
Cultural park;
Local inventory of monuments;
Community programme of monuments care;
Pre-spatial planning and spatial planning documents:
- Study on directions and conditions of local spatial plans and zoning Policy;
- Local plan of spatial development;
Study of cultural values protection and its role in conservation policy – supporting municipality promotion;
Substitute performance, Temporary seizure of monument, Expropriation of historic property;
Statutory right of historic property pre-emption;
III.2 Eliminating most common dangers to heritage;
Search of a new function for monuments, in respect for authenticity and heritage values;
III.3 When and how to design a heritage management strategy – programming local development
Programming local development – the core of the process;
Models of local development programming;
Model smart of local development programming and possible embracing of heritage issues;
Heritage in chosen local government documents;
Goals of development and goals of heritage management;
Monitoring;
III.4 Instruments stimulating local enterpreneurship and economy
Instruments supporting enterpreneurship;
Social entrepreneurship; Clusters – possible cooperation based on heritage;
Possibilities of heritage use and founding economic initiatives;
III.5 Community involvement in heritage management – participation mechanisms and methods;
Community involvement in heritage management – social and public participation;
Stages of the public participation process;
Building communication strategy supporting activities for heritage;
Meaning of the role of social life leaders in c-governing of municipality;
III.6 Sociological instruments – methods and way of use
III.7 Tools of heritage knowledge dissemination and local community activation
Education and social development,
Education and economic development;
Review of tools and methods of using heritage in tourism, education and promotion development;
III.8 Financial instruments supporting local heritage management;
From idea to the Project;
Financial measures in the state budget;
Financial measures in European Funds;
Self-government financial measures;
ATTACHMENTS:
Measuring values of cultural goods of UNESCO world heritage ;
Protection of intangible heritage: national list and listing criteria;
Directory of regulations, legal rights and duties of municipalities
concerning heritage;
Example of a questionnaire of personal interview (social research);
Book Reviews by Anna Koziol
for work migrants from Ukraine in Europe.
Furthermore, following the Russian aggression of
24 February 2022, more than half of people fleeing
Ukraine crossed into Poland. Consequently, Poland
has become an immigration country in a global
perspective - it currently hosts the second largest
community of refugees in the world numbering
an estimated 3.4 million.
The war poses a serious threat to the preservation
and continuity of Ukraine’s cultural heritage.
For the bearers of intangible cultural heritage,
leaving the country is tantamount to detachment
from the community and the cultural space that
has so far provided the context for the cultivation
of traditions and customs. Creating an environment
that would allow for a continued practice of
intangible heritage among refugees is not only
an expression of respect for cultural diversity
and human creativity, but also a sign of utmost
care for the safeguarding of this priceless cultural
wealth for future generations. This report serves
as a point of departure for further development
of activities aimed at safeguarding of intangible
cultural heritage elements among Ukrainian
communities in Poland.
Heritage management in a municipality involves many entities, including owners and holders of heritage, local authorities and public administration, scientists and specialists, and non-governmental organizations. Among them, the local government is one of the most important entity due to the broad competences it has as a guardian, i.e., the owner of historic buildings, and the entity legally designated to protect heritage as a public administration body (Murzyn-Kupisz 2010, 2012; Góral 2012; Gwiazdowska 2016; Pawłowska 2016). Thus, the local government has a wide range of instruments that enable the use of various categories of heritage in local development. These instruments include: the municipal register of monuments, the creation of municipal conservation services, the program of care for monuments, municipal revitalization programs or granting subsidies for conservation work on private buildings entered in the register and included in the register of monuments. The scope of the commune’s influence on heritage is not limited only to monuments, but also extends to intangible heritage, e.g., by co-financing cultural events, supporting artists, organizing museums, community centres and libraries. Such a wide range of heritage management instruments requires full cataloguing and classification, which has not been done so far. In the article, the author attempts to describe and organize the tools at the disposal of local governments, proposing their classification. At the same time, despite the possibility of using cultural heritage in local development tools of heritage management, their use is not complete, and the degree of their use varies territorially. Therefore, the author attempts to assess the actual use of these instruments by communes and to present regional differences. This part of the article will be based on a GUS survey conducted in cooperation with the National Institute of Cultural Heritage of Poland in September 2019 entitled KK-2 Report on the protection of monuments and the care of monuments in the local government. The study conducted allowed for the collection of such a rich statistical database for the protection of monuments in communes in Poland for the first time. The information obtained enables characterisation of the scope and scale of activities undertaken in communes.
Capital of Culture tried on the one hand to tackle the
complicated multicultural past (it is the biggest city in the
world that had its whole population replaced after WWII),
and, on the other, to make the city a true contemporary
meeting point for diverse cultures and people. One of the key
aims was to restore the presence of art, culture and beauty in
public space, public life and people’s daily habits. Heritage
was present in the ECoC concept and in projects related to
memory, identity and history, as well as in the revitalization
of neglected neighborhoods and in adapting historic,
sometimes post-industrial buildings, for new functions.
The survey is a review of the attitudes, opinions and preferences of the general public regarding socio-economic potential of the cultural heritage. The study comprised of two phases, one qualitative and the other quantitative. The former was based on pre¬defined focus groups, the latter - on representative sample of 1005 adults. The qualitative approach was meant to shed light on the sources of opinions and was designed to improve the understanding of the quantitative phase. In this study, NHBP collected respondents’ demographical data, which can be analysed according to age groups, gender, income, place of residence, education etc. NHBP studied villages, small towns and cities separately.
Among others, the report investigated the role of heritage in building social coherence and social capital. It also addressed how heritage improved the quality of life and how it could be employed in urban and sustainable countryside development. 89% of the respondents agreed that heritage played an important social role. On the question of what the most important value of a monument is, over half of the interviewed (62%) answered that the most significant value of heritage was that it provided a testimony to our common history. The survey showed that less than half of the respondents (44%) believed that monuments made them proud of their local environment. Around half of the participants of the survey (54%) answered that monuments played a role in tourism development, which was a source of income for the local community but only just under half of the respondents visited a heritage site recently (49%). The majority of the interviewed (82%) said that it was worth investing public money in heritage.
The survey is unique on a national scale, as subject of the cultural heritage and its potential was not exploited to that extend in any other survey. It reveals if and how the importance of the heritage and its impacts are visible for the society.
The data obtained from the survey has also been developing a methodology for collecting data with regards to the socio-economic impact of heritage.
oraz Instytutu Rozwoju Miast i Regionów, opisuje relacje między rewitalizacją i dziedzictwem kulturowym i proponuje konkretne rozwiązania dla gmin chcących w większym zakresie uwzględnić dziedzictwo w rewitalizacji. Stanowi podsumowanie doświadczeń płynących z wdrażania ustawy o rewitalizacji, a przede wszystkim współpracy, jaką Narodowy Instytut Dziedzictwa podjął z samorządami w ramach Centrów Kompetencji NID ds. Rewitalizacji. Wypracowywano wówczas standardy, narzędzia, a także sposoby postępowania z dziedzictwem kulturowym w rewitalizacji. Poradnik prezentuje także zgodne z przepisami ustawy o rewitalizacji, jak i zasadami postępowania z dziedzictwem kulturowym zweryfikowane i rekomendowane dobre praktyki uwzględniania dziedzictwa w rewitalizacji.
It presents topics in a useful way (measures, advices, traps, step-by-step proceures and so on).
Covered topics:
HERITAGE ASSETS IDENTIFICATION; MAKING A LOCAL HERIATGE DATA BASE
I.1. Local heritage identification;
Immovable heritage;
Movable heritage;
Museum objects;
Archives and historical books collections;
Cultural landscape;
Intangible heritage;
I.2 Heritage assets and their value
Basic values of tangible heritage and their assessment;
Basic values of intangible heritage;
Social and economic values of cultural heritage;
Assessment of social values;
Assessment of economic values;
I.3 Diagnosis of state of preservation and dangers to local heritage
Dangers typical to elements of heritage and their values;
Diagnosis of heritage preservation – how to do it –a proposition for local governments;
LOCAL DEVELOPMENT – CULTURAL HERITAGE POTENCIAL
II.1 Cultural heritage in communities/local development process
II.2 Assessment of heritage potential for local development in the process of local development planning
II.3 Assessment of obstacles of heritage use in development and how to overcome them;
Obstacles in the process of heritage management;
Recognition and assessment of key obstacles for development – how to do it for local heritage;
Overcoming obstacles connected to local heritage;
PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTING HERITAGE MANAGEMENT – INSTRUMENTS AND METHODS
III.1 Heritage protection and care – legal rights and duties of local governments
Monuments register;
Monuments of history title;
Cultural park;
Local inventory of monuments;
Community programme of monuments care;
Pre-spatial planning and spatial planning documents:
- Study on directions and conditions of local spatial plans and zoning Policy;
- Local plan of spatial development;
Study of cultural values protection and its role in conservation policy – supporting municipality promotion;
Substitute performance, Temporary seizure of monument, Expropriation of historic property;
Statutory right of historic property pre-emption;
III.2 Eliminating most common dangers to heritage;
Search of a new function for monuments, in respect for authenticity and heritage values;
III.3 When and how to design a heritage management strategy – programming local development
Programming local development – the core of the process;
Models of local development programming;
Model smart of local development programming and possible embracing of heritage issues;
Heritage in chosen local government documents;
Goals of development and goals of heritage management;
Monitoring;
III.4 Instruments stimulating local enterpreneurship and economy
Instruments supporting enterpreneurship;
Social entrepreneurship; Clusters – possible cooperation based on heritage;
Possibilities of heritage use and founding economic initiatives;
III.5 Community involvement in heritage management – participation mechanisms and methods;
Community involvement in heritage management – social and public participation;
Stages of the public participation process;
Building communication strategy supporting activities for heritage;
Meaning of the role of social life leaders in c-governing of municipality;
III.6 Sociological instruments – methods and way of use
III.7 Tools of heritage knowledge dissemination and local community activation
Education and social development,
Education and economic development;
Review of tools and methods of using heritage in tourism, education and promotion development;
III.8 Financial instruments supporting local heritage management;
From idea to the Project;
Financial measures in the state budget;
Financial measures in European Funds;
Self-government financial measures;
ATTACHMENTS:
Measuring values of cultural goods of UNESCO world heritage ;
Protection of intangible heritage: national list and listing criteria;
Directory of regulations, legal rights and duties of municipalities
concerning heritage;
Example of a questionnaire of personal interview (social research);