This project has focused on collating knowledge on the impact of material cultural heritage (MCH) on social welfare – with an aim to bolster the social dimension of the sustainability goals. Grounded in a literature review on the topic, data was collected and analyzed through a survey and eight case studies in four different Nordic countries. Additionally, feedbacks and inputs have been assimilated in the case studies to shed light on how to address the topic and existing conditions so that the coupling between social welfare and MCH is strengthened.
The literature review has primarily concentrated on Scandinavian literature to employ existing knowledge in both the selection of case studies and framing of the survey questions. However, some studies from Scotland have also been reviewed where surveys and case studies were carried out which were found to be of relevance for the current study. Studies which were situated in vastly different contexts were not included in the literature review.
Several of the studies reviewed in this project show that heritage buildings and cultural environments function as place markers in various ways. To a great degree, they get linked with identity formation and these spatial markings help people identify with the place they live in. Furthermore, whether local authorities actively use MCH in place development, or as input factors in industries such as tourism is also dependent on if and how these heritage buildings and MCH are being positioned in the planning strategies.
In a survey conducted in summer 2022 by Opinion AS, respondents in Norway, Sweden and Denmark were asked about the role MCH played in the respondents' childhood through questions like how often they were taken to MCH etc. In order to establish a linkage between the past and present, a number of additional questions were asked which broached upon topics like if and how does the MCH makes their current place of residence more attractive to settle in, whether the municipality uses MCH as a resource for community development, and whether the respondents take their visitors to MCH in their municipality or in its vicinity. The vast majority of respondents were aware of the MCH in their immediate vicinity and were proud of it, even if ‘access to nature’ remains a stronger determinant of where people decided to settle down. Though some variations were found between the case countries, the differences were marginal. We also find that interest in the MCH increases with an increase in the age of the respondents.
A question was also posed related to the use of MCH in connection to the Covid-19 pandemic, and analyses highlight that there exists a clear increase in all three countries, albeit the highest increase in use of MCH was noticed in Denmark.
A total of eight case studies were carried out in Denmark, Sweden, Norway and the Faroe Islands. The case studies were selected with the help of the reference group members, who were drawn from two from government bodies in Sweden and Norway, from a nonprofit organization in Denmark (Real Dania), from volunteer organization, from a university and one retired person who also runs his own consultancy. The cases were selected through a multi-criterion analysis – two of the cases cross borders they represent rock art that you will find on both sides of the Norwegian and Swedish border – but they have very different status in their local communities, the cases represent different eras, some have a more rural character, while others have a more urban character. Some of the cases have been characterized by out-migration and displacement, while others have had a reversed flow. There has also been a focus on selecting cases that have witnessed transformation and where certain functions have been changed to make way for new uses. These cases have then been compared with those retaining their original use and purpose.
Furthermore, semi-structured interviews were conducted all the cases. While all the selected cases are important cultural markers in their local environments, a few cases act as regional and even national capital for MCH. All the selected cases exhibit a strong potential for development, and there exists a number of conflicts linked to the MCH. The conflicts are often related to the use of means rather than the goal of the MCH, given the consistency of the finding that the MCH are important for both the residents and for those who work with them. The MCH can also be an important contributor to public health provided this (hidden) potential is tapped into. This aspect is also linked to results from survey analyses highlighting that the use of MCH increased during the pandemic. A varied understanding of access to nature vs. culture needs to be formulated and addressed at both municipal and regional planning levels – people have different needs and desires and not everyone is drawn to nature, which necessitates that the authorities working with emergency plans bear in mind that the supply to nature or culture in crisis situations is not the same but bear strong consequences for general well-being, even if the next crisis will not necessarily be a pandemic.
Additionally, many MCH are being serve through the voluntary sector, especially among the elderly in the respective local communities. With an aging population, this can become an important resource and it can therefore be a good idea to facilitate interactions between the volunteers.
To conclude, there is a need for streamlining the understanding of how MCH are currently functioning for both residents and tourists, their position in the municipal and regional planning, their interlocking with general well-being and their mitigating role in times of crises. Further studies should be conducted to address these variables in detail and facilitate a cross-border understanding, with special reference to the Nordics where access to nature is already an established thematic area both in the field of research and (regional, urban and rural) planning