Heidelberg Cultural Heritage’s - Policies and values of

the communities surrounding, vivifying and visiting it.

Vítor Ferreira

vitor.ferreira@student.fl.uc.pt

Centro de Estudos de Geografia e Ordenamento do Território (CEGOT)

Colégio de S. Jerónimo, 3004-530 Coimbra, Portugal

Universidade de Coimbra (Portugal) / Universität Paderborn (Germany)

Ferreira, V (2013). Heidelberg Cultural Heritage’s - Policies and values of the communities

surrounding, vivifying and visiting it. Conference Proceedings CD-ROM: Tourism and the

Shifting Values of Cultural Heritage: Visiting Pasts, Developing Futures. April 5-9,

2013. Taipei: Taiwan. ISBN: 978-070442-839-3

1

Title - Heidelberg Cultural Heritage’s - Policies and values of the communities

surrounding, vivifying and visiting it.

Author - Vítor Ferreira

Affiliation - Centro de Estudos de Geografia e Ordenamento do Território (CEGOT)

Keywords - Heidelberg; Values; Cultural Heritage; Students; Residents;

Representations;

Abstract –

Cultural Heritage has different representations as we address different audiences,

from identity values to authenticity, trough rarity, but also its economic potential. The

way we see the concept differs. All this is because the concept of Cultural Heritage has

undergone a steady evolution in recent decades, giving it a new centrality in the social

sciences. The centrality, that was in the field of preservation and conservation of

heritage, is now the result of what some authors call “the triple extension of the

concept”, typological, chronological and geographical, extended to hitherto non-existent

scopes, following the functions that the contemporary society reserves for Heritage and,

therefore, the change in the way the different agents look at it.

These different looks have been anchored in the recent past by an extreme

exploitation of the Cultural Heritage Resource, by the policy makers, in terms of

potential touristic resource.

But the contemporary conception of Cultural Heritage advocates the involvement

of citizens and this tends to be completely ignored by policies that minimize the

intervention of institutional actors in it, so as in the communication.

A proficuous strategy, to be successful needs the support of the communities that

live these Cultural Heritage elements, but over all a comprehension on the values that

the Cultural Heritage assets represent for the different audiences that coexist with them.

A policy of heritage should be one that will be equally capable of attracting

visitors, respects the customs related to heritage and don’t constitutes a

deterritorialization factor, alienating the community(ies) and destroying their

identity(ies).

Considering that the city of Heidelberg (Germany) with his University and Old

Town, aims to be classified as World Heritage, a study is required to understand which

representations exist, as well as how the community is involved in the promotion of the

several patrimonial assets of the city.

The aim of this article is to analyze the different representations held by the

different populations that vivify, in one or other way, the Cultural Heritage in the city of

Heidelberg.

Even though that the values of Cultural Heritage are a priority area for policy

intervention, the studies that analyze these representations and it´s development on the

policy actions are rare. With the present article is intended, through literature review,

questionnaires among the different populations groups (Work/Live and Students) to

describe and trace the evolution of the values and representations concerning the

Cultural Heritage in the city of Heidelberg.

As a preliminary result, we concluded that not a single strategy of institutional

authorities, national, regional or local is known, regarding the different values that arise

from the groups that live the Cultural Heritage.

1. - Introduction

2

The postmodern society is characterized by a set of opinions that goes beyond

existing single vision in the previous Fordist paradigm. The postmodern period

transformed the relief, the sense, the face of social and economic culture (Lipovetsky &

Serroy, 2010).

Globalization has brought amplified attention towards the goods that allow the

assertion of spaces in the context where a global culture prevails. The diversification of

consumerist experiences allows culture and the patrimonial assets to have a central

place in this struggle for assertion. This claim is processed, usually, with the outline of

local and / or regional development strategies anchored in Culture. These strategies are

essentially the stimulation of the development of tourism products able to attract flows

of visitors and encourage the desired development. However, it must be remembered

that cultural tourism is not, strictly speaking, a recent innovation nor a specific product

of contemporary societies (Henriques, 1996).

Local development and the strategies outlined may explain, in part, the evolution

that the Cultural Heritage concept suffered. But it’s also as an element of identity

affirmation that we can understand it’s nuclearity in the different cultural policies

outlined. It’s important to point out, as stated Eduardo Henriques (1996) that the interest

in History and Culture is given by how conservation, rehabilitation, refunctionalisation

and protection of heritage issues become a current subject of attention of the public

opinion and state officials.

Nowadays, the alternative tourism prevails resulting, as referred by Cavaco (1996),

in the respect of territories and populations visited (heritages, cultures, value systems)

and presenting itself with the intention to defend and promote balanced and harmonious

developments among the visited community and visitors. The impacts that Heritage

suffers today are the result of an accelerated time-space compression that, according

Cavaco (1996), are due to a greater rationalization of civilizational values, but

essentially due to the decrease of the distances of recreational areas and tourism and its

greater regional dispersion.

It is empirical knowledge that the territory is now more valued if it has cultural

property and heritage, whatever it is natural and/or environmental. In the present work

are mainly explored issues related to Cultural Heritage. The Cultural Heritage, due to

the mentioned segmentation of Tourism and the consequent increased demand for

Cultural Tourism, makes that gradually we watch to the refunctionalisation of the past

that Paulo Peixoto (2003) considers that acquires very different forms oscillating

between reactivation, reinvention and idealization.

It is objective to think on how the concept of Cultural Heritage evolves. What

relations arising from its forms and functions are established between heritage, leisure

and tourism, and, finally, how it is recognized by the different local communities and

the different social actors.

Therefore, it is crucial to understand how Heritage is conceptualized, but also how

was processed the semantic openness of the concept, to understand what values the

surrounding communities underline in it.

2. - Heritage(s): Evolution of the Concept

In the current context, the concept of Heritage is substantially extended and from

a concept which only covered historical monuments, we find ourselves today facing an

even larger reality that holds the natural, cultural heritage, and more recently the

intangible heritage.

The concept of Heritage, and the concerns related to this subject, developed

considerably in the last 150 years and, according to Gregory J. Ashworth (cited by

Henriques, 2003), it is possible to identify three evolutionary stages in its approach.

3

Therefore, since 1850, we have a first stage which is primarily focused on the

preservation of artifacts and buildings from the past. This preservation was mainly

limited to monuments where the predominant qualities were age and beauty.

From the 60s of the twentieth century, is possible to identify a progressive shift of

the paradigm, the concerns are no longer focus on the preservation but on the

reuse/conservation of Heritage. The attentions are no longer on the parts but on the total,

that is, the context in which the patrimonial element is integrated is now considered

essential.

With the end of the 80's and early 90's, there is a new change in the notion of

heritage assets and these become the target of an active notion – assets in way of

patrimonialization - as opposed to the passive notion prevailing earlier. It is a dynamic

idea that, as defended by Henriques (2003), considers heritage and its valuation with

multiple purposes, from teaching, to economic and utility purposes, among others.

From reading the main international legal documents concerning Cultural

Heritage, the attention goes to, first, to the Athens Charter of 1931, but the first

conceptual definition, however, only appears in 1964 with the International

Charter for the Conservation and Restoration of Monuments and Sites, also known as

the Venice Charter, which recognizes the value of historical monuments, but also adds,

as pointed by Vecco (2010), that its protection to be a common responsibility for future

generations, referring that it’s our obligation to make this transmission respecting the

authenticity in which it was found.

Deconstructing the concept, we can see that what today is known as Heritage, and

which underlie the main policies, arises from two distinct semantic ideas. On the one

hand, we have the English concept heritage, and secondly, the French concept

patrimoine that may constitute as another topic of discussion. One must keep in mind

that the English concept, in its origin, characterizes essentially what is transmitted

between generations, in a vertical organization, and the French expression is essentially

horizontal because semantically it carries more than transmission, reflecting the notion

of preservation and conservation with the intention of transmission, one operation that

was imposed in this domain (Vecco, 2010).

If we look at the set of conventions that somehow are relate to Cultural Heritage

and its evolution during the last fifty years, we see that Cultural Heritage has become a

growing concern to the major international guidelines, since the Hague Convention in

1954, the European Cultural Convention in 1954, to the Paris Convention in 1970. The

landmark was constituted by the Convention for the Protection of the World Cultural

and Natural Heritage of 1972, the Convention for the Protection of the Architectural

Heritage of Europe in 1985, the London Convention in 1969, reviewed by the La

Valletta Convention in 1992, the UNIDROIT Convention in 1995, the Convention on

the Protection of Underwater Cultural Heritage in 2001 and, finally, the Convention on

the Value of Cultural Heritage for Society in 2005.

These resolutions are the result of the action of a number of international organizations

like the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO),

the World Tourism Organization (UNWTO), the International Council of Monuments

and Sites (ICOMOS) the International Council of Museums (ICOM) and, finally, the

European Union and Council of Europe.

2.2. - Culture, Cultural Heritage and Administrative Organization

Germany is historically characterized by a federal state organization. We can say,

with more or less independence, that culture and cultural policies are, with rare

exception periods, characterized by decentralization and its definition is the

responsibility of its different "Länder". The organization of cultural policies could be

4

defined as essentially local in relation to internal cultural politics, being the

responsibility of the central state, the "Bund" only the external cultural policy (Wagner

& Blumenreich, 2012).

This responsibility is embodied in the Constitution drafted in 1990, concerning the

reunification of West Germany with the German Democratic Republic. The Article 5 of

the Constitution1 refers to the freedom of artistic creation and management of culture,

but also encourages the creation of a cultural state. This constitution is very clear in its

Article 30 when it refers that "except as otherwise provided or permitted by this

Constitution, the exercise of state powers and the discharge of state functions is a matter

for the Länder".

The concept of culture in Germany has suffered an evolution, as has happened

internationally. The debate started in the 70's in the context of a "New Cultural Policy"

has made that from a concept oriented towards the traditional culture system handed

down generations, today we are facing a broader concept and multi-focused, which

comprehends the creativity and contemporary artistic creation, traditional cultural

institutions, but also the culture of everyday life (Wagner & Blumenreich 2012).

The cultural policy to be followed, as mentioned, is the responsibility of the

different "Länder" but also of the Municipalities. As referred by Wagner & Blumnreich

(2012) the scope and priority areas can vary greatly from Länder to Länder and from

municipality to municipality.

We have to emphasize the legislative reform handled by the entry into force on

September 1th 2006 of the "Föderalismusreform", which in the field of culture and

cultural policies have made some changes in what concerns the expertise, but regarding

Cultural Heritage it only places on the direct responsibility of the "Bund" the issues

related to the protection of exports of German Cultural Heritage2. However, this system

of decentralization originates problems regarding the outline of a political culture and

cultural heritage.

If, on one hand, the "Bund", and as such the federal government, is responsible for

the safeguarding of the patrimonial assets considered as having national and global

importance, the relations with the several international institutions3 related to Culture

and Cultural Heritage (e.g. UNESCO, Council of Europe, among others), as well as

further promotion of the cultural unity of the country, it is however the "Länder" that is

responsible for the operationalization of cultural and patrimonial policies to be followed.

Between the two levels of government, it must be noted the existence

of "Kultusministerkonferenz" (KMK), also know the Conference of the Ministers of

Education and Cultural Affairs of the Länder in the Federal Republic of Germany,

organization that brings together the different Länder ministers responsible for Culture

and Education, and its responsible for the co-operation between them. The Conference

of the Ministers of Education and Cultural Affairs of the Länder in the Federal Republic

of Germany is also responsible for the interconnection between the Bund and the Länder,

regarding, for example, the statement and recommendation of patrimonial assets for

inclusion in the list of UNESCO World Heritage.

Since the definition of cultural policies and patrimonial asset is given by the

different "Länder", let’s see what skills they defend in their Fundamental Laws. The

Fundamental Law4, in the case of the State of Baden-Württemberg, defends in Article 3,

C, and nr. 1 that “the State and local authorities promote cultural life and sport while

1 "Grundgesetz für die Bundesrepublik Deutschland (GG) in der im Bundesgesetzblatt Teil III, Gliederungsnummer

100-1, veröffentlichten bereinigten Fassung, das zuletzt durch Artikel 1 des Gesetzes vom 11. Juli 2012 (BGBl. I S.

1478) geändert worden ist". 2 GG Article. 73 5a. 3 GG Article 32 1. 4 Verfassung des Landes Baden-Württemberg vom 11. November 1953 (GBl. S. 173), mit mit Änderungen und

Ergänzungen bis 6. Mai 2008 (GBI. S. 119)

5

respecting the autonomy of each other”. This fundamental law adds, in point 2 that the

“landscapes and art, history, or natural monuments, enjoy from public care and

protection by the State and municipalities”.

We can see that the access to culture and the protection of patrimonial assets,

landscapes of artistic, historical or natural interest, are defended in the Fundamental

Law of this state. Adding that its preservation, but also its protection, is the

responsibility of the State of Baden-Wüttermberg but also of the local authorities.

The legislation related to the Cultural Heritage 5 in the state of Baden-

Württemberg is one of the oldest of German Federal Republic and dates from 1971. It

considers, in its Article 2, point 1, that Cultural Heritage are the things, collections of

things and parts of things, which preservation has a scientific, artistic or homeland

historical public interest.

As mentioned by Kiesow (2000) the states of Baden-Württemberg and Bremen

are the only ones that circumscribe the protection and safeguard of the cultural heritage

elements to that ones that have homeland historical public interest, in contrast with all

the other federal states that value the historic public interest.

As “things, collections of things and parts of things”, Kiesow (2000) understands

the Buildings, parts of Buildings, equipment of these Buildings, Landscapes, Sites,

Streets, but also the parts of a district or of a Building. The legislation also refers that

the surrounding areas, have an influence in the lecture of the Cultural Heritage assets

and must be safeguarded and preserved.

In administrative terms (see Image 1) the safeguarding and protection of Cultural

Heritage in the state of Baden-Württemberg is organized hierarchically.

On the Top of the Cultural Heritage Authorities, we find in this case the Finance

and Economics Ministry from Baden-Württemberg. This is followed by the Upper

Authorities that are composed by the four Regional Councils, namely Freiburg,

Karlsruhe, Tübingen and Stuttgart. In this last one, we also find the State Office for

Cultural Heritage that is responsible 6 to assist and support statewide all the other

cultural heritage authorities in all matters related with Cultural Heritage. Among other

things, this Regional Council also has the responsibility to create statewide uniform

criteria 7 for evaluation and assessment of cultural heritage elements, but also to

represent both internally and externally8, as well as to prepare all matters related with

5 Gesetz zum Schutz der Kulturdenkmale (DSchG) in der Fassung vom 6. Dezember 1983 6 DSchG Article 3 (2) 7 DSchG Article 3 (2) 4. 8 DSchG Article 3 (2) 7.

Image 1 – Cultural Heritage Authorities in Baden-Württemberg - Source: http://www.denkmalpflege-bw.de

6

Image 2 – Localization of Heidelberg

Source: Created by Diogo Azevedo

public relations to be carried out in coordination with the referred top Cultural Heritage

Authority from the federal state.

At the Upper Cultural Heritage Authority is foreseen the creation of a Cultural

Heritage Council 9 . This shall be constituted by representatives of conservation

authorities, the state construction department, representatives from the churches, from

the local federations and cultural heritage owners, but also by other persons that have

particular interest in the questions of cultural heritage preservation and safeguarding.

This Cultural Heritage Council is to be consulted by the upper conservation authorities

in all decisions of fundamental importance.

At the bottom of the cultural heritage administration we find the Lower Cultural

Heritage Authorities consisting of cities, towns, counties, and management communities.

In the present case the lowest cultural heritage public authority is the Heidelberg City

Council and his Office for Building Law and Historic Preservation.

3. - Heidelberg’s Communities Values

This case study is established as an exploratory and

initial study, about the identification of populations with

different Cultural Heritage in the city of Heidelberg, the

values and the importance they attribute to it.

Heidelberg is a city of Germany (see Image 2) located

in the valley of the River Neckar, in northwest Baden-

Württemberg and the fifth largest city in the state of Baden-

Württemberg. It is an urban district or "Stadtkreis", which

means that it has the state administrative district - "Kreis"

and depends on the "Regierungsbezirk" of Karlsruhe.

The questionnaires are bilingual (German and English)

and were conducted among two population groups defined,

on the one hand, by Students of the Ruprecht-Karls-

Universität Heidelberg, and on the other, by workers and residents in the city of

Heidelberg, between November 2012 and February 2013. These questionnaires are

based on a random probability sample constituted of 100 respondents in each population

group defined. The setting this number of respondents is based on achieving a

Confidence Level of 95% and 0.1 Margin of Error (Abreu, 2006; Krejcie & Morgan,

1970; Kenny, 1986). All data were analyzed using the IBM SPSS Statistical Software

Package for Social Sciences 20 © and MS Office Excel©.

In the definition of the samples, the number 147 312 was taken as the total

number of Residents of the city of Heidelberg on December 31th 2011 (Schwarz, 2012)

so as the

total

number of

Students

registered

at the

Ruprecht-

Karls-

Universität

Heidelberg

that was 28

097 on June

1st 2012

(Ruprecht-

9 DSchG Art. 4 (1) 1.

Chart 1 – Sample Students – Gender and Age Groups

Chart 2 –Sample Work/Live – Gender and Age Groups

7

Karls-Universität Heidelberg, 2012).

The sample referring to Students (see Chart 1) consists of 59,00% female and

41,00% male. The sample referring to Work/Live (see Chart 2) has the same

distribution by gender. In the Students sample the main groups are the 15 to 24 years

old and 25 to 34 years old with 69,00% and 26,00% respectively. In the sample of

Work/Live the age distribution is bigger with the predominance of the group of 25 to 34

years old with 24,00%, followed by the group 15/24 with 22,00% and thirdly there is

the group of 35/44 years old with 14,00%.

With the analysis of the qualifications we can see that in both samples we are

facing high level qualifications. In the Students sample (see Chart 3) we can see that

28,00% of the Students are attending a Bachelor degree, 16,00% a Master, 38,00%

finish with a Staatsexamen, 5,00% Lehramt and 10,00% with PhD and Postdoc.

Analyzing the Work/Live sample (see Chart 4), the most representative qualifications

are the Vocational Education with 20%, Bachelor with 18% and the post-graduation

education is highest with a number of individuals with a Master’s degree representing

23% and 18% with a PhD of the total sample.

Regarding the nationality of the respondents (see Chart 5 and 6), the German

nationality stands out in both samples, representing 75.53% in the Students sample and

82.80% in the Work/Live sample. The remaining nationalities with higher expression in

the Students sample are the Chinese with 5.32%, the Italian with 4.26% and the Spanish

with 3.19%. The other nationalities represent 1.06% of the sample. Also in the

Work/Live group there are 4.30% of Italians and 2.15% of Finnish. The remaining

nationalities present in the sample Work/Live represent 1.08%.

Chart 2 – Sample Students – Current End Degree

Chart 2 – Sample Work/Live – Educational Attainment

Chart 5 – Sample Students – Nationality

Chart 6 – Sample Work/Live – Nationality

8

Chart 7 – Visited City’s Cultural Heritage – Both Samples

In order to be able to determine what

values and representations the population of the

city have regarding the cultural heritage that

surrounds them, it is important to establish the

percentage of people that in both samples have

visited the city's cultural heritage, as well as

which cultural heritage was visited. In this sense

we can verify (see Chart 7) that in the sample

Work/Live the percentage of who have visited

the patrimonial assets stands at 85.90% contrary

to 14.10% that responded that they never visited

any patrimonial asset. Regarding the Students

sample, the number of respondents who have

visited the patrimonial assets of the city falls considerably, with only 61.60% of the

respondents that have visited at least one patrimonial asset, in contrast to 38.40% who

never visited the cultural heritage city.

Regarding the heritage assets visited, we will consider the first two answers of the

questionnaires in both samples. The answer was intentionally left open, in order to

establish, based on the answers, the representations that the respondents have of the

corpus that constitutes the cultural heritage of the city (see Chart 8). Considered the city

of Baroque, the "Schloss", that is Heidelberg’s Castle, is among the most referenced

heritage elements in the two samples analyzed. The “Schloss” is mentioned in both

samples by 90.61% of the Students and by 92.31% of the Work/Live. The second

heritage element most mentioned by the respondents is the "Altstadt", that is the Old

Town of Heidelberg. We can see that 28.21% of the Students and 45.38% of the

Work/Live point out this patrimonial asset of the city. The open answer to this question

allows immediately to verify that the "Altstadt" is considered as cultural heritage by a

significantly lower number of people than it would be expected based on the daily life

experience that the both groups analyzed have with this asset.

In the same condition we can found the Ruprecht-Karls-Universität Heidelberg. In

this case, the number of respondents who think the university as cultural heritage is

considerably different in the two samples. 12.10% of the Work/Live point out this

patrimonial asset, but only 1.80% of the Students considered the University as one of

the city's heritage assets. The daily experience of Students in this element seems to

withdraw the quality of cultural heritage to the patrimonial assets under the

responsibility of the Ruprecht-Karls-Universität Heidelberg.

Chart 8 – Visited City’s Cultural Heritage – Both Samples

9

Another patrimonial asset used extensively in the tourism promotion of the city of

Heidelberg, in combination with the Castle, is the "Alte Brücke" or Old Bridge. It is an

important reference that we can find in the tourism promotion brochures as well in

several merchandising products representative of the city. However, this heritage asset

is referred only by 4,55% of the Work/Live, in clear opposition to what happened with

references to the University, and 22,30% of the respondents in the sample of Students.

Another element that can be included in the group of heritage assets of the city, as

it is a Cultural Landscape of reference, is the "Philosophenweg". This element is

identified by 12,82% of the Students sample but only by 4,55% of the Work/Live of the

city.

With a closer look, we can see that the answers also refer Concerts, 2,56% by the

Students and 3,03% by the Work/Live. Reference to Cinema is also mentioned by 1,25%

of the Work/Live of the city, and Theatre by 6,14% of the Students and by 10,08% of

the Work/Live. Although we are in the presence of cultural assets, their inclusion in a

corpus of heritage assets of the city can only be performed under a broader

interpretation of the concept. It is acceptable that these assets incorporate one corpus of

the intangible cultural heritage of the city due to the uniqueness, antiquity and

differentiation that these events have reached in this particular territory and that allows

his affirmation.

Concerning the valuation of the visits made by the visitors, regarding the aspects

that particularly pleased the respondents (see Table 1) that have visited the Cultural

Heritage of the city, we can see that in both samples the Preservation was the element

that most pleased the respondents. Of all the answers, 24,30% of the Work/Live and

23,80% of the Students consider it as the most important element of the visit. The

Authenticity of the heritage assets is also one of the elements most pointed out with

20,90% of Work/Live and 24,40% of Students highlighting this feature. Rareness, with

14,80% of the Work/Live and 16,30% of Students, as well as Access, with 12,60% of

Work/Live and 14,40% of Students, are likewise among the features that most pleased

to respondents in both samples.

Regarding the features and services of the heritage assets that less pleased in the

set of responses (see Table 2), we find Price, with 34,40% of Work/Live and 32,40% of

the Students, as a negative reference .

The Access to heritage assets is also pointed out as the less pleasant part of the

visit, with 18,40% of the Work/Live and 12,70% of Students, ratios that exceed the

number of respondents which considered it as a satisfying feature.

Also referring that 10,40% of the respondents in the sample Work/Live

considered Promotion as the less pleasant feature, and with 16,90% of the Students

respondents considering as negative the Guided Tours.

One of the main goals of this article is to understand what Cultural Heritage

means for the different populations, making the analysis of what is actually recognized

as cultural heritage and what are the main characteristics that are prized in the different

heritage assets in the context of the visit. In order to further explore the issue of the

representations of cultural heritage that each population has, it is relevant to analyze the

Table 1 – Particularity Enjoyed on Visit’s – Both Samples

Table 2 – Particularity not Enjoyed on Visit’s – Both Samples

10

Chart 9 – Importance of Identified Values from Cultural Heritage – Sample Students

values that each community associates with it. This research may ultimately, as

mentioned by Manzini (2011), identify the key traits and characteristics that make a

territorial context and its heritage rather important and distinctive.

Through the questionnaires it was intended to examine the level of importance of

a set of thirteen values and its representation for each sample. In the Students sample

(see Chart 9) we can see that the most represented value is History, with 64,65%

considering it "Very Important" and 30,30% only "Important". The second value

considered "Very Important" is the value of Memory with 42,27% of the respondents

considering it as "Very Important" and 40,21% as "Important". No other values that can

represent the Cultural Heritage are considered by the respondents as "Very Important."

In all the other cases the majority considers the values as "Important" or "Neutral."

Among the representations of values which most respondents consider as "Important"

we can find the value of Pedagogical with 41,84%, Inheritance/Legacy with 45,92%,

Cultural Diversity with 43,88%, Artistic value with 50.52%, Beauty with 43,43% and

Identity 49,49%.

It is interesting to verify that the leaning response of the Students sample,

regarding the values of Community, Economic and Peace Promotion, the majority of

respondents classify these values are “Neutral”, with 46,46%, 41,41% and 35,71%

respectively. Among these values we find Peace Promotion, which is precisely one of

the values considered by UNESCO as essential in promoting a policy of heritage

protection worldwide (UNESCO, 1972; UNESCO, 2005). Furthermore, we can see that

in this sample we cannot find the values Economic and Community associated to

Cultural Heritage, both values essential in the definition of cultural and creative tourism

policies (Florida, 2008; Cavaco, 1996; Richards, 1996; Richards, 2004). Only when the

population and stakeholders are called to be part of the co-decisions, these become

important defenders of the interventions and heritage processes (Fortuna, 2006). Among

this last three values referred above, 23,23% of the Students considers "Shortly

Important " and "Not Important" the Economic value and 20,41% considered the value

Peace Promotion also "Shortly Important " and "Not Important".

Regarding the sample Work/Live (see Chart 10) we can see that the level of

representation of the Historical value is the one that has more expression. This value is

significantly below the value achieved in the sample of Students but standing out from

the other values with 55,00% of respondents considering it as "Very Important."

11

Chart 10 – Importance of Identified Values from Cultural Heritage – Sample Work/Live

It is also important to point out the percentage that considered the value Identity

"Very Important" or "Important", regarding the Students sample, 36,36% and 35,35%

respectively. While in the first sample the major part of the respondents referred the

value Identity as "Important", regarding the Work/Live sample we can see an increase

of importance of this value.

The main differences between the two samples are verified in the representation

of the values Identity, Memory, Touristic, Peace Promotion and Inheritance/Legacy. In

the sample Work/Live, the importance given to the value of Identity is smaller than in

the Students sample. The difference is slight in the classification of "Very Important"

but is significantly more expressive, with 49,49% of the Students opposed to 35,35% of

Work/Live that classify it as "Important".

The importance of the Touristic value presents a considerable difference between

the two samples analyzed. From reading the charts, we can see that 64,00% of the

Students consider the Touristic value in average as "Very Important" and "Important"

compared to 51,00% of the Work/Live.

Regarding the Peace Promotion value, we can see the opposite: the Students

sample classified it as having minor importance with only 43,88% pointing it as "Very

Important" and "Important", against 50,51% of the sample Work/Live.

Also important to point out in the set of values under consideration is the different

representations of the value Inheritance/Legacy between the two samples. As observed

with the Historical value, it appears as more important. With a total of 77,55% in the set

of answers "Very Important" and "Important" in the Students sample, it only reaches

51,52% among the two categories in the sample Work/Live.

Finally, a brief analysis of the classification that the different samples give to the

Uses/Customs value. Since the importance given by the two samples is similar in all

categories, with a majority expressing a rating of "Important", 36,73% of the Students

and 35,00% of the Work/Live, it is important to referred that customs and traditions are

precisely what characterizes one of the typological extensions of the cultural heritage

concept, considering that they are the basis of a Intangible Cultural Heritage corpus. In

this regard, it is noted that the majority of the respondents considers it only "Important",

closely followed by the neutrality expression in relation to this value or typology of

cultural heritage.

If we cross the numbers of respondents who considered Preservation (see Table 1)

as the most pleasant aspect for them in the visit, with the classification given to the

12

Economic and Touristic values (see Chart 9 & 10), we can see that the use of the

Cultural Heritage is not clearly marked in the representations of the two samples, by its

economic and touristic values regarding future Preservation. Therefore, we can asked

whether we are in this territorial context before the preservation of Cultural Heritage

that aims to attend the economic interests that establish a specific purpose such as the

use of heritage for tourism activity (Rocha & Monastirsky, 2008).

4 – Conclusion

The starting idea with the preparation of this article consisted of an exploratory

study of how the concept of Cultural Heritage has evolved over the past decades. With

this, we tried to represent how these changes have been incorporated in the main

political and administrative managements of the heritage assets in Germany.

The approach also intended to determine the major values as well as to determine

the characteristics of what the communities that enlivens the Cultural Heritage considers

as part of the corpus of the city. The anthropologist Maurice Godelier (cited by Heinich,

2010) refers that all societies distinguish between three types of goods: “those to be sold,

those to be given and those to be kept”. This maxim summarizes only three types of

assets to which a particular society or community confers value.

In this paper, we can observe not only the diversity of assets that are listed as

Cultural Heritage but also the disparity of values that the society and the community

recognize. If it’s true that there are "canonical" assets among the patrimonial elements

mentioned, it is equally true that the disparity of associations that are made, as revealed

by the two samples, in the construction of a heritage corpus is great. We can see that the

values indicated by Kiesow (2000) as the classical values of the definition of a cultural

asset as a cultural heritage asset, namely scientific value, artistic and historical values

are far from being the only ones. In fact, we can conclude, based on the data presented,

with the exception of the Historical value to be considered in both samples as "Very

Important", that the other two values are only considered "Important" by most

respondents in both samples. From the set of analyzed data raises the question whether

the vision of heritage is yet dominated by the preservation of the immaculate state of the

cultural assets and cultural heritage? By the classification of the values expressed by the

respondents we can conclude that there is a risk, as mentioned by Garrod & Fyall

(2000), that the issues concerning financial sustainability and public access, in this local

context, to be relegated to a second place regarding the management of the heritage

assets.

If we consider that Cultural Heritage is currently understood as having three types

of functions - cultural, economic and sociopolitical (Graham, B., Ashworth, GJ &

Tunbridge, JE, 2000 ) - we can also add that in this case study, the economic value is

rated by the majority as Neutral. The respondents of both samples analyzed don’t give a

great importance to the economic value of Cultural Heritage. We cannot ignore the fact

that the consumption of culture, as mentioned by Richards (1996) is increasingly used

as a means of economic regeneration, and the creation of cultural facilities is an

important weapon in the competitive struggle to attract inward investment to European

Cities. However, it should to be noted that in the data presented is clear the recognition

of the cultural value of the heritage assets, given the importance expressed by the

respondents regarding to the Cultural Diversity value.

We can also concluded that from the new concept of Cultural Heritage that

advocates the involvement of citizens does not seem to represent the views of the

respondents, to the extent that the value of Community is frankly unappreciated by both

samples.

13

Given the data presented, we can conclude, as stated by Beseler (2000) that there

is a great difference between the assumptions required by the law to classify a heritage

asset and the assumptions that a community identifies. This fact is easily recognizable

by the discussions that the Cultural Heritage thematic raises.

Based on the ratings of the values expressed raises the question if in the struggle

for international recognition, to not classify a heritage asset with the highest recognition

of World Heritage can be considered as a setback? As regarding Heidelberg, and based

on further investigation of the data, is yet to determine if there is an advocated

evaluation (Seng, 2009) from the community but also from the public policies, on the

heritage corpus of the city.

5.- References

Abreu, D. (2006). Análise de Dados II. Estudos para o Planeamento Regional e Urbano.

69. Lisboa: Centro Estudos Geográficos Universidade de Lisboa.

Beseler, H. (2000). Denkmalpflege als Herausforderung. Kiel: Verlag Ludwig.

Cavaco, C. (1996). Turismos de ontem e de Hoje: Realidades e Mitos. In Cavaco, C.

(1996) Cord. Turismos e Lazeres. Lisboa: Centro de Estudos Geográficos da

Universidade de Lisboa.

DSchG. (1983) Gesetz zum Schutz der Kulturdenkmale (DSchG) in der Fassung vom 6.

Dezember 1983

Fischer, M. (1989). Die Denkmalwelt als Freizeitpark? – Ketzerische Gedanken zur

Besichtigung Kultur. Denkmalpflege und Tourismus II. Becker, C. (ed.). Internationales

Symposium Denkmalpflege und Tourismus, 10-19.

Florida, R. (2008). Who’s Your City. New York: Basic Books.

Fortuna, C. (2006). Centros históricos e patrimónios culturais urbanos: uma avaliação e

duas propostas para Coimbra. Oficina do CES, 254, 1-14.

Garrod, B., Fyall, A. (2000) Managing Heritage Tourism. Annals of Tourism Research,

Vol. 27, Nº3. 682-708.

GG. (1990). Grundgesetz für die Bundesrepublik Deutschland (GG) in der im

Bundesgesetzblatt Teil III, Gliederungsnummer 100-1, veröffentlichten bereinigten

Fassung, das zuletzt durch Artikel 1 des Gesetzes vom 11. Juli 2012 (BGBl. I S.

Graham, B., Ashworth, G. J., Tunbridge, J. E. (2000). A Geography of Heritage: power,

culture and economy. London: Arnold.

Heinich, N. (2010). The making of cultural heritage. Nordic Journal of Aesthetics, Vol.

22 (40-41).

Henriques, C. (2003). Turismo Cidade e Cultura: Planeamento e Gestão Sustentável.

Lisboa: Edições Sílabo.

14

Henriques, E. B. (1996). Turismo, Património e Cidade: da revitalização urbana ao risco

de manipulação das paisagens. In Cavaco, C. (coord.), Turismos e Lazeres. Lisboa:

Centro de Estudos Geográficos da Universidade de Lisboa. 54-65.

Kenny, D. (1986). Statistics for the Social and Behavioral Sciences. Canada: Little,

Brown and Company Limited.

Kiesow, G. (2000). Denkmalpfege in Deutschland. Darmstadt: Theiss

Krejcie, R.; Morgan, D. (1970) Educational and Psychological Measurement. 30. 607-

610.

Lipovetsky, G., Serroy, J. (2010). A cultura-mundo: resposta a uma sociedade

desorientada. Lisboa: Edições 70.

Manzini, L. (2011). El Significado Cultural del Património. Estudios del Patrimonio

Cultural. Nº 6, Jun. 11. 27-42.

Mc Kercher, B.; Ho, P.; Cros, H. (2005). Relationship between tourism and cultural

heritage management: evidence from Hong Kong. Tourism Management. 26. 539-548.

Peixoto, P. (2003). Centros históricos e sustentabilidade cultural das cidades. Sociologia:

Revista da Faculdade de Letras da Universidade do Porto. Vol. 13. 211-226.

Richards, G. (1996). Production and Consumption of European Cultural Tourism.

Annals of Tourism Research. Vol. 23, nº 2, 261-283.

Richards, G. (2004). ¿Nuevos caminos para el turismo cultural?. Association for

Tourism and Leisure Education (ATLAS). Observatorio Interarts. Barcelona.

Rocha, A., Monastirsky, L. (2008). A dialéctica entre o global e o local. Terr@Plural,

2(1), 145-154.

Ruprecht-Karls-Universität Heidelberg (2012). Studierendenstatistik Sommersemester

2012. Zentrale Universitätsverwaltung Dez. 2 – Studium, Lehre und Wissenschaftliche

Weiterbildung. http://www.uni-heidelberg.de/md/studium/download/ss2012_www.pdf

Schwarz, W. (2012) Die Bevölkerungsentwicklung in Baden-Württemberg im Jahr

2011. Statistisches Monatsheft Baden-Württemberg 9/2012. Statistisches Landesamt

Baden-Württemberg. Retrieved from http://www.statistik.baden-wuerttemberg.de/

Seng, E-M. (2009). Die Welterbeliste: zwischen Kanonbildung und Kanonverschiebung.

Vortrag auf dem XXX. Kunsthistorikertag in Marburg, Samstag 28.03. Paderborn:

Universitätsbibliothek Paderborn.

UNESCO. (1972) Convention for the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural

Heritage.

UNESCO. (2005). Convention on the Value of Cultural Heritage for Society.

Vecco, M. (2010). A definition of cultural heritage. Journal of Cultural Heritage, 11,

321-324.

15

VLBW. (1953) Verfassung des Landes Baden-Württemberg vom 11. November 1953

(GBl. S. 173), mit mit Änderungen und Ergänzungen bis 6. Mai 2008 (GBI. S. 119)

Wagner, B., Blumenreich, U. (2012). Compendium Cultural Policies and Trends in

Europe. Country Profile Germany. Council of Europe/ERICarts. 13. Retrieved from

http://www.culturalpolicies.net