The assessment of the cultural value of heritage: incorporating plural interpretations and meaning or sticking to a singular scientific model and definition? - A qualitative research on the assessment of the cultural value and challenges regarding the implementation of the cultural value by Dutch heritage organisations

The purpose of this research is to provide insights on the matter of the supposed importance of cultural value assessment in heritage management by Dutch heritage organisations. Often, Dutch heritage organisations mention the impact and importance of culture and cultural value on heritage practices in their policy plan or on their website, yet the ways in which this cultural value is defined, assessed and evaluated remains unclear or is not mentioned. By conducting qualitative research by conducting semi-structured interviews with immovable heritage organisations on their cultural value management practices and the challenges that occur, the research provided an answer to the research question: What cultural assessment models do heritage agencies, organisations and funds in the Netherlands use, if at all, to rate the cultural value of a heritage site, and what challenges do these heritage stakeholders experience in using these models? The findings from these research showed that there are two perspectives regarding the cultural value assessment of heritage. The first dominant perspective holds on to the limited and traditional idea of cultural value as coming from the object itself, where it is believed that the worth of heritage does not depend on interplay between the object and the public, but is a fixed value that can be measured by the rather short-sighted objective scientific value systems of the Dutch Heritage Agency. By using this system that is based on rating the architectural and cultural historical significance of heritage, it is believed that the cultural value of heritage is assessed. The second perspective shows the aim to have a plural and inclusive approach towards heritage management, where the cultural value is approached from different angles, where not only the scientific experts’ point of view, but also how the public identifies with the heritage and attach value to heritage is evaluated. Yet, there is no assessment tool developed to evaluate this and the heritage organisations stick to the dominant and limited perspective of the cultural value as coming from the object itself. This can be explained by the challenges that these heritage stakeholders experience regarding the cultural value of heritage. They find it a challenge to incorporate the cultural value that is subjective, not fixed and can differ per person in heritage management and hold an elitist stance towards involving non-scientific perspectives that do not have the expertise, like the public. Even though they state that they wish to involve communities, they view themselves as having the expertise which gives them the authority in value based heritage management. From these findings, it can be concluded that taking on a plural approach towards the cultural value of heritage by involving the public is often only a symbolic gesture in order to appear more inclusive in heritage management. There is no clear structure or assessment for this involvement of the public and because of this, the power and authority stays with the traditional power holders in the heritage field where they stick to the institutional quantitative approach to heritage value assessment.