Developing Taxonomies for Arts, Culture and Heritage: The ACH Taxonomies Project
The ACH Taxonomies Project has developed an economic framework and taxonomies describing how arts, culture and heritage create flows of benefits for people and communities. The framework aims to provide a consistent structure and common language that can help arts, culture and heritage organisations, public bodies, funders and researchers make stronger evidence-based cases for investment, policy support and long-term stewardship.
Funded by the UK's Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) and the Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC), the project brings together researchers, practitioners and sector partners to develop a systematic approach for understanding, classifying and evidencing the contributions of arts, culture and heritage to wellbeing.
This work was supported by the Arts and Humanities Research Council [Grant Ref: AH/Y000552/1].
Read the Executive Summary
Why do we need an economic framework and taxonomies?
Arts, culture and heritage (ACH) generate a wide range of benefits for individuals, communities and society. However, there is currently no widely agreed approach for identifying and capturing the value of the services and benefits that arise from these assets. Without an economic framework and an agreed approach, it is harder to articulate and show how ACH contribute to human welfare and wellbeing. The result is that ACH are often undervalued or not valued at all in economic analysis and in economic decision making.
The ACH Taxonomies Project responds to this challenge by developing a classification system and set of taxonomies to support more systematic approaches to assessing, evidencing and communicating the value of arts, culture and heritage on an economic platform. By establishing a common framework and shared terminology, it will support researchers, practitioners and policymakers in articulating some of the complex pathways through which arts, culture and heritage contribute to individual wellbeing, community life and economic prosperity. It is also a practical tool that can be used to guide data collection, monitoring and analysis to enable more effective and timely data and evidence retrieval for policy and practice.
The ACHTaxonomies project is delivered by a Consortium of academics, policy practitioners and consultants from the arts and humanities, natural sciences and social sciences including economics. A panel of experts in the arts, natural capital, policy, heritage science and economics provided advice and challenge, whilst network organisations facilitated discussions with arts, culture and heritage stakeholders.
- Adala Leeson, Historic England, Principal Investigator
- Prof Patrizia Riganti, University of Glasgow, Co-Investigator
- Prof Dave O’Brien, University of Manchester, Co-Investigator
- Dr Hugh Brown, University of Leeds, Co-Investigator
- Philip Carlisle, Historic England, Co-Investigator
- Dr Nina White, University of Leeds, Post Doctoral Research Assistant
- Dr Elizabeth Bennett, University of Leeds, Research Fellow
- Dr Ajaz Ahmed, University of Glasgow, Post Doctoral Research Assistant
- Dr Ricky Lawton, IPSOS, Sub Consultant
- Kate Clark, Public Value Consulting Sub Consultant
- Lizzie Glithero-West, Lydia Gibson, The Heritage Alliance, Sub Consultant
- Donovan D. Rypkema, Heritage Strategies International, Sub Consultant
- Patrick Towell, Sophia Woodley, The Audience Agency, Sub Consultant
- Andrew Mowlah, Arts Council England, Advisor
- Colin Smith, Defra, Advisor
- Edward Bayfield, Historic England, Advisor
- Jen Heathcote, Historic England, Advisor
- Ben Walmsley, Centre for Cultural Value, Project Partners
- Trevor MacFarlane, Culture Commons, Project Partners
- David Tittle, The Heritage Network Trust, Project Partners
A Conceptual Framework and Taxonomies for Arts, Culture and Heritage
Arts, culture and heritage are forms of capital that generate benefits to people, through a continuum that begins with stocks:
- Stocks: are bundles of tangible and intangible arts, culture and heritage assets, including objects and materials and creative and cultural knowledge. Examples include collections, intellectual property, historic buildings, cultural landscapes, intangible infrastructure, traditions and practices etc.
- Activities: are understood as a way through which end-users gain benefits from stocks via services (Cultural Activities) e.g. participating, creating, visiting, volunteering, campaigning etc. Activities also include the ways in which organisations support ACH stocks to grow, to function, and to allow engagement with them (Enabling Activities). E.g. conserving, curating, educating, publicising, selling, occupying, creating, producing etc.
- Service Flows: are properties that are produced or exchanged through interactions between people and stocks. They may be both tangible and intangible in nature, where a property may relate to a feeling or a quality, but it may also relate to an exchange of material stocks e.g. sales or rental etc.
- Benefits: are metrics of human welfare, which are often modelled in frameworks as dimensions of human wellbeing. Here, we select and review the 10 core wellbeing domains (and their subdomains) of the framework.
Together, these elements provide a structured way of understanding how values and benefits emerge from arts, culture and heritage assets and activities.
The project adopted a multi-stage research process, drawing on theory and practice from the arts and humanities, economics, social sciences and natural capital research. Key stages included:
- Best Practice Reviews: A review of existing classification systems, of taxonomies and natural capital classification systems to identify best practice principles for ACH.
- Systematic and Quasi-Systematic Literature Reviews: Analysis of academic, policy and sector literature to unpack key concepts and build the evidence base for the proposed framework.
- Thematic Analysis: Examination of how ACH assets, activities, services and benefits are defined, organised and connected.
- Stakeholder Engagement: Workshops, focus groups, surveys and case studies involving organisations and individuals from across the arts, culture and heritage sectors to check, test and challenge the emerging framework.
The ACH Taxonomies Project Research Reports
- Developing Taxonomies for Arts, Culture and Heritage (The ACH Taxonomies Project): Executive Summary - Leeson, A.
- Report 1.0: Contexts, Concepts and Challenges - Clark, K., Towell, P., and Woodley, S
- Report 1.1: Parameters of a well-designed Taxonomy for Arts, Culture, and Heritage - Leeson, A., Towell, P., Woodley, S. and Clark, K
- Report 1.2: Accounting for Arts, Culture and Heritage: Lessons Learned from Nature - Leeson, A., and Bayfield, E.
- Report 1.3: Operationalising Taxonomies - Leeson, A., Clark, K., and Bayfield, E.
- Report 2.0: Mapping Taxonomies for Arts, Culture and Heritage: A Summary - O’Brien, D., Riganti, P., and Bennett, E.
- Report 2.2: Arts, Culture and Heritage within a Capitals Framework - Bennett, E. and White, N.
- Report 2.3: Cultural Capital and the Culture and Heritage Capital Framework: A Systematic Review - Ahmed, A., and Riganti, P.
- Report 2.4: Mapping Arts, Culture and Heritage Stakeholder Report - Bennett, E.
- Report 2.5: Operationalising Cultural Capital for Policy Appraisal - Riganti, P. To come.
- Report 3.1: Taking Stock: A Taxonomy of Assets for Arts, Culture and Heritage - Brown, H., Leeson, A., Towell, P., Woodley, S., Carlise, P., and Bennett, E.
- Report 3.2: Services and Activities - Taxonomies for Arts, Culture and Heritage - Bennett, E., and Leeson, A.
- Report 3.3: A Taxonomy of Benefits for Arts, Culture and Heritage - Bennett, E., and Leeson,
- Report 3.4: Developing the ACH Taxonomies Framework: Stakeholder Report - Bennett, E.
- Report 4.1: Case studies - Rypkema, D., and Cotton, K.
- Report 4.2: National and International Surveys - Rypkema, D., Cotton, K., Leeson, A., and Bennett, E.
Also of interest
