How heritage connects to local quality of life was the main theme of the
Heritage Lottery Fund’s (HLF) 20 Years in 12 Places research. This
combined a large-scale local resident survey of more than 4,000 people
across the 12 places in the study, with a discussion group among local
residents in six of the 12.
A number of things stand out. First, the way people relate to heritage is complex. People are aware that heritage sites are publicly supported and want some practical benefits back from them in return. This might be as simple as a destination for a great day out. Or it could about education and learning. Economic benefit – bringing in tourists and creating jobs – is also recognised and seen as important by local residents.
But there is also a deeper, emotional connection that people make, where heritage has a personal meaning that helps people to understand more about themselves, their family, their community. The research found emotional connections are more likely with smaller, locally focused projects.
Overall, the research is positive. Of local residents, 80% think heritage makes their area a better place to live, and 64% say it has improved in recent years. This is more impressive when set alongside the finding that less than half (42%) of people think their area has improved as a whole. Heritage is a rare bright spot in many places. Support for lottery funding for heritage is also high – 69% said funding for heritage projects in their area has been a good or excellent use of money. But this isn’t just a matter of money – people have clear ideas about how that money should be spent.
Heritage projects should conserve a valued aspect of the past. But they must also provide ways for people to get involved, have an appeal outside a narrow interest group and be fun as well as educational.
Museums were found to be highly visible to local people – 96% were aware of the museum projects the HLF had funded in their town or city, and 84% had visited them. Museums also tend to be used by a wide cross section of people. The gap between visits by older and younger people is less for museums than for nature reserves, historic buildings or even parks. The same is true, with the exception of parks, for the gap between middle class and working class people.
Parks, predictably, scored highest when we asked people about the impact of specific heritage sites on their quality of life: 69% were positive in the case of parks. But museums were not far behind, on 61%. These are just a few findings, but all of the data is on the website for researchers to carry out their own analysis. Please let us know what you find.
Gareth Maeer is the head of research at the Heritage Lottery Fund
A number of things stand out. First, the way people relate to heritage is complex. People are aware that heritage sites are publicly supported and want some practical benefits back from them in return. This might be as simple as a destination for a great day out. Or it could about education and learning. Economic benefit – bringing in tourists and creating jobs – is also recognised and seen as important by local residents.
But there is also a deeper, emotional connection that people make, where heritage has a personal meaning that helps people to understand more about themselves, their family, their community. The research found emotional connections are more likely with smaller, locally focused projects.
Overall, the research is positive. Of local residents, 80% think heritage makes their area a better place to live, and 64% say it has improved in recent years. This is more impressive when set alongside the finding that less than half (42%) of people think their area has improved as a whole. Heritage is a rare bright spot in many places. Support for lottery funding for heritage is also high – 69% said funding for heritage projects in their area has been a good or excellent use of money. But this isn’t just a matter of money – people have clear ideas about how that money should be spent.
Heritage projects should conserve a valued aspect of the past. But they must also provide ways for people to get involved, have an appeal outside a narrow interest group and be fun as well as educational.
Museums were found to be highly visible to local people – 96% were aware of the museum projects the HLF had funded in their town or city, and 84% had visited them. Museums also tend to be used by a wide cross section of people. The gap between visits by older and younger people is less for museums than for nature reserves, historic buildings or even parks. The same is true, with the exception of parks, for the gap between middle class and working class people.
Parks, predictably, scored highest when we asked people about the impact of specific heritage sites on their quality of life: 69% were positive in the case of parks. But museums were not far behind, on 61%. These are just a few findings, but all of the data is on the website for researchers to carry out their own analysis. Please let us know what you find.
Gareth Maeer is the head of research at the Heritage Lottery Fund
