Culture and Heritage Capital (CHC) Proto-Typology Report

This research is part of a wider programme of work called Culture and Heritage Capital (CHC). DCMS is leading the CHC programme, which aims to develop a formal approach to valuing culture and heritage assets with the ultimate aim to create publicly available statistics and guidance on the value of culture and heritage assets consistent with HMT’s Green Book1, for use in social cost benefit analysis (SCBA). 1 HM Treasury (2022). The Green Book (2022). [online] GOV.UK. Available at:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-green-book-appraisal-and-evaluation-in-central-governent/the-green-book-2020 [Accessed 31 Jul. 2023].

The DCMS CHC Framework2 defines culture and heritage ‘capital’ as the stock of an asset, or set of assets, that embody cultural or heritage value. Cultural and heritage assets, such as an art collection or historic building, are the “stock”, while the services that create benefits to society are regarded as “flows” (for instance, the flow of aesthetic experience of daily visitors, or the inspiration provided through educational tours and outreach activities). 2 H. Sagger, J. Philips, and M. Haque, ‘Valuing Culture and Heritage Capital: A Framework towards Informing Decision Making’ (London, UK: Department for Digital Culture Media and Sport, January 2021)

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/955203/GOV.UK_-_Framework_Accessible_v2.pdf.

This report presents a number of key outputs which should inform the development of a full CHC typology going forward:

• A theoretical framework building on the DCMS CHC Framework which brings across additional theoretical contributions from natural capital and cultural studies, to provide further insights on the types of cultural and heritage services which should be captured in a CHC typology.

• Definitions of key terms for a CHC typology, developed through literature review and qualitative evidence provided through interviews with 13 leading academics across multiple disciplines.

• Three alternative models of proto-typologies: one based on the approach from natural capital; one bespoke reflecting the understanding of value from the arts and humanities, cultural studies and cultural sector; and one based on a strategic practice perspective. These are developed in parallel, to develop lists of ‘services’ and ‘benefits’ produced by CHC assets from different disciplinary perspectives.

• We provide recommendations for future research alongside each of the three Proto-typology options. This should encourage future researchers to consider the implications for existing measurement and valuation methodologies. The aim is to inform efforts of the UK Government and research community to conceptualise cultural value in terms of stocks and flows of cultural and heritage assets and set out different routes to developing a fuller CHC typology in the future.