Methodological Framework for Integrating Cultural Impact in Sustainability Assessments of Cultural Events

Abstract

Based on the three dimensions model of sustainability, different studies that address the integration of the culture and sustainability concepts from a theoretical field propose that culture should be included as another sustainability dimension to a greater degree. This approach has not been put into practice to date. In fact, when sustainability application is examined in cultural activities such as museums and exhibitions, in most cases it is associated with only one dimension and evaluation methodologies based on a holistic approach; the Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment (LCSA) is used in very few cases. In this work, a methodological framework is proposed to add the cultural dimension to the study of the environmental, economic, and social dimensions of sustainability. A sequence of phases in line with the LCSA methodology is used to achieve the simultaneous evaluation of impacts associated with a sustainability approach based on four dimensions. A thorough literature review revealed cultural indicators, which were classified and organized in order to facilitate the cultural impact assessment and complement the indicators already used to evaluate other dimensions. Additionally, the approaches and methods proposed are put into practice in a case study, which consists of an experimental exhibition room. The different phases of the methodology have been successively developed, and indicators for all sustainability dimensions have been obtained. Thus, the theoretical contribution of this work is embellished with the development of a practical case, which demonstrate that cultural dimensions can be evaluated together with the rest of the dimensions in order to obtain a multidimensional assessment of sustainability.

1. Introduction

The cultural sector has been responding to the sustainability challenge with different ideas and actions. In different institutions, such as the International Council of Museums (ICOM), the creation and development of sustainable solutions is promoted, while, from a more theoretical point of view, a number of studies have been carried out dealing with the integration of both culture and sustainability concepts. Several international organizations like the Council of Europe and UNESCO suggest guidelines for policy formulation aimed at integrating culture and its interconnectedness with other sustainability dimensions. The most important theoretical approaches to integrating sustainability and practical experiences carried out in the ambit of cultural expositions and museums are described in detail below.

1.1. Culture and Sustainability: Integration Approaches

Sustainability can be defined as a strategy that balances environmental care, social welfare, and economic growth (Engström et al., 2002) [1]. Its primary objective is to meet current needs without jeopardizing the ability of future generations to meet theirs (WCED, 1987) [2]. Achieving harmony among ecological, economic, and social subsystems is a complex and multifaceted challenge of our time (Mancebo & Sachs, 2015) [3]. To attain this goal, sustainability must be integrated throughout the entire life cycle of a product or service, from its creation and use to its end-of-life stage. These phases are widely accepted to align with three dimensions: social, economic, and environmental (Kuhlman & Farrington, 2010) [4].

It is undeniable that the current sustainability crisis is directly linked to environmental and social trends connected to the values, beliefs, assumptions, behaviors, and visions shared by different communities. According to UNESCO, culture encompasses “the set of distinctive spiritual, material, intellectual, and emotional features of society or a social group, that includes art and literature, lifestyles, ways of living together, value systems, traditions, and beliefs” (UNESCO, 2001:3) [5]. Culture has played a significant role in human activities that have led to the Anthropocene and can be vital in the shift towards a more sustainable future. Therefore, incorporating the cultural dimension into sustainability comprehension and assessment is essential. The different dimensions of sustainability are interdependent and overlap to some extent, and they are in continuous transformation. Reflecting on their interactions is necessary to propose methodologies that represent and combine different impacts effectively.

The integration of culture and sustainability concepts has been an object of study by different authors in order to obtain a comprehensive analytical framework that allows their joint and structured study. Dessein et al. [6] have introduced three approaches that explore the ways in which culture is predominantly positioned vis-à-vis sustainability and its general role in each situation (Figure 1). These approaches are based on different prevailing conceptual discourses and have been, respectively, designated as ‘culture in sustainability’, ‘culture for sustainability’, and ‘culture as sustainability’.

In the diagrams in Figure 1, the sustainability concept is illustrated according to a triple bottom line (TBL) approach [7], in which three dimensions or pillars, looking simultaneously at environmental issues (planet), economic aspects (profit), and social concerns (people), are considered. Each dimension is represented as a circle. Thus, to meet the needs of current generations without compromising the needs of future generations, sustainability is a balance between three pillars: environmental care, social welfare, and economic growth [2]. These three pillars are based on the successive development policies of the three last centuries: the economic pillar has to do with creating wealth (18th century), the social pillar redistributes this wealth (19th century), whilst the ecological pillar watches over responsibility for the environment (20th century).

Based on this three-dimensional concept of sustainability, in the first diagram, ‘Culture in Sustainable Development’, culture becomes the fourth dimension of sustainability. Cultural sustainability can be found in parallel to ecological, social, and economic sustainability, playing an independent role, albeit interconnected with all dimensions. In the second diagram, ‘Culture for Sustainable Development’, culture has a mediating role in achieving all the other sustainability pillars. Thus, the culture circle connects economic, social, and ecological sustainability. Finally, the diagram ‘Culture as Sustainable Development’ considers culture not only as an instrument but as a necessary foundation for meeting the overall aims of sustainability. In this approach, culture encloses all other dimensions of sustainability and becomes an overarching concern or paradigm of sustainability. These representations can be used to explore each general approach in more detail as well as to help in organizing and comparing different discourses. The applicability of each approach to the international cultural policy context still needs to be explored [8].

The first approach, in which culture is added as a fourth pillar, has already been formulated by Hawkes [9], who, being aware of culture’s essential role in the multidimensional sustainability challenge, argues that without a foundation that expressly includes culture, new frameworks are bereft of the means of comprehending, let alone implementing, the changes they promote. According to this author, sustainability is composed of four pillars: (1) cultural vitality, i.e., well-being, creativity, diversity, and innovation; (2) social equity, i.e., justice, engagement, cohesion, and welfare; (3) environmental responsibility, i.e., ecological balance; and (4) economic viability, i.e., material prosperity.

Several transnational and international organizations like the Council of Europe and UNESCO have also advocated culture as an explicit aspect of sustainability [10], suggesting guidelines for policy formulation aimed at integrating culture and its interconnectedness with other sustainability dimensions. However, although holistic and cross-disciplinary integration have been proposed, this has not been carried out comprehensively, and the essence of culture in sustainable development research and policies therefore tends to remain ignored. Similarly, within the Sustainable Development Goals [11], although culture and heritage are transversally present in many of the goals, they are explicitly mentioned only in some of the targets (f.i., 11.4).

The framework of integration, based on the construction of a fourth pillar, advocates for culture to be at the same level of significance as economic, social, and environmental issues. Thus, the cultural dimension’s role in sustainable development is differentiated, raising awareness of its value and generating more attention for public action. This model has been afterward promoted by other organizations such as the United Cities and Local Governments [12], which intends to implement sustainability action plans and develop strategic directions based on sustainability principles to guide its own regional cultural development initiatives, as well as by authors such as Stylianou-Lambert et al. [13], who explore the role of culture in sustainable development and propose a theoretical model to design appropriate cultural policies for museums. As it is shown in Figure 2, the cultural pillar is included in the sustainability concept to create four intersecting circles, and the circles intersect because certain parameters can be common to more than one pillar.

The approach in which culture is a fourth dimension of sustainability will be applied in this work since it is considered that the cultural pillar helps us to build our human development through the explicit inclusion of cultural parameters within a connected relation with other sustainability dimensions. According to this model, sustainability is a balance that has to be constantly negotiated [14]. Human development, social equity, economic productivity, and environmental quality should be simultaneously emphasized.

The integration of culture as an additional sustainability dimension allows several cultural aspects to be discussed or elaborated as a different part of the social pillar, often considered as socio-cultural sustainability [15]. Thus, culture is recognized differently from the social dimension, so it should be separated in practice by selecting appropriate cultural sustainable parameters and applying suitable methods and tools in its evaluation. Nevertheless, it should be noted that the model considers intersected circles, in which common features are found. Culture and other dimensions have a degree of interlinkedness, in which culture can affect and be affected by environmental, economic, and social issues.

We consider that an approach based on four pillars can allow addressing the study of sustainability of any system in a direct and pragmatic way, particularly, from the cultural sphere itself, since the sustainability of any type of cultural service can be studied with a multidimensional framework (not carried out to date).

1.2. Sustainability in Museums and Cultural Exhibitions

The cultural sector has been responding to the issue of sustainability since the 1990s. In 1998, the Conference of the Museums of the Americas, organized by the International Council of Museums (ICOM) and dedicated to sustainability issues, took place [16]. Nowadays, sustainability is included in the Strategic Plan for 2022–28 and sustainability is mentioned in addition to ethical, political, social, and cultural responsibilities, as difficulties facing museums in the twenty-first century. As stated by ICOM, museums have to acknowledge the pressing need to create and execute sustainable solutions in response to environmental problems. To achieve this goal, the Working Group on Sustainability (WGS) was established in 2018 [17]. Museums are required to actively participate in environmental protection as part of their public service purpose. Additionally, a museum that adopts a green mindset will be able to connect with the growing ecological consciousness of young people, who will be its audience and future supporters [18,19]. Most of the practical actions undertaken by the cultural sector and especially museums to introduce the sustainability issue can be classified into the following categories:

(a)

Intervention into the constructed infrastructure [20,21]. Many museums are now constructed or renovated using renewable materials, maximizing energy efficiency through insulation, incorporating renewable energy sources, and considering lighting design. The establishment of standards for the enhancement of the building environment has been aided by programs like the USGBC’s Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design initiative and the EU’s Energy Performance Certification [22].

(b)

Reduction of resource consumption. Implementing water-saving fixtures, rainwater harvesting systems, and efficient irrigation methods in outdoor spaces helps museums minimize water usage. Reusing the museography elements, and packaging materials needed for storage and transportation. The reduction in resource consumption implies waste reduction by minimizing single-use plastics, implementing recycling programs for paper, glass, and plastics, and composting organic waste generated from cafes and restaurants within the museum premises [23,24].

(c)

Exhibition design involves the use of recycled or eco-friendly materials for displays, the selection of energy-efficient methods of production, minimizing waste through modular or reusable exhibit components like panels or showcases, and considering the lifecycle impact of exhibit materials [25,26,27,28].

(d)

Transportation and accessibility. In the case of the transportation of collections and museography, avoiding energy-demanding solutions [29], encouraging visitors to use public transportation, providing bike racks, and offering incentives for carpooling or using electric vehicles help reduce the carbon footprint associated with visitor transportation to the museum [30].

(e)

Exhibitions and education programs. Museums, through interactive exhibits, workshops, and lectures focused on sustainability topics, can inspire the public to adopt environmentally friendly behaviors in their daily lives [31,32,33,34].

In order to be able to confirm that the change has been produced and that the actions undertaken are having a positive impact on the environmental, economic, or social dimension, an assessment of sustainability has to be conducted. Different approaches related to the assessment have been developed (Table 1).

Table 1. Advances in the integration of sustainability assessments in museums and exhibitions.

Reference	Aspects Analyzed	Description of Aspects Evaluated
[35]	Economic	Critical of data collection in the cultural sector, emphasizing the need for meaningful data
[14]	Economic	The unitary cost of a visit to the museum is considered the most relevant indicator to measure museum performance
[36]	Economic	Income earned by museums through their activities is used to assess the level of cultural entrepreneurship
[37]	Social	Holistic approach to arts impact studies that juxtapose social and intrinsic impacts
[38]	Social-Cultural	Assessment framework for evaluating the cultural health and well-being of communities. Equilibrium among different sustainability dimensions is needed.
[39]	Social	Definition of 21 indicators associated with eco-museum performance, described as a list of effects that museums can have on society
[40]	Financial— intellectual—social	Visitor studies are considered crucial to understand cultural institutions and build more sustainable models
[41]	Socio-cultural	Sociocultural aspects are mainly considered within an evaluation model in which five indicators are identified
[42]	Social-Cultural	Sustainability is focused on responding to the needs of the community. The intellectual and financial autonomy of a museum is an important indicator
[29]	Environmental	Development of a carbon footprint methodology to control the impact of museum loan programs
[43]	Environmental	Demand for resources and emissions is quantified. Energy and water consumption have a strong correlation with the museum area and number of visits
[13]	Cultural	Five-step process to assess the cultural impact of an institution
[44]	Environmental	Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) application to the museum’s permanently exhibited objects
[45]	Economic and social	Each dimension/pillar of sustainability must be considered and evaluated. Simple, objective instruments are required
[46]	Cultural, socio-cultural, social, socio-economic, economic, natural environment	A qualitative research approach, using semi-structured interviews with experts, a set of 33 indicators is proposed for museums to measure their sustainability in comparison to the leading institutions. The practical application of the method is not presented; no case study
[47]	Environmental, economic, social and cultural	Envisioning sustainability impacts of heritage organizations in all interconnected dimensions. No method of evaluation is included
[48]	Environmental impacts economic and social	LCA and beta tools for cultural heritage preservation and exhibition practices
[49]	Environmental, economic and social	Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment (LCSA) application to compare the design proposals of different exhibitions
[50]	Environmental, economic and social	LCSA application to compare the sustainability of their different open-air exhibition services

Table 1. Advances in the integration of sustainability assessments in museums and exhibitions.

Reference	Aspects Analyzed	Description of Aspects Evaluated
[35]	Economic	Critical of data collection in the cultural sector, emphasizing the need for meaningful data
[14]	Economic	The unitary cost of a visit to the museum is considered the most relevant indicator to measure museum performance
[36]	Economic	Income earned by museums through their activities is used to assess the level of cultural entrepreneurship
[37]	Social	Holistic approach to arts impact studies that juxtapose social and intrinsic impacts
[38]	Social-Cultural	Assessment framework for evaluating the cultural health and well-being of communities. Equilibrium among different sustainability dimensions is needed.
[39]	Social	Definition of 21 indicators associated with eco-museum performance, described as a list of effects that museums can have on society
[40]	Financial— intellectual—social	Visitor studies are considered crucial to understand cultural institutions and build more sustainable models
[41]	Socio-cultural	Sociocultural aspects are mainly considered within an evaluation model in which five indicators are identified
[42]	Social-Cultural	Sustainability is focused on responding to the needs of the community. The intellectual and financial autonomy of a museum is an important indicator
[29]	Environmental	Development of a carbon footprint methodology to control the impact of museum loan programs
[43]	Environmental	Demand for resources and emissions is quantified. Energy and water consumption have a strong correlation with the museum area and number of visits
[13]	Cultural	Five-step process to assess the cultural impact of an institution
[44]	Environmental	Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) application to the museum’s permanently exhibited objects
[45]	Economic and social	Each dimension/pillar of sustainability must be considered and evaluated. Simple, objective instruments are required
[46]	Cultural, socio-cultural, social, socio-economic, economic, natural environment	A qualitative research approach, using semi-structured interviews with experts, a set of 33 indicators is proposed for museums to measure their sustainability in comparison to the leading institutions. The practical application of the method is not presented; no case study
[47]	Environmental, economic, social and cultural	Envisioning sustainability impacts of heritage organizations in all interconnected dimensions. No method of evaluation is included
[48]	Environmental impacts economic and social	LCA and beta tools for cultural heritage preservation and exhibition practices
[49]	Environmental, economic and social	Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment (LCSA) application to compare the design proposals of different exhibitions
[50]	Environmental, economic and social	LCSA application to compare the sustainability of their different open-air exhibition services

It is clear that museums and institutions strive to minimize their environmental, economic, and social footprint in order to improve the sustainability of their exhibitions and activities. However, from the holistic perspective presented in this study covering four dimensions (environmental, economic, social, and cultural), it is necessary to adopt a multidimensional approach to achieving sustainable development, rather than focusing only on some of these dimensions.

The summary of the different investigations that deal with sustainability evaluation applied to cases related to exhibitions demonstrates, above all, that there is an important need to define, establish, and practically apply evaluation methods. Although there are multiple works that call for the integration of the cultural dimension in the evaluation of sustainability [9,40,45,46,51], no method has been applied in practice that could resolve the evaluation of sustainability by connecting the four dimensions.

2. Methodological Framework

In this section, methodological aspects are addressed to achieve a sustainability evaluation based on a four-pillar approach. The structure and sequence of phases to follow and the most significant impact categories and indicators used in the evaluation are presented.

2.1. Sustainability Based on Four Dimensions: Evaluation Methodology

Numerous contributions have been made in the field of product sustainability, taking into account the integration of three dimensions (environmental, economic, and social), and some methodologies that, besides evaluating sustainability indicators, analyze the effects of the application of improvement strategies have been proposed [52,53]. Recently, the development of a methodological framework to address improving the sustainability of not only product systems but also services and more complex systems that combine products and services has also been addressed [54]. In this way, significant progress has been achieved in the development of practical methods that facilitate decision-making processes oriented according to a sustainability concept based on three pillars. However, throughout these advances, cultural issues have not yet been included.

In most studies, a life cycle perspective is applied to obtain sustainable indicators and to analyze impact factors. The Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) technique [55] was initially developed to evaluate impacts associated with the environmental dimension. More recently, in accordance with a three-dimensional perspective, the LCSA (Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment) methodology has been proposed to evaluate sustainability through the combined application of three techniques that analyze, respectively, the environmental, economic, and social dimensions [56,57], which represents a significant change with respect to the concept of sustainability based only on the study of environmental impacts.

The LCSA methodology is being increasingly used by researchers to obtain data on sustainability performance for a given system. As is shown in Figure 3, four main phases should be carried out: (i) goal and scope definition; (ii) inventory of materials and resources required along the life cycle of the system; (iii) sustainability impact assessment; and (iv) analysis of results. Sustainability results are usually expressed as a set of indicators that depend on different factors. According to a concept of sustainability based on four dimensions, cultural indicators have been added to the list of results. A detailed description of the life cycle activities should be carried out in order to apply the method. The main activities, which are part of cultural services such as those provided by museums and exhibitions, are indicated in Figure 3. These begin with the ideation and selection of both exhibition space and contents to exhibit, and finish by archiving those contents and processing the waste generated. Other activities must also be considered, such as the transport of materials and artifacts during the development of an exhibition, the attention to visitors during the event, or the exhibition disassembly when it is finished.

In line with those phases established in the LCSA methodology, the system boundaries, depending on the objectives and level of detail in the study, are initially defined. The functional unit (FU) is also identified. Next, a detailed inventory is required for those activities involved in the development of the cultural service. The type of data to be analyzed in LCSA can be quantitative, semi-quantitative, or qualitative. In the following phase, a set of indicators should be selected to measure and communicate sustainability results.

On the other hand, applying criteria to reflect the importance of each indicator and thus assigning different weights to sustainability dimensions will be a determinant if an aggregated index representing the global sustainability is obtained. These criteria can considerably change for each system object of study, according to the interests and preferences of the decision-makers. The ten Consensus Principles of the LCSA [58] establish a practical harmonization to promote the use of this methodology. Given the complexity of the problem, the application of some of these principles remains a challenge, and further efforts must be performed, among other aspects, to develop appropriate guidelines in the selection of sustainability indicators.

2.2. Impact Categories and Indicators in a Four-Pillar Sustainability Approach

Considerable efforts to define appropriate indicators through which to develop the sustainability concept in practice have been carried out, often led by intergovernmental processes of organizations such as the UN or UNESCO, supported by large research projects as well as by regional and local initiatives. Indicators serve as operative measures of progress towards or away from sustainability and are practical tools of communication relating the sustainability performance of a system. Thus, although indicators are used to express changes, they may also generate them, raising awareness. In this sense, they are powerful policy tools since they relate not only to the production of scientific knowledge but also to the creation of political norms [59,60].

According to a balance between three pillars (environmental care, social welfare, and economic growth), sustainability indicators must consider multiple ecological and socio-economic aspects of a system. In the broadest sense, environmental sustainability comprises the entire global ecosystem (oceans, atmosphere, and land), and to address this difficulty, a number of categories and subcategories of impact can be identified. Table 2 shows several of the most important methods of impact classification.

Table 2. Impact categories and sustainability indicators used in a TBL approach.

Environmental Impact Categories
CML method [61]		BEES method [62]		ReCiPe method [63]
A. Baseline impact categories: Depletion of abiotic resources Impacts of land use Climate change Stratospheric ozone depletion Human toxicity Ecotoxicity Photo-oxidant formation Acidification Eutrophication B. Study-specific impact categories: Land use/Ecotoxicity/Ionising/Radiation/Odour/Noise/Casualties C. Other impact categories: Depletion of biotic resources/Desiccation		Global warming potential Acidification Eutrophication Fossil fuel depletion Indoor air quality Habitat alteration Water intake Criteria air pollutants Human health Cancerous effects Noncancerous effects Smog formation Ozone depletion Ecological toxicity		A. Human health damage Human toxicity Particulate matter Ionizing radiation B. Ecological damage Global warming potential Ozone depletion Land use Water eutrophication C. Resource depletion Fresh water Minerals Fuels
Social Impact Categories [64]
Stakeholder ‘worker’	Stakeholder ‘consumer’	Stakeholder ‘local community’	Stakeholder ‘society’	Value chain actors not including consumers	Children
Freedom of association and collective bargaining Child labor Fair salary Working hours Forced labor Equal opportunities/Discrimination Health and safety Social benefits/Social security	Health and safety Feedback mechanism Consumer privacy Transparency End of life responsibility	Access to material resources Access to immaterial resources Delocalization and migration Cultural heritage Safe and healthy living conditions Respect of indigenous rights Community engagement Local employment Secure living conditions	Public commitments to sustainability issues Contribution to economic development Prevention and mitigation of armed conflicts Technology development Corruption	Fair competition Promoting social responsibility Supplier relationships Respect of intellectual property rights	Education provided Health issues

Table 2. Impact categories and sustainability indicators used in a TBL approach.

Environmental Impact Categories
CML method [61]		BEES method [62]		ReCiPe method [63]
A. Baseline impact categories: Depletion of abiotic resources Impacts of land use Climate change Stratospheric ozone depletion Human toxicity Ecotoxicity Photo-oxidant formation Acidification Eutrophication B. Study-specific impact categories: Land use/Ecotoxicity/Ionising/Radiation/Odour/Noise/Casualties C. Other impact categories: Depletion of biotic resources/Desiccation		Global warming potential Acidification Eutrophication Fossil fuel depletion Indoor air quality Habitat alteration Water intake Criteria air pollutants Human health Cancerous effects Noncancerous effects Smog formation Ozone depletion Ecological toxicity		A. Human health damage Human toxicity Particulate matter Ionizing radiation B. Ecological damage Global warming potential Ozone depletion Land use Water eutrophication C. Resource depletion Fresh water Minerals Fuels
Social Impact Categories [64]
Stakeholder ‘worker’	Stakeholder ‘consumer’	Stakeholder ‘local community’	Stakeholder ‘society’	Value chain actors not including consumers	Children
Freedom of association and collective bargaining Child labor Fair salary Working hours Forced labor Equal opportunities/Discrimination Health and safety Social benefits/Social security	Health and safety Feedback mechanism Consumer privacy Transparency End of life responsibility	Access to material resources Access to immaterial resources Delocalization and migration Cultural heritage Safe and healthy living conditions Respect of indigenous rights Community engagement Local employment Secure living conditions	Public commitments to sustainability issues Contribution to economic development Prevention and mitigation of armed conflicts Technology development Corruption	Fair competition Promoting social responsibility Supplier relationships Respect of intellectual property rights	Education provided Health issues

If the ReCiPe methodology is reviewed [63,65], we can observe that human health, ecosystem quality, and resource scarcity are selected as the three main categories of environmental protection. Economic issues are usually valued by considering the costs of different activities, although other economic aspects such as the financial results of activities can also be used [66]. On the other hand, the analysis of social aspects can be based on six different stakeholder categories (workers, consumers, local communities, society, value chain actors, and children) according to the UNEP’s guidelines [64]. For each stakeholder group, different social impact subcategories and indicators can be identified.

To develop a sustainability framework based on four pillars or dimensions, indicators referring to the cultural impact must also be defined. The difficulty in the design of indicators is aggravated in the context of culture, which can less easily be quantified statistically than economics or ecology. The essential question is to find or create indicators that are capable of accurately and fully pinpointing the particular and characteristic attributes of culture within sustainable development. While society and culture are in many ways interlinked and constitutive of each other, their different constituencies nevertheless allow for distinctive social and cultural dimensions of sustainability.

The consultation of numerous bibliographic references has enabled the establishment of a list of the most significant cultural indicators cited by authors. To this end, a search was carried out in two of the main databases (Web of Science and Scopus) using a combination of four key words: evaluation + culture + impact + indicator (e.g., learning).

Table 3. Bibliographic compilation of cultural indicators (5 July 2023).

Category	Indicator	WOS	Scopus	Related Terms
Impact on heritage	Authenticity/Originality	306	242	Perception, activity, recognition
	Preservation	113	119	Production, economy, society
	Dissemination	121	136	Technology, performance, projects
Collective impact	(Sense of) Community belonging	1.263	1.009	Experience, discrimination, satisfaction
	Diversity	414	322	Comprehension, community, language
	Uncertainty	213	116	Strategy, services, management
Impact on the individual	Learning	927	680	Students, education, inclusion
	Creativity	66	43	Psychology, innovation
	Identity	255	225	Communication, skills, community
	Aesthetic/Beauty	21	77	Social, perception, influence, cognitive
	Emotion	116	105	Feelings, cognitive, causes
	Reflection	173	151	Process, information, feelings

shows the results obtained in these areas, evidencing the importance of these indicators for assessing cultural impact. In addition, it also includes a series of terms related to each indicator that were found in the results of the searches performed.

It is proposed to classify those indicators into three groups depending on whether they refer to the impact on the individual, the collective, or the heritage. The interpretation provided by each author is also included in Table 4. It was observed that a cultural experience can relate and be transformative for the whole community, for the individuals as well as in the relation to the heritage. In this way the aspects such as authenticity, preservation, and dissemination relate to the heritage; belonging, diversity, and dealing with uncertainty refers to the community; and the individual impacts can be defined as learning, creativity, identity, aesthetics, emotion, and reflection. As can be seen, all the indicators have a wide sample of references that have related them to assessments of cultural impact. Only two of the twelve indicators had a number of results below one hundred: creativity and aesthetics. However, both are essential indicators to be able to assess the impact on the individual and their use is justified due to their repeated presence in most of the references analyzed. On the other hand, it can be affirmed that the impact-on-the-community category is strongly supported by a large sample of bibliographic references, especially with regard to the community-belonging indicator.

Table 4. Proposal for structuring cultural indicators based on bibliographic compilation.

Category	Indicator	Reference	Definition
Impact on heritage	Authenticity	[67]	Identification and recognition of a cultural heritage as true and trustworthy
		[9]	Direct relationship between the cultural manifestations and the culture itself of a community
		[68]	Ownership and rights of an author over his work
	Preservation	[69]	Protection, restoration, and enhancement of heritage
		[70]	Proper conservation and cataloging of heritage
		[71]	Actively ensure the transmission of cultural heritage to future generations.
		[72]	Resource conservation for future generations
	Dissemination	[73]	Distribution and preservation of cultural resources
		[70]	Disclosure of heritage for the benefit of society
		[74]	Promotion of the development, transfer, and dissemination of cultural and technological resources
Collective impact	Community belonging	[72]	Values and problems shared by humanity
		[69]	Group sentiment and development of civic identity
		[71]	Expression of fundamental symbolic values for communities that generate social impacts
		[6]	Involvement or participation with a culture or environment
	Diversity	[12]	Intercultural dialogue that allows the coexistence of different cultures in the same space
		[72]	Variety of cultural expression in group practices
		[14]	Giving voice to diverse community groups
		[69]	Protection and promotion of cultural expressions
		[9]	Manifestation of cultural variety based on tolerance, inclusiveness, and curiosity
	Uncertainty	[75]	Lack of certainty about a fact or subject
		[14]	Complex fact that the individual has to deal with
		[73]	Risk to be treated with caution, inability to predict future changes
Impact on the individual	Learning	[12]	Skills development through activities that include the exchange of practices and experiences.
		[75]	Knowledge acquired from experience
		[9]	Promoting knowledge and understanding
		[76]	Capacity to educate future generations
	Creativity	[12]	Source of inspiration and ability related to human development that fosters innovation.
		[75]	Human factor giving rise to innovative ideas
		[72]	Driver of economic and artistic growth, as well as sustainable urban development
		[14]	Attribute that stimulates individual imagination
		[69]	Spirit of innovation in skills and competencies
		[77]	Aspects linked to the cultural experience that encourages curiosity and motivates to create something new
		[9]	Innovation applied to problem-solving
	Identity	[75]	Values and characteristics of an individual
		[72]	Promotion of citizenship expression
		[14]	Affirming, challenging, and deepening values
		[78]	Feeling that reinforces awareness of one’s own history, the history of others, and the history of the world
		[76]	People’s awareness of themselves, their lives, relationships with others, cultural identity, etc.
	Aesthetic	[12]	Characteristic promoted in public spaces for dialogue, peace, and progress
		[69]	Artistic and symbolic value of cultural expression
		[76]	Stylistic qualities, symbolic value of the work, historical value, value as social work, etc.
	Emotion	[79]	Response to delight, commotion or shock as an aspect that occurs in contact with art
		[9]	Enriching the individual through experience
		[80]	Experience or perception that alters the subconscious mind
	Reflection	[75]	Stimulus or thought about an intangible subject through observation or interaction with it.
		[14]	To stop and think about something that had been taken for granted or not previously paid attention to.
		[80]	Source of cultural energy together with criticism

Table 4. Proposal for structuring cultural indicators based on bibliographic compilation.

Category	Indicator	Reference	Definition
Impact on heritage	Authenticity	[67]	Identification and recognition of a cultural heritage as true and trustworthy
		[9]	Direct relationship between the cultural manifestations and the culture itself of a community
		[68]	Ownership and rights of an author over his work
	Preservation	[69]	Protection, restoration, and enhancement of heritage
		[70]	Proper conservation and cataloging of heritage
		[71]	Actively ensure the transmission of cultural heritage to future generations.
		[72]	Resource conservation for future generations
	Dissemination	[73]	Distribution and preservation of cultural resources
		[70]	Disclosure of heritage for the benefit of society
		[74]	Promotion of the development, transfer, and dissemination of cultural and technological resources
Collective impact	Community belonging	[72]	Values and problems shared by humanity
		[69]	Group sentiment and development of civic identity
		[71]	Expression of fundamental symbolic values for communities that generate social impacts
		[6]	Involvement or participation with a culture or environment
	Diversity	[12]	Intercultural dialogue that allows the coexistence of different cultures in the same space
		[72]	Variety of cultural expression in group practices
		[14]	Giving voice to diverse community groups
		[69]	Protection and promotion of cultural expressions
		[9]	Manifestation of cultural variety based on tolerance, inclusiveness, and curiosity
	Uncertainty	[75]	Lack of certainty about a fact or subject
		[14]	Complex fact that the individual has to deal with
		[73]	Risk to be treated with caution, inability to predict future changes
Impact on the individual	Learning	[12]	Skills development through activities that include the exchange of practices and experiences.
		[75]	Knowledge acquired from experience
		[9]	Promoting knowledge and understanding
		[76]	Capacity to educate future generations
	Creativity	[12]	Source of inspiration and ability related to human development that fosters innovation.
		[75]	Human factor giving rise to innovative ideas
		[72]	Driver of economic and artistic growth, as well as sustainable urban development
		[14]	Attribute that stimulates individual imagination
		[69]	Spirit of innovation in skills and competencies
		[77]	Aspects linked to the cultural experience that encourages curiosity and motivates to create something new
		[9]	Innovation applied to problem-solving
	Identity	[75]	Values and characteristics of an individual
		[72]	Promotion of citizenship expression
		[14]	Affirming, challenging, and deepening values
		[78]	Feeling that reinforces awareness of one’s own history, the history of others, and the history of the world
		[76]	People’s awareness of themselves, their lives, relationships with others, cultural identity, etc.
	Aesthetic	[12]	Characteristic promoted in public spaces for dialogue, peace, and progress
		[69]	Artistic and symbolic value of cultural expression
		[76]	Stylistic qualities, symbolic value of the work, historical value, value as social work, etc.
	Emotion	[79]	Response to delight, commotion or shock as an aspect that occurs in contact with art
		[9]	Enriching the individual through experience
		[80]	Experience or perception that alters the subconscious mind
	Reflection	[75]	Stimulus or thought about an intangible subject through observation or interaction with it.
		[14]	To stop and think about something that had been taken for granted or not previously paid attention to.
		[80]	Source of cultural energy together with criticism

After identifying and defining a set of impact categories and indicators, it is possible to propose the sustainability study based on four pillars such as is shown in Figure 4. This approach allows us to deal with sustainability (including culture) considering in each dimension a number of impact categories, which can be the object of study, and a list of specific indicators, which can be evaluated in each category. Figure 4 is intended to show graphically what is involved in a complete study of sustainability. The huge complexity that entails the determination of all impacts can be assumed, so the selection of specific indicators to characterize the sustainability of a system and in line with those interests and concerns of decision-makers is required.

In this work, those indicators considered most suitable to value each sustainability dimension are shown in

Table 5. Sustainability indicators selected in this work to evaluate sustainability in each dimension.

Environmental Dimension
Indicator	Global warming potential (GWP)
Impact category	Damage to ecosystems—(categories based on ReCiPe methodology)
Units	Quantitative indicator expressed in Kg CO2-eq
Interpretation	Usually called carbon footprint, it represents the total emissions of the greenhouse gases computing the radiative forcing over a time horizon (100 years).
Selection	It provides essential information on environmental impact. It is the most-used indicator in sustainability studies.
Valuation	It is generally calculated using the corresponding unit indicator (expressed as emissions per mass unit), which is obtained from different databases and using specific software such as GaBi or SimaPro.
Economic Dimension
Indicator	Execution costs (CE)
Impact category	Costs—(categories based on literature review)
Units	Quantitative indicator that it is expressed in euros (€)
Interpretation	It considers the total cost of executing an activity. Thus, costs of materials, processes, and any type of resources are included.
Selection	It is a practical indicator to show the economic viability of any activity, since the profit obtained will be directly associated with the costs of that activity.
Valuation	Costs are usually calculated using the following cost groups: raw materials, energy consumption, labor, consumables, indirect costs, amortization, and different products. Services price tables as well as salaries tables are used in the valuation.
Social Dimension
Indicator	Working time (TW)
Impact category	Workers—(categories based on UNEP’s guidelines)
Units	Quantitative indicator that it is expressed in hours (h)
Interpretation	Time spent developing an activity. It can be defined per worker or for all workers involved.
Selection	It is considered a relevant indicator to know the social impact of a cultural activity, since it can be related not only with the efficient development of tasks, but also with job creation, social cohesion, and family conciliation.
Valuation	The total working time or accumulated working time is obtained as the sum of working hours of all workers involved in the development of the activity. Specific tools of activities planning such as Gantt diagrams can be used in the valuation.
Cultural Dimension
Indicator	Sense of Community Belonging (BC)
Category	Collective—(categories based on literature review)
Units	Indicator expressed in points, which can be evaluated in Likert scale
Interpretation	Values and problems shared by humanity. Group sentiment and development of civic identity. Expression of fundamental symbolic values for communities that generate social impact. Involvement or participation with a culture or environment.
Selection	It is considered a pertinent indicator to value the cultural impact. It is strongly supported by a large sample of bibliographic references.
Valuation	The valuation referred to culture experiences recorded in surveys of the participating public. An inferential analysis (bivariate analysis) of the structured questions of the survey was applied.

. Details of the definition of these indicators, the reason for their selection, and the procedure to obtain each of them are explained. In the environmental dimension, the global warming potential (GWP) indicator is selected since it represents total emissions of greenhouse gases, which directly affect climate change. Execution costs (C_E) is considered a practical indicator to express the economic viability of a service dedicated to the exhibition of cultural content. In the social dimension, the working time (Tw) indicator is selected because it is related not only to the efficient development of tasks but also to aspects of social cohesion. In the case of the cultural dimension, the sense of community belonging (B_C) is selected since it is usually cited by cultural impact studies. It is not intended to be a closed list.

Other additional indicators could be included in the study to obtain more specific sustainability data.

It was observed that a cultural experience can relate to and be transformative for the whole community, for individuals, and in relation to heritage. In this way, aspects such as authenticity, preservation, and dissemination relate to heritage; belonging, diversity, and dealing with uncertainty refer to the community; and the individual impacts can be defined as learning, creativity, identity, aesthetics, emotion, and reflection.

3. Case Study

The suitability of the proposed methodology for assessing sustainability was evaluated in a pilot test. The scope of the study was limited to the provision stage of the cultural service, in which the most significant activities involved were examined.

An experimental exhibition room that tells the story of the Titanic, focusing on the experiences of the travelers and crew, was created. The exhibition was held on a university campus for a month and its dissemination was carried out through several channels. During that month, on one hand, the necessary data were collected to enable the assessment of the environmental, economic, and social dimensions of sustainability, and, on the other hand, a survey was conducted to find out how the cultural impact was evaluated by the visitors. Survey questions were previously adjusted to target the exhibition characteristics with more accuracy, using the observations of four heterogeneous user profiles: an expert in cultural management, a regular visitor to exhibitions, a person who does not usually go to exhibitions, and a student. After visiting the exhibition and answering the survey, these participants shared their observations in a focus group.

The experimentation took place in a delimited space divided into two areas: one for the presentation of the exhibition contents and the other where visitors responded to the survey.

The exhibition content was based on a representation of the high seas at night, accompanied by a narrative describing the silence just after the sinking of the Titanic. In order to do this, a semicircular wall was used, consisting of nine printed panels, each 3 m high and 1.4 m wide. Eight of the panels contained a segment of a large image of the night sea, and one panel (the last) contained explanatory text. The panels as a whole were illuminated by two soft lights on the opposite wall.

The different phases of the methodology, previously given in Figure 3, were conducted. All the data necessary to evaluate sustainability indicators were collected. Workers required, equipment used, energy consumed, visitors received, transport used, etc., were collected throughout the development of the exhibition. The exhibition was open five days a week for 8 h over the course of 1 month and was attended by 43 visitors per day on average. The jobs of public attendant and cleaner were carried out by two workers, each working 40 and 3 h, respectively, weekly. Total labor costs were obtained in each destination. Other operation costs were energy consumption (spotlights, vacuum cleaner), thermal conditioning, and the visitors’ displacements. The visitors arrived at the exhibition by tram, car, walking, bicycle, or a combination of these, traveling an average distance of 23.2 km. The energy consumption due to heating, cooling, and primary lighting of the exhibition area were also valued. Data obtained over one month are shown in Figure 5.

Before conducting the experiment, participants had access to all the information regarding the objectives of the experiment and the processing of their personal data. The survey was designed to be completed in approximately two to three minutes. Following their visit to the exhibition space, visitors were invited to answer the survey in a second space. Visitors marked the neighborhood they came from and the means of transportation employed to reach the site, which was used to calculate the impact of the audience’s displacement. They also answered questions about themselves, such as gender, age, profession, education, and interests. In order to assess the extent to which the Titanic exhibition had influenced their sense of belonging to the community, visitors were invited to mark on a Likert-type scale from 1 to 5 the degree to which they identified with the following statement: The exhibition has fostered my sense of identification with the collective of travelers and survivors of the tragedy.

The following questions were about visitors (gender, age, occupation, and education) and their interests, the impact that the exhibition had on their sense of belonging to the community, and how much importance they attached to this indicator (Likert-type response variables from 1 to 5).

Indicators obtained in each sustainability dimension are summarized in Figure 5. Results are expressed by one visitor to the exhibition. In addition, how these indicators depend on some factors is presented. Greenhouse gas emissions of 0.15 kg CO₂-eq were obtained. Emissions were mainly due to the transport of visitors to the exhibition location. An economic cost of 2.61 € was calculated, which was due mainly to workers’ salaries. The accumulated working time of those workers required in the service operation was 0.20 h, which was used essentially in the public attention activity. Finally, an average value of 3.30 pt was obtained for the sense of community belonging. The study of gender data shows a higher score for the female gender.

Data on sustainability indicators may help in the decision-making process for the design of a more sustainable exhibition, guiding the selection of improvement strategies. In addition, they take on great relevance if it is possible to compare them with those obtained from other cultural services. Thus, the utility of the methodological framework proposed, as well as the data which can be obtained from it, becomes manifest.

4. Conclusions

Museums and cultural exhibitions are increasingly introducing sustainability aspects into their activities and advocate for culture to be an additional dimension in sustainability studies. Different authors had already dealt with the integration of culture as a fourth sustainability dimension from a theoretical point of view, but this approach had not been developed in practice. This work has proposed a comprehensive analytical framework for the sustainability study with an holistic approach in which environmental, economic, social, and cultural aspects are simultaneously addressed.

Methodological considerations that explain how sustainability is evaluated and indicators can be obtained were developed based on the Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment (LCSA) methodology. The application of this method was supported by a clear structure of four phases and the consideration of different consensus principles that can facilitate and promote its use. Over the years, researchers related to culture have been using different tools to analyze their sustainability actions. In most cases, their methods had a high degree of subjectivity and the results obtained for various cases were not comparable. We consider that the methodological framework based on the LCSA method can provide a rigorous procedure to obtain and compare sustainability indicators.

In order to measure and communicate sustainability results, a comprehensive list of impact categories and indicators has been elaborated using the most important methods of impact classification and examining specific literature to define specific indicators of the cultural dimension. Three cultural impact categories were identified: individual, collective, and heritage, in which a total of 12 indicators can be grouped. The great complexity that entails the determination of all indicators included in each sustainability dimension suggest that specific indicators, in line with those interests and criteria of decision-makers, be selected to study the sustainability of a system.

Besides establishing the methodological framework for the study of sustainability in cultural activities, this work lies in its practical application to a case study. An experimental exhibition room that deals with the Titanic’s history was created. Contents exhibited were conveniently simplified and the scope of the study limited to the operation stage. Data of the exhibition development, including those related with the equipment used, workers required, and visitors received, were collected using different techniques. Those indicators referring to very important aspects of each sustainability dimension were obtained and main factors affecting them were found.

In particular, the greenhouse emissions (environmental dimension) were mainly due to the transport of visitors to the exhibition location, while the execution costs (economic dimension) were due mainly to workers’ salaries. The working time (social dimension) of those workers required in the service operation was dedicated essentially to the public attention activity, and the study of gender data in the sense of community-belonging (cultural dimension) showed a higher score for the female gender.

Thus, this research work contributes to the practical integration of the cultural impact in the sustainability of museums and exhibitions, and it has the potential to be used in a comparative analysis with a similar case, thus facilitating the decision-making process. Furthermore, it can be used in the redesign of cultural activities to determine whether an improvement in sustainability can be achieved. The use of other existing techniques to combine them with the method proposed, the suitable selection of indicators in each case, and the study of the entire life cycle should be the object of a more detailed analysis in future research works.

The current limitation in integrating the cultural dimension into sustainability assessments lies in the challenge of applying this method universally. While it is feasible to assess cultural services and products (as demonstrated in the case study), and also products and services impacting our culture (e.g., new communication media like smart phones and social networks, tourism products and services, or the fashion industry), the cultural impacts of some products and services are less evident. This needs further studies to determine if the cultural dimension can be included in the assessments of such products and services. On the other hand, as with all studies, the limitation of the case study presented is defined by its scope. In this instance, the provision stage of the service has been analyzed. Future studies will face the challenge of including the creation and end-of-life stages.

In future studies, the assessment of sustainability across four dimensions will be applied to compare different products and services. This approach will provide data for decision-makers, considering not only environmental, economic, and social impacts but also cultural impacts. The integrated index will enable comparisons of results, taking into account scenarios where different priorities can be established. The assessment of products and services within a multidimensional framework is the first step toward more informed decisions that can lead us to a more sustainable future. While the assessment itself does not change reality, it allows us to understand it better and define clear criteria for policymakers and individuals in their consumer decisions, based in part on the values and visions related to culture.

Traditional sustainability assessment enables the choice of a system with less impact, which means we choose the less bad system. With the integration of culture into the assessment, the scale of positive impacts that a system has in the cultural dimension can be observed.