The Characterization and Delineation of the Material Cultural Heritage Sector in Europe

Abstract

In recent decades, the European policy on material cultural heritage (MCH) has shifted from a primary focus on preserving heritage elements to emphasizing the value that can be derived from them. This trend has led to an interest in quantifying the impact of cultural heritage on economic activity. However, determining the magnitude of this impact is not feasible without first defining the range of activities included in the MCH sector. This article reports the findings of a study to delineate the MCH sector. Combining a tight alignment with economic statistics categories and explicit endorsements from sector experts, the novelty of this delineation lies in the systematic application of the principle of exhaustiveness—recognizing all activities related to MCH regardless of their artistic, historical, or cultural content—while its practicality is ensured by mapping directly onto the categories used to compile European official statistics. Finally, characterizing the activities that constitute the MCH sector is not merely a conceptual exercise, it has direct practical implications, providing the indispensable basis for rigorous sectoral accounting consistent with national accounts standards.

1. Introduction

Material cultural heritage (MCH) holds a multifaceted value, encompassing cultural, educational, symbolic, and economic dimensions, which is transmitted across generations. Over the past few decades, a growing body of research has explored the impact of culture across these dimensions, with a predominant focus on its economic implications. In this context, culture, and more specifically MCH, is increasingly being recognised as a distinct economic sector, whose statistical analysis is crucial for guiding the development of effective public and private strategies.

A rigorous statistical description of the MCH sector requires a precise delineation of its boundaries, supported by clearly defined inclusion criteria. In the cultural domain, traditional inclusion criteria often rely on essentialist principles, which assess an economic activity’s cultural character based on its inherent qualities, such as creativity, the potential for intellectual property creation, or links with established artistic traditions. However, applying such criteria to the MCH would limit the sector’s dimension to a narrow set of activities, failing to capture the full impact of the MCH on economic activity. For instance, tourism-related activities derived from the presence of museums or cultural sites, among others, would be excluded from consideration.

Recent methodological work has broadened the analytical scope of the MCH sector, making economic assessments more comprehensive and policy-relevant. Yet current delineations remain partial and inconsistent, leaving important gaps in what activities are included and how they are counted. The contribution of this paper is to propose a comprehensive delineation of the MCH sector that directly addresses these needs.

This article addresses the problem of delineating the MCH sector in order to facilitate the design and compilation of sectoral satellite accounts across European countries and regions, in accordance with the principles and conventions of the European System of Accounts 2010 (ESA 2010) [1]. Its overarching aim is to describe the scale and main features of economic activity in the MCH sector, thereby broadening the scope for economic impact analyses of specific cultural heritage assets and providing policymakers with a comprehensive, sector-wide overview. Achieving this aim requires, first, a description of the nature and content of the activities that constitute the sector and, second, the identification of the links between those activities and the categories used in standard classifications of economic activities. This is the specific objective of this article.

To this end, we reviewed internationally recognised sectoral delineations and conceptual frameworks in cognate fields—such as culture and the creative industries—together with the specifications of their satellite accounts. On that basis, we developed a methodological framework, which we then submitted for scrutiny from experienced sector practitioners and from representatives of several regional and national statistical institutes, as well as Eurostat.

2. Materials and Methods

The delineation of an economic sector is not so much an exercise in empirical research as the outcome of a design process. Accordingly, it is not bound by the methodological frameworks commonly used in the social sciences or in economics. Nevertheless, design—like any intellectual endeavour—benefits from prior experience, from careful task planning, and from the application of methods to monitor tasks and assess their results. This work was carried out in the following phases:

This work was undertaken in three broad phases—a review of the relevant background, the formulation of the proposal, and a subsequent review and validation—and in line with the following criteria.

We conducted a comprehensive review of internationally relevant methodological documents concerning the definition of sectors related to MCH and the measurement of their economic activities. The review covered (i) leading conceptual frameworks for the cultural and creative sectors [2,3,4,5], within which MCH is typically included (sometimes as a distinct domain); (ii) guidance for compiling satellite accounts for these sectors [6]; (iii) prior proposals specific to the MCH sector [7]; and (iv) empirical studies estimating the economic scale of MCH [8]. The review also considered national and regional statistical exercises describing the sector [9].

All material was read in full by every member of the team (the co-authors of this article), irrespective of prior familiarity. For each document we completed a standardised review sheet, which was then discussed collectively.

The diverse perspectives and backgrounds of the team enabled a critical appraisal of the material from both a sectoral standpoint and the perspective of official statistics and the specific requirements of satellite accounting. This process resulted in a proposal for the delineation and characterisation of the economic activities of the sector, aligned with the requirements for satellite accounts as set out in the European System of Accounts 2010 (ESA 2010) [1].

The design proposal was then submitted to a panel of stakeholders, who took part in a structured consultation and review process consisting of two sessions focused on sector delineation, value chain description, and the identification of standard categories of economic activity linked to MCH. The sessions were organised on 21 November and 17 December 2024, with 18 and 15 participants, respectively. Attendees included representatives from the European Heritage Heads Forum (EHHF), the European Confederation of Conservator–Restorers Organisations (ECCO), and other national organisations with authority in the management of national cultural heritage, such as the Federal Monuments Authority Austria, the Flanders Heritage Agency, Historic England, the Ministry of Culture and Media of the Republic of Croatia, the Swedish National Heritage Board, and the Walloon Heritage Agency. Additionally, representatives from EUROSTAT and several national and regional statistical institutes participated. Stakeholders brought two distinct yet complementary perspectives to the table, merging the expertise of professionals in cultural heritage management and preservation with that of specialists in economic statistical methodologies. Following each session, a comprehensive draft report was produced, which was then reviewed, discussed, and refined through iterative written feedback.

Stakeholder participation enriched the proposal and supported its validation. Among the issues debated were the following:

• The delineation of the MCH sector by reference to existing conceptualisations of the cultural and creative sectors.
• The need to encompass, in the sector delineation, branches of activity beyond strictly cultural ones, in order to capture the true scale of MCH-related economic activity.
• Concepts arising from the digital transformation of the sector, including the distinction between “born-digital” and “digitised heritage”.
• The inclusion, within the definition of MCH, of cultural landscapes and their connection with related economic activities in agriculture, fisheries, and aquaculture.

3. Background: Conceptual Foundations and Evolving Approaches in the Management of Material Cultural Heritage

The perspective from which MCH management is approached has undergone a transformation over the past few decades. This shift has entailed a move away from a conservation-oriented focus towards a value-oriented focus [10,11].

Since the Amsterdam Declaration (1975) [12], a growing trend has become more pronounced in the early 21st century [13,14,15,16]. This trend is concurrent with two key developments: (a) the increasing recognition of the pivotal role culture and creative industries play in driving territorial development and competitiveness [17], alongside the acknowledgement that cultural activities contribute substantially to the global GDP [4], and (b) the emergence of MCH as a catalyst for cultural creativity, artistic innovation, and other economic activities, notably tourism [18], as emphasised in the Charter Project [7].

In Europe, the importance of MCH as a driver of development and wealth is emphasized in a multitude of official declarations issued by European community institutions, including the European Landscape Convention [19], the Faro Convention [20], the Brussels Charter [21], and the communication “Towards an Integrated Approach to Cultural Heritage for Europe” [22]. More recently, A New European Agenda for Culture [23] has established the protection and promotion of European cultural heritage, conceived as a shared resource and as a strategic priority. Moreover, European institutions have demonstrated their commitment to MCH through the implementation of targeted initiatives, such as the “European Year of Cultural Heritage” (2018), whose success has been consolidated in the European Framework for Action on Cultural Heritage [24]. Additionally, broader programs like “Horizon 2020” and “Horizon Europe” have provided significant funding for MCH-related activities, including the “New European Bauhaus” initiative [25], which underscores the growing recognition of MCH’s potential for driving economic and societal transformations.

The growing visibility of the MCH sector has triggered an increasing demand for reliable and comparable data about its weight in the economy, which has, in turn, fuelled a proliferation of methodological initiatives in this field. As of 2024, a range of initiatives endorsed by international organizations have been developed, including those presented by international public entities [3,7,8].

Table 1. Comparative analysis of the reviewed frameworks.

Framework	Main Objective and Characteristics	Sector Scope	Sector Delimitation	Link with Standard Economic Activity Categories	Link with Standard Product Categories	Link with Standard Occupation Categories
UNESCO FCS [5]	It is the conceptual framework of reference for cultural statistics. It updates a previous version [26], which inaugurated the concept of “cultural dimensions” and the idea of a cultural “cycle” or a “value chain”. Cultural heritage is presented as a cultural dimension.	Culture	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
ESSnet-Culture [2]	European proposal that delimits the cultural sector by establishing a correspondence between the activities that are part of it and a series of standard categories of economic activities (in NACE terms)	Culture	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
EUIPO [6]	Contains a methodology for the creation of satellite accounts of the creative industries.	Creative industries	Yes (adapted from ESSnet-Culture)	Yes	No	No
EC CCS [3]	Identifies activities, actors, and products and services linked to each of the manifestations (domains) of cultural activity. Cultural heritage is presented as a domain.	Cultural and creative sectors	Yes	No	No	No
ESPON HERITAGE [8]	Empirical research that measures the weight of the MCH sector in the economy of several European countries and regions. Includes an industry delimitation based on NACE categories.	Material cultural heritage	Yes	Yes (not exhaustive)	No	No
CHARTER [7]	Describes the skills required of professionals in the cultural heritage sector, for which the breadth, dynamics, and boundaries of the cultural heritage sector are previously established.	Cultural heritage	Yes	No (EUROSTAT is used)	No	No (EUROSTAT is used)

provides a comprehensive overview of these proposals, as well as earlier initiatives that target the broader cultural sector but also devote attention to the more specialised domain of MCH.

The first four proposals, included in Table 1, draw on the cultural sector or creative industries as their framework of reference. In contrast, the latter two proposals are tailored specifically to the MCH sector. Moreover, the proposals are characterised by divergent objectives. Some align with the objective of this article, aiming to develop concepts and categories that enhance our understanding and description of the sector with increased rigor (UNESCO-FCS; ESSnet-Culture) and granularity (Charter; EC CCS). Conversely, others (ESPON Heritage, EUIPO) propose a delineation of the MCH domain as a means to achieve a more comprehensive goal: establishing accounting standards and conventions that enable a rigorous and harmonised measurement of the sector’s economic activities.

UNESCO FCS is the most prominent and comprehensive framework included in the sample, categorising the cultural sector into six specific domains and four transversal ones. One domain within the former group corresponds to Cultural and Natural Heritage, while in the latter there is one identifying Intangible Cultural Heritage. However, this conceptualization falls short of meeting the objectives of this article, as it narrowly defines the MCH sector to encompass activities undertaken by museums, archaeological and historical sites, cultural landscapes, and natural heritage, thereby failing to capture the full scope we intend to attribute to the sector. A similar limitation applies to ESSNet, and as EUIPO adopts ESSNet’s sectoral delineation, it too falls short of providing an adequate solution.

ESPON Heritage undertakes a conceptual examination of the sector’s boundaries, encompassing activities such as cultural tourism, but falls short of providing a detailed characterisation of these activities and developing specific sectoral typologies. Ultimately, the sector’s delimitation in ESPON Heritage is achieved through an aggregation of activity branches in accordance with the Statistical Classification of Economic Activities in the European Community (NACE), which may not always align with the original conceptual framework. Initially, activities such as artistic crafts, graphic design, and advertising and marketing are considered integral to the sector; however, they are ultimately excluded from the analysis due to the challenges associated with assigning them to a specific NACE activity class. Moreover, ESPON Heritage also strays from the objective of defining the sector in the broadest possible terms. For instance, in the context of cultural tourism, only accommodation and food and beverage service activities are taken into account, while other relevant activities, such as passenger transport and travel agency services, are disregarded.

The Charter project proposal exhibits complementary characteristics to those of ESPON Heritage. Charter achieves a notable conceptualization of the activities developed in the MCH sector, closely aligned with the conceptions and categories inherent to sector professionals, but does not consider it necessary to link these activities to standard categories in economic statistics.

However, they all suffer from significant limitations. The first four frameworks (Table 1) are undoubtedly valuable as conceptual schemes for improving the understanding of the cultural sector, but they do not address the MCH sector specifically—except insofar as they treat it as a mere dimension of the cultural sector. This conventional view is overly narrow and fails to capture the value generated by other activities that are not narrowly cultural—such as tourism, building renovations, and the insurance of cultural assets—which arise from the existence of MCH. ESPON Heritage represents a significant step forward in measuring the MCH sector in Europe; however, its selection of constituent activities is overly arbitrary and insufficiently broad. Moreover, the ESPON Heritage accounting framework is not aligned with national accounts standards, thereby hampering the assessment of the sector relative to the economy as a whole. Finally, Charter does not define the sector using the standard categories of economic statistics, which constitutes a major obstacle to the rigorous measurement of the sector in terms of the value created and employment generated.

Taken collectively, these antecedents reveal a tendency to adopt an expansive view of the MCH sector, incorporating activities such as cultural tourism and the insurance of cultural assets. Moreover, a tension emerges between the adherence to sector-specific professional perspectives and the utilization of standardised economic activity categories. Overall, this review highlights the need for the further clarification of the MCH sector’s boundaries, necessitating a rigorous conceptual framework and the alignment of constituent activities with empirical referents in economic accounting, specifically with the latest version of the NACE classification system in the European context.

4. Results and Discussion

4.1. Material Cultural Heritage: Concept and Classification

In our proposal, the MCH sector is defined in the most comprehensive way possible, including all activities related to the existence, preservation, and management of MCH, as well as those that occur under the influence of this heritage, such as cultural tourism or the rehabilitation of historic buildings, for example.

The delineation involves clarifying the notion of MCH and identifying the activities associated with it. The concept of cultural heritage has undergone profound transformations, and even today, there are two opposing visions [27]. The first, objectivist, considers that heritage consists of all objects with cultural, historical, or artistic content that come from the past. The interest of this approach is on the object itself. In contrast, the second perspective holds that an object’s inclusion in MCH derives from the function it performs, so that an object is only part of MCH if it is recognised as such. This recognition does not have to be official. In fact, reference [16] distinguishes two types of recognition, one explicit and official (heritage by designation) and the other tacit (heritage by appropriation).

The notion of MCH is also complex in several ways. It is common to include different types of elements and institutions, such as historic sites and cities, natural sacred sites, museums, cinematographic heritage, handicrafts, and so on. In our proposal, we acknowledge that the activities within each function of the value chain can vary depending on the type of cultural heritage being addressed, and we distinguish three types of MCH, which are based on UNESCO categories of tangible cultural heritage. Each heritage type is associated with unique activities that shape how functions such as recognition, preservation, transmission, and trade are considered.

Movable cultural heritage. Includes artifacts and objects that can be considered fine arts or decorative arts. This category also includes ethnographic collections, machines, and equipment considered relics of the past, archaeological objects, and archival materials, including manuscripts.

Immovable cultural heritage. Includes monuments, buildings, and structures, as well as sites with cultural, historical, architectural, artistic, anthropological, or ethnographical significance. A special mention is given to religious buildings, castles, historic city centres, and archaeological sites.

Cultural landscapes. Areas historically transformed by humans and valued for representing a specific type of relationship between the local community and its natural environment. This category includes both landscapes intentionally created by humans and those resulting from unintentional social and environmental dynamics.

This three-category scheme appears to leave aside the phenomenon of digitalization, which has gained significant attention among sector experts and has generated new categories such as “digital-born” and “digitised heritage” [28,29]. Our notion of MCH recognises the importance of digitalization in the MCH sector, although we consider its effects to be transversal.

4.2. The Value Chain of the MCH Sector

The second task in delineating the sector involves identifying, describing, and classifying the activities associated with MCH. At this stage, our proposal aligns with the prevailing approach found in the most relevant conceptual and methodological frameworks [3,5,7,8]. This approach consists of including in the sector all activities ranging from cultural or artistic creation to their eventual consumption by users [30,31].

The value chain or cycle associated with MCH, however, presents particularities. Firstly, it is inconceivable for this sector to include a phase involving the creation or production of objects that constitute the MCH [5], since these constitute a legacy of the past. Instead, other activities assume a greater importance, such as the recognition and registration of heritage assets, which grant them legitimacy.

Our definition of the four functions that comprise the value chain of the MCH sector is deliberately broad to allow each function to capture activities associated with the three types of heritage defined above.

IDENTIFICATION AND RECOGNITION. This stage of the value chain includes all activities necessary to register objects that constitute part of the cultural heritage, including inventorying, which involves locating and documenting the existence of objects and assessing their conservation status; research on heritage that takes place in archaeological excavations and archives or that is conducted based on the existing literature on heritage; the classification of heritage into different categories according to criteria of significance or relevance; and nomination and designation, which involves the official recognition of an object as part of the material heritage by regional, national, or international institutions. Educational and training activities that lead to the qualification of experts in performing these tasks are also included in this function.

Identification and recognition convert a particular object into part of the material heritage and influence the economic value of the object itself, as well as its impact on other economic activities. For example, Castillo-Manzano et al. (2021) found that UNESCO’s recognition of World Heritage Sites has a positive effect on tourism activity in the affected territories [32]. This does not mean that official recognition always has positive consequences for all stakeholders. In some cases, phenomena such as property abandonment, population loss, and selective repopulation in urban areas protected for their cultural value occur [33]. Grevstad-Nordbrock and Vojnovic (2019), for instance, describe gentrification phenomena in Chicago, arguing that revitalization programs in protected areas can pose a threat precisely to the preservation of the characteristics that led to their protection [34].

PRESERVATION AND CONSERVATION. This phase includes all activities that contribute to ensuring the conservation of heritage so that future generations can enjoy it, including preventative measures and maintenance, which have received increasing attention from experts in recent decades [35], as well as restoration actions and related technical support and research activities.

Typical activities include the study and diagnosis of the state of conservation, including conservation studies and laboratory services; conservation and restoration activities, including building rehabilitation; ordinary maintenance tasks, including gardening, security, and cleaning; and the reconstruction of heritage in cases of loss due to disasters, war, climate change, or any other reason. This category also includes environmental monitoring and the installation of special lighting and monitoring devices that ensure ideal humidity, temperature, and light levels.

Additionally, fundraising linked to the conservation of monuments and buildings or the creation of digital replicas to avoid exposing heritage objects is also included.

Cultural landscapes, in particular, require specific environmental management activities to maintain natural characteristics, mitigate risks, and ensure accessibility.

Activities related to preservation and conservation have an impact on a wide range of activities and technologies, such as the production of specialised furniture and materials.

This function also includes the training of professionals who develop the described activities, illustrating the interdependence between tangible and intangible heritage. Traditional craftsmanship is an exemplary case of intangible heritage that is closely tied to the preservation and management of movable and immovable MCH. For instance, the restoration of historic buildings often relies on the skills and knowledge of traditional craftsmen, highlighting the need for a comprehensive approach that considers both tangible and intangible aspects of cultural heritage.

TRANSMISSION/ENGAGEMENT. This phase includes all activities that, in the conceptual frameworks of culture [5], are classified as exhibition, reception, and transmission activities. This includes the distribution of materials, guided visits to museums, historical sites, and archaeological sites, etc. As in previous cases, the training activities of professionals who develop the described functions are also included.

This phase also includes the dissemination of digital content, which is gaining importance in democratizing access to cultural content in general, as well as the engagement and commitment of the public to cultural heritage preservation. This is one of the functions where the trend towards introducing new technologies is most evident, often with the intention of preserving heritage. In museums, for example, augmented reality has been shown to be a technology that contributes to user satisfaction, particularly when it is a novelty for the public and meets their expectations in terms of aesthetics and perceived authenticity [36]. This is one of the technologies with the greatest impact on the sector, along with 3D digital technologies and the Internet of Things (IoT) [37].

USE/TRADE. MCH is not limited to objects exhibited in museums or similar institutions. A part of this heritage is closely tied to the daily life of the community and can be used and transmitted by individuals and institutions. One of the most economically relevant forms of using MCH is tourism. Thousands of tourists visit some of the most representative elements of European cities’ cultural heritage every day, generating economic activity in museums but also in hospitality establishments, transportation services, and retail businesses [16,18].

Cultural heritage is also a valuable element for advertising professionals, who frequently draw on iconic heritage elements to infuse the products they promote with the beauty, prestige, and symbolism inherent in certain cultural and historical icons [38]. The same applies to the audiovisual and entertainment industry. Films, series, documentaries, and, more recently, video games, often takes place in attractive settings for users, including historic sites and buildings. In the case of video games, they can provide users with an immersive experience of life in the past [39] or serve as a didactic tool in architecture studies, for example [40].

On the other hand, historic buildings and protected urban areas are home to thousands of families and the workplace of many professionals. Historic buildings still provide valuable services in the form of rentals (market or imputed) to their owners (users or not) and contribute to their wellbeing and sense of place [41]. This dimension of the value generated by MCH is not considered in the lists of value-generating activities in any of the frameworks described in the Background section, and yet it is probably the most direct effect of building conservation in the historic centres of cities [8].

The use of historic buildings as dwellings also gives rise to three other value-generating activities: their rehabilitation, real estate services associated with these types of dwellings, and their insurance.

Insurance companies also insure movable cultural heritage against damage resulting from various contingencies, and, just like in the real estate market, commercial activity is also benefited by the buying and selling of antiques that are part of the MCH.

Finally, cultural landscapes provide the setting and foundation for agricultural and industrial activities linked to MCH. These include the production of protected varieties of agricultural products or the creation of traditional food and beverages, which also receive recognition and protection from authorities due to their strong ties to specific territories. The Protected Designation of Origin (PDO) enhances the value of these products and facilitates their access to national and international markets. Similarly, in the fishing and aquaculture sector, traditional practices, typically linked to traditional fishing and conservation methods, are preserved and promoted through designations of origin or similar certificates, acknowledging their cultural significance.

The four functions described include activities that can be carried out through volunteer work. The extent of volunteering varies depending on the nature of each activity and the prevailing political culture in a given context, but the overall volume can be substantial. In 2021/22, despite a downward trend, approximately seven million people were still formally engaged in heritage-related volunteer activities in England (Historic England, Heritage Counts: https://historicengland.org.uk/research/heritage-counts/indicator-data/employment/#ad11324f accessed on 11 January 2025). Volunteering has traditionally played a key role in areas such as fundraising and assisting with the restoration of cultural heritage. However, it is in the function of transmission and public engagement that volunteering has become particularly significant for today. Special attention should be given to the unpaid volunteer work involved in disseminating cultural heritage content through platforms such as Wikipedia or YouTube. As a rule, the value contributed by such volunteer work is not recorded in the national accounts: these platforms fall within the sector of non-profit institutions serving households (NPISHs). In the national accounts, the output of NPISH units is generally measured by the sum of costs; consequently, unpaid volunteer labour, having no recorded cost, does not add to the measured output.

Nonetheless, there are ways to approximate this value. One is to infer it from the market revenues that volunteer-generated materials might command (e.g., advertising receipts or subscription payments). Another is to impute a cost for the labour input required to produce the shared materials—estimating the volunteer hours and pricing them at an appropriate reference wage (on either a replacement cost or an opportunity cost basis). None of these methods is fully satisfactory, and none have yet become standard practice. Even so, similar approaches are used in statistical exercises such as household production satellite accounts and, compared with assigning a value of zero, they provide a more defensible approximation of volunteers’ contribution.

In addition to the four functions described, a fifth transversal function should be added—management and governance—which consists of all activities related to the formulation of sectoral policies, the regulation and coordination of activities linked to MCH, and the management of support and promotional activities typically carried out by public administrations. These activities generally affect all the functions described simultaneously, as represented in Figure 1.

4.3. The MCH Sector and NACE Classification

The delineation of sectors such as tourism or culture is not considered complete if it is not followed by precise information about the correspondence with the categories of an international standard classification of activities, which in Europe is the Statistical Classification of Economic Activities in the European Community (NACE). The reason is that the NACE is used in directories of establishments and companies, business surveys, and national accounting, which means that a substantial part of the information used to estimate the economic magnitude of a particular sector is organised according to this classification.

It is possible to establish a correspondence, although it is not bijective, between the components of the MCH sector and the most basic categories (classes) of NACE Rev. 2.1, which is the most recent edition of the classification and will come into effect in 2025. This correspondence is presented in

Table 2. NACE classes in the MCH sector. Source: adapted from [42].

Economic Activities (NACE Rev. 2.1)	Type of MCH	Functions *	Link with MCH Sector
91.11 Library activities	Movable	I&R; P&C; T&E	Partial
91.12 Archive activities	Movable	I&R; P&C; T&E	Complete
91.21 Museum and collection activities	Movable	All	Complete
91.22 Historical site and monument activities	Immovable and landscape	I&R; P&C; T&E	Complete
91.30 Conservation, restoration, and other support activities for cultural heritage	Movable and immovable	P&C	Complete
01.1 Growing of non-perennial crops	Landscape	U&T	Partial
01.2 Growing of perennial crops
01.4 Animal production
01.50 Mixed farming
01.6 Support activities to agriculture and post-harvest crop activities
03 Fishing and aquaculture	Landscape	U&T	Partial
65.12 Non-life insurance	Immovable	T&U	Partial
43.99 Other specialised construction activities n.e.c.	Immovable	P&C	Partial
71.11 Architectural activities	Immovable	P&C	Partial
68.20 Rental and operating of own or leased real estate	Immovable	U&T	Partial
68.11 Buying and selling of own real estate
68.20 Rental and operating of own or leased real estate
68.31 Intermediation service activities for real estate activities
68.32 Other real estate activities on a fee or contract basis
47.79 Retail sale of second-hand goods	Movable	U&T	Partial
47.9 Intermediation service activities for retail sale	Movable	U&T	Partial
98.2 Undifferentiated service-producing activities of private households for own use	All	All	Partial
94.99 Activities of other membership organisations n.e.c.	All	All	Partial
49.1 Passenger rail transport	All	U&T	Partial
49.3 Other passenger land transport
50.1 Sea and coastal passenger water transport
50.3 Inland passenger water transport
51.1 Passenger air transport
55 Accommodation
56 Food and beverage service activities
79 Travel agency, tour operator, and other reservation service and related activities
77.11 Rental and leasing of cars and light motor vehicles
90–92 Excluding those considered as MCH activities
85.3 Secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary education	All	I&R; P&C; T&E	Partial
85.4 Tertiary education
85.5 Other education
72.10 Research and experimental development on natural sciences and engineering	All	I&R; P&C	Partial
72.20 Research and experimental development on social sciences and humanities	All	I&R; P&C; T&E	Partial
84.11 General public administration activities	All	All	Partial

* I&R: Identification and recognition. P&C: Preservation and conservation. T&E: Transmission and engagement. U&T: Use and trade.

, where it distinguishes which classes are part of the sector in its entirety and which are part of it only partially. The latter type requires estimation strategies that inform us about its internal composition.

5. Conclusions

The principal contribution of this study is a delineation of the MCH sector that satisfies the following criteria:

• It includes a taxonomy of tangible objects that comprise the MCH sector, designed to facilitate the elaboration of economic statistics, taking into account the currently available statistical information.
• It proposes a conceptually grounded delineation of sector activities, aligned with the value chain or cycle paradigm and devoid of value judgments regarding the cultural character of individual activities. On the contrary, the cycle includes activities, such as tourist services, that lack cultural content but are strongly linked to the presence of heritage that acts as a driver of tourist activity.
• It makes use of the standard classification system, NACE Rev. 2.1, enabling the MCH sector to be aggregated from standard activity branches or parts thereof.
• The proposal acknowledges a flexible classification of sector-specific activities that can be adapted to accommodate the specific circumstances of countries and regions, considering both statistical information availability and the objectives of competent statistical authorities.
• It combines “functions” and “types” of MCH, yielding a flexible, coherent, and exhaustive scheme for recognizing the entirety of practices and activities linked to MCH.
• It proposes the reconciliation of often competing perspectives, those of sector professionals and those of statistics experts.
• The delineation we propose for the MCH sector is not merely a conceptual exercise; it serves a broader purpose, namely to produce a comprehensive and rigorous statistical representation of the sector that provides policymakers with a more accurate measure of its size, composition, and internal logic. With such a tool, decisions concerning investment in—and the management of—material cultural heritage would benefit from a more precise understanding of their implications for other areas of economic activity.
• In the sphere of public policy design, we recommend using the proposed delineation to compile satellite accounts consistent with the European System of Accounts (ESA 2010) [1]. The features of the proposal, outlined above, make it well suited to the application of such methodologies. Its commitment to comprehensiveness—embedded in the value chain approach—together with its alignment with standard categories of economic activity ensures a complete understanding of the MCH sector’s scale, which cannot be achieved through studies of the impact of individual cultural assets. While those impact analyses enjoy undoubted scientific standing and have deepened and refined our knowledge of the economic consequences of cultural heritage, they cannot provide a panoramic view of the sector comparable to that obtainable from a satellite account. In addition, the use of NACE industry classifications, which are compatible with the main sources of economic information in Europe—such as input–output tables and the Structural Business Statistics (SBS)—as well as with national statistics in the economic domain, including the Culture and Tourism satellite accounts, facilitates the estimation of the sector’s key variables from the aggregate perspective adopted by national accounts.
• In Europe, various experts [8,43] have called for the design and compilation of satellite accounts for the sector. However, the design and implementation of any satellite account has a necessary precondition: a prior delineation of the sector under consideration. For example, EUIPO’s proposal [6] for compiling a satellite account for the creative activities sector rests on a prior sectoral delineation [2]. In the MCH field, no such delineation exists that is both comprehensive and aligned with the categories and criteria of national accounts—a gap that the proposal set out in this article seeks to fill.
• Turning to the limitations of this study, our conceptual framework has been validated by a panel of stakeholders with expertise in MCH and economic statistics, but its definitive test will be its application in a sectoral satellite account. At the time of writing, the European Grouping Territorial Cooperation (ESPON EGTC)—which supported the project underpinning this article—is considering launching a pilot involving several European countries and regions. The project will be complex, and the production of harmonised, internationally comparable results will inevitably encounter the usual challenges.
• For example, in our proposal the sector is defined using economic categories common to Europe’s official statistics—primarily input–output tables and the Structural Business Statistics (SBS). These two statistical operations provide useful, internationally comparable information on key variables—e.g., output, GVA, and employment—describing the industries that make up the MCH sector. Nevertheless, a precise estimate of the share of each NACE activity falling within the sector will require additional sources. Gandini et al. [42] anticipate this need and identify several sources widely available across Europe, such as the EU Building Stock Observatory; the Association of European Research Libraries (LIBER); the CORINE Land Cover inventory; the European Route of Historic Gardens inventory; the European Construction Industry Federation; and Heritage Houses for Europe, among others. Some potentially useful sources—such as tourism satellite accounts—are not yet available in all European countries, despite their recent proliferation. Even so, we expect national statistical authorities to address these information gaps, and we anticipate that any resulting heterogeneity will be no greater than that affecting other statistical synthesis exercises.