The Management of Cultural Heritage: The Importance of No Profit Subjects

Abstract:

This study aims to contribute to the enhancement of cultural and environmental heritage of Calabria, with the objective to identify the optimal management model, able to achieve results effective, efficient and long lasting, as the effects of mismanagement often determine causes of decay and abandonment of heritage: have been used the verification of the comparative financial sustainability, as suggested by the Legislative Decree 42/2004, between two categories of program manager, profit and no profit, starting from the assumption that the real manager public, owner of a large part of cultural heritage, it is not in the best condition to manage because of multiple factors. From the simulation performed on the Geraces Cultural Park of History and Memory, it is clear that the subject no profit is the one best suited, so, with the same objectives, and services to be provided within the tariff, it checks the condition of equilibrium between costs and revenues: specifically, the cost of a no profit entity is considerably lower, making use of voluntary unlike a subject who must supply profit instead of real salaries.

• Periodical: Advanced Engineering Forum (Volume 11)
• Pages: 542-548
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/AEF.11.542
• Online since: June 2014
• Authors: Carmela Tramontana*
• Keywords: Cultural Heritage, Economic - Financial Sustainability, Management Models, No Profit

References

[9] following the directives for both the framing of professionals and to identify the correct salary according to the category identified and the cost of labor relative to profit entity, which as mentioned, unlike the non-profit entity, proffering real wages to be paid for 14 months. Among the falls tariff arising out of activities include the figures relating to guided tours, rental of audio guides, organization of internships and educational activities, entrance to the Park and the sale of information material to the Book Shop. Conclusions From the comparison between the two situations presented, it is clear that for-profit entity, having to bear costs more than the subject no profit attributable to the high cost of personnel, Fig.2, not occurs the economic and financial equilibrium, resulting unsustainable in a scenario which shows a negative balance, being the higher costs of revenues. For the no profit entity, on the contrary, the balance is verified, and in general is more likely to occur, identifying himself as the best solution for the management of the assets in question, as required by the Code of Cultural Heritage and Landscape. This solution would lead to the persistence of long-lasting enhancement activities to the cultural heritage of the Park, but in general, all of the cultural heritage, which otherwise, as often happens, would remain valid attempts not intended to achieve the desired results, even with best restorations. If the overall goal is to protect, preserve and promote the cultural and environmental heritage, ensuring its permanence to future generations, and at the same time, 'use' this heritage as a tool for growth and sustainable development for particularly disadvantaged areas such as that relating to case study of this analysis, it is necessary, therefore, to make use of the many valid and no profit private entities that affect the region. Table 1, Balance between costs and revenues no profit subject no profit subject operating costs Years of management 1 2 3 4 -10 A. Purchases and consumption of goods and services € 9.245,00 € 17.460,00 € 29.510,00 € 29.510,00 B. Ordinary maintenance € 980,00 € 1.410,00 € 1.790,00 € 1.790,00 C. Extraordinary maintenance € 0,00 € 4.500,00 € 9.000,00 € 9.000,00 D. Other costs: Utilities € 5.225,00 € 6.050,00 € 6.400,00 € 6.400,00 E. Other costs: Fixed € 3.700,00 € 3.700,00 € 3.700,00 € 3.700,00 F. Other costs: Variables € 4.050,00 € 5.950,00 € 6.750,00 € 6.750,00 G. Staff € 35.900,00 € 42.880,00 € 55.300,00 € 55.300,00 TOTALE (∑ A - G) € 59.100,00 € 81.950,00 € 112.450,00 € 112.450,00 Financial returns Years of management 1 2 3 4 -10 A. tariff returns € 59.100,00 € 81.950,00 € 112.450,00 € 112.450,00 TOTAL € 59.100,00 € 81.950,00 € 112.450,00 € 112.450,00 Management Financial Balance Years of management 1 2 3 4 -10 A. Total Operating Costs € 59.100,00 € 81.950,00 € 112.450,00 € 112.450,00 B. Total returns tariff € 59.100,00 € 81.950,00 € 112.450,00 € 112.450,00 REMAINING (B – A) € 0,00 € 0,00 € 0,00 € 0,00 CUMULATIVE REMAINING per year € 0,00 € 0,00 € 0,00 € 0,00 Table 2, Balance between costs and revenues profit subject profit subject operating costs Years of management 1 2 3 4 -10 A. Purchases and consumption of goods and services € 9.245,00 € 17.460,00 € 29.510,00 € 29.510,00 B. Ordinary maintenance € 980,00 € 1.410,00 € 1.790,00 € 1.790,00 C. Extraordinary maintenance € 0,00 € 4.500,00 € 9.000,00 € 9.000,00 D. Other costs: Utilities € 5.225,00 € 6.050,00 € 6.400,00 € 6.400,00 E. Other costs: Fixed € 3.700,00 € 3.700,00 € 3.700,00 € 3.700,00 F. Other costs: Variables € 4.050,00 € 5.950,00 € 6.750,00 € 6.750,00 G. Staff € 67.286,45 € 96.123,50 € 134.572,90 € 134.572,90 TOTAL (∑ A - G) € 90.486,45 € 135.193,50 € 191.722,90 € 191.722,90 Financial returns Years of management 1 2 3 4 -10 A. Tariff returns € 59.100,00 € 81.950,00 € 112.450,00 € 112.450,00 TOTAL € 59.100,00 € 81.950,00 € 112.450,00 € 112.450,00 Management Financial Balance Years of management 1 2 3 4 -10 A. Total Operating Costs € 90.486,45 € 135.193,50 € 191.722,90 € 191.722,90 B. Total returns tariff € 59.100,00 € 81.950,00 € 112.450,00 € 112.450,00 REMAINING (B – A) -€ 31.386,45 -€ 53.243,50 -€ 79.272,90 -€ 79.272,90 CUMULATIVE REMAINING per year -€ 31.386,45 -€ 84.629,95 -€ 163.902,85 -€ 243.175,75 Other costs: Variables Other costs: Fixed Other costs: Utilities Extraordinary maintenance Staff Ordinary maintenance Purchases and consumption of goods and services Fig. 2 Comparison simulation cost-benefit subject-profit and no profit Rererences

[1] Formulario PISL SLOW LIFE.

[2] P. Bilancia: La valorizzazione dei Beni culturali tra pubblico e privato, Franco Angeli, Milano (2006)

DOI: 10.4081/incontri.2017.332

[3] C. M. Golinelli: La valorizzazione del patrimonio culturale: verso la definizione di un modello di governance: cultura, impresa e territorio, Giuffrè, Milano (2008)

[4] P. Seddio: La gestione integrata di reti e sistemi culturali: contenuti, esperienze e prospettive, Franco Angeli, Milano (2013)

[5] Codice dei beni culturali e del paesaggio, Decreto legislativo n.42 del 22 gennaio 2004 e successive modifiche

[6] L. Hinna: Appunti di economia aziendale, CEDAM (2008)

[7] F. Calabrò, L. Della Spina: The cultural and environmental resources for sustainable development of rural areas in economically disadvantaged contexts. Economic-appraisals issues of a model of management for the valorisation of public assets. In 3rd International Conference on Energy, Environment and Sustainable Development (ICEESD 2013). Advanced Materials Research Vols. 869-870 (2014) pp.43-48

DOI: 10.4028/www.scientific.net/amr.869-870.43

[8] F. Prizzon: Gli investimenti immobiliari: analisi di mercato e valutazione economico-finanziaria degli interventi, Celid, Torino (2001)

[9] Information on http://www.federculture.it/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/CCNL_FED_2008_ 2011_edizione-per-stampa.pdf