RESULTS

PARTICIPANTS

Subjects involved

 
SITES

Heritage sites proposed by the CHeLabS community

200   56


PARTICIPANTS IN EACH PROFILE


TOwnSup

Territorial Organizations, Owners, Superintendences
10

CoHs

Conservation Operators & Heritage Scientists
28

TechO

Technologies Operators
17

HeUniRi

Schools, High Education Institutions & Universities And Research Institutes
36

FundA

Funding Agencies
1

CTzens

Citizens
43


MOST SIGNIFICANT SUGGESTIONS FROM THE QUESTIONNAIRES – TOP TEN

Perceived value attributed to the Heritage Asset and expected experience suggested by the Citizens


Perceived value
It forms the collective identity 27
It helps the comprehension of the past 16
It deepens the human experience 14
It has a value because it is a common good 13
It opens us to the direct experience of beauty 12
Expected experience
Visual 24
Explorative 24
Guided visit 23
Multisensory 18
Immersive 11

Needs for knowledge enhancement and for technological development suggested by the Experts community


Knowledge enhancement
Conservation and Restoration Sciences 58
Socio-economic sciences, and management 39
Technologies applied to heritage assets 37
Education and Training 36
Hazard Categories 27
Technological development
Fruition and museology 44
Digitalization 35
Materials and restoration technologies 33
Monitoring and Topographic survey 30
Education and Training 30

NUMBER OF SUGGESTIONS PUBLICATED IN THE DISCUSSION FORUM
ON THE TOTALITY OF SITES

PROBLEMS / CRITICAL ISSUES
SOLUTIONS / OPPORTUNITIES

32

30

TOTAL NUMBER OF CONTACT REQUESTS

0

More details about the complete analysis of the results, derived from the participated survey, can be found in the extended report at the following link: