Analysis of Cultural Indicators: A Comparison of Their Conceptual Basis and Dimensions

Reliability of Creative Composite Indicators with Territorial Specification in the EU

“…Even though efforts to gather and analyse cultural indicators are by no means new [21,28], there have been a number of works in recent years focusing particularly on constructing creativity and cultural activity indices, in an attempt to evidence what contribution these factors make to the economic development and sustainability of regions, as is shown, for example, through the works of Correa-Quezada et al [2] for the case of Ecuador, and Sleuwaegen and Ramboer [5] for Europe. This line of work has also been boosted by the standardisation and proliferation of cultural statistics both at an international [29] as well as a European [30] level.…”

“…In an effort to be as thorough as possible, Table 1 provides an overview of the principal composite indicators for the creative economy together with the main underlying dimensions included, the case study and the aggregation methods employed. Nevertheless, conceptual models of cultural and creative indicators and compilations of existing indicators may also be consulted in Stano and Weziak-Bialowolska [31], Ortega-Villa and Ley-García [21] and Rodrigues and Franco [22]. Various creative indicators have been constructed for the European context, although measurement thereof for the regional territorial level and in the context of several countries remains scarce, with the sample of regions included tending to be small.…”

“…Based on the review of the existing composite indicators in the literature (Table 1) and subject to the availability of data for the regional level considered in this work, we identify six operational dimensions underlying the creative economy and which constitute the reference for compiling primary variables for comparing and constructing partial indicators for each dimension. As a result, we are not actually defining creativity itself but are rather exploring and explaining which components feed said concept, based on tested processes related to the accumulation of talent, the degree of openness and the innovative capacity of the environment and which we have furthered by taking into account a broad sample of variables that are representative of cultural participation and of the creative industry, conscious of the fact that these are key to creativity [21]. These dimensions are shown in Figure 1 and are described in detail below, whilst the primary variables that make up each dimension are displayed in Table 2.…”

“…This is the main motivation underlying our research, wherein we aim to build an indicator of creative potential at a disaggregated territorial scale for a broad sample of countries and regions in an effort to show operational utility in current understanding of territorial disparities and what the implications might be for regional policy. Nevertheless, measuring creativity with territorial scope proves complex, given the difficulty in defining and delimiting the area of culture and the various components that make up creativity, as pointed out by Ortega-Villa and Ley-García [21], Kemeny et al [13] and Rodrigues and Franco [22], and because of the myriad of aspects involved and the enormous heterogeneity of the actors concerned. In addition, data that are appropriate, sufficient and comparable between the various demarcations are required if effective measurements of territorial creative potential are to be carried out.…”

“…Although the last ten years have witnessed a proliferation of studies involving composite creativity indicators [3,23,24], there remains a lack of studies which at the same time consider a wide sample of countries and significant territorial disaggregation at a regional scale. Moreover, few indices extensively embrace primary indicators of cultural activity (endowment and participation), which are shown to be a key basis of creativity [21,25].…”