Keywords: preventive conservation, sustainability, evaluation, visitors, tourists, awareness, mechanical damage, Schönbrunn Palace

Schönbrunn Palace is Austria’s most visited tourist attraction (Statistik Austria, Kulturstatistik 2021). The numerous visitors to the palace’s historic state rooms pose a particular challenge for conservators, as the majority of mechanical damage to the historic furnishings is caused by inconsiderate and/or careless behavior of tourists in the palace.

Following the implementation of a comprehensive awareness-raising campaign in the summer of 2022, in which visitors were informed about sustainable behavior in the cultural environment to prevent damage, this thesis examines whether and to what extent awareness can be positively influenced by educating people about the consequences of their own actions.

This study is intended to evaluate efficient methods for raising visitor awareness, so that mechanical damage to historical furnishings can be prevented and/or minimized in the future. This is a challenge, particularly in areas that are difficult or impossible to secure with barriers.

The author, an academic conservator, has been actively engaged at Schönbrunn Palace since 2016, playing a key role in overseeing the condition assessments of the historical furnishings within the palace's staterooms. Her many years of work have provided her with comprehensive insight into the damage that has occurred in the rooms throughout her time at Schönbrunn Palace. This facilitated the observation of the evolution of mechanical damage, primarily caused by tourists visiting the palace. This includes losses in the historical furnishings, such as the breaking off of three-dimensional elements like gilded carved applications, loss of paint layers and areas where the painted and gilded surfaces have been abraded to an extent that the wooden support is exposed. Textiles that have been rubbed through, as well as scratched surfaces are also part of the mechanically induced damage that occurs in the palace.

In 2020, work began to develop long-term solutions to protect valuable historical furnishings in the palace as part of a dissertation project. This dissertation was written under the supervision of Prof. Gabriela Krist, Head of the Institute for Conservation and Restoration at the University of Applied Arts in Vienna. Gabriela Krist was awarded the UNESCO Chair for the Conservation of Cultural Heritage in 2019. The Institute of Conservation and Restoration enjoys a special reputation because of its commitment to restoring World Heritage Sites (Austrian Commission for UNESCO, Vienna, Science, New UNESCO Chair for Austria).
The UNESCO World Heritage Convention represents an international agreement established by the international community to protect cultural and natural heritage. This agreement has the central task of identifying, preserving, and sustainably protecting exceptional cultural and natural sites with universal value (Austrian UNESCO Commission, Vienna, World Heritage). UNESCO inscribed Schönbrunn Palace and the surrounding park on the World Heritage List in 1996 (Austrian UNESCO Commission, Vienna, World Heritage, Schönbrunn Palace, and Gardens).

Marie-Christine Pachler’s research focuses on mass tourism in cultural institutions and the associated direct and indirect damage, using Schönbrunn Palace as an example.
Pachler visited 18 historical sites focusing on mass tourism and/or UNESCO World Heritage status in France, Germany, the Czech Republic, and Hungary over the last two years (2022-2023), which are confronted with high visitor numbers. As a “visitor,” she paid particular attention to how the objects were protected from mechanical damage by tourists. With a few exceptions, there was little or no information in the historical rooms visited regarding the rules of conduct that apply in the cultural context and whether, for example, touching the surfaces is permitted. There are hardly any explanations as to how contact with historical surfaces could cause damage.

During a professional exchange in the framework of the European Residences Mobility Grant,1 where Pachler, as an employee of the Schönbrunn Group, had the opportunity to exchange ideas with specialist restorers from the Prussian Palaces and Gardens Foundation in September 2023, the problem of visitor behavior in connection with the preservation of valuable objects was discussed intensively. It became clear once again that regardless of the specific historical palaces in which conservators work, this problem is a common challenge.

Schönbrunn Palace, the former summer residence of the Habsburgs, was given its present Rococo style appearance mainly under Maria Theresa (Iby/Koller 2007, p. 127). Franz Joseph (1830-1916) was the only Habsburger who lived there permanently and during the whole year. He preferred a modest and bourgeois style of furnishing (ibid., p. 267). What is unique about Schönbrunn is the preservation of the historical inventory that grew over the centuries until the end of the monarchy (Austrian UNESCO Commission, Vienna, World Heritage Site, Schönbrunn Palace and Gardens). Today, visitors from all over the world can visit the 40 historic rooms and halls on the Beletage. In 2022, 1,096,414 visitors were guests in the historic staterooms despite partial travel restrictions.2

Although a large proportion of income flows into the maintenance of the palace complex, the risk of mechanical damage to historic furnishings increases with the number of visitors. They cause damage and wear (Thomsen 1980, p. 47f.), as they often consciously or unconsciously come into contact with historic surfaces or objects in the palace – through clothing that brushes against surfaces, people leaning against surfaces, or touching them. This leads to damage and deterioration of the substance, jeopardizing the preservation of objects and furnishings. In historic houses, conservation problems thus require specific strategies (Henry/Jessup 2018 p.121ff).

The preservation of cultural heritage sites and monuments is laid down in internationally recognized charters and guidelines. For example, the 1964 Venice Charter established important principles and guidelines for dealing with historic buildings at an international level. The Charter emphasizes the importance of authenticity, respect for the surviving original character, and the integration of contemporary needs to ensure that historic sites are properly preserved and maintained: “The common responsibility to safeguard ancient monuments for future generations is recognized. It is our duty to hand them on in the full richness of their authenticity” (Küpper 2014).

The Nara Document (1994) builds on and expands the principles of the Venice Charter. The document was developed at the Nara Conference (Japan) in cooperation with UNESCO, ICCROM,3 and ICOMOS4 to establish guidelines for the evaluation and conservation of the authenticity of cultural heritage sites: “Increasing awareness within the public of this fundamental dimension of heritage is an absolute necessity in order to arrive at concrete measures for safeguarding the vestiges of the past. This means developing greater understanding of the values represented by the cultural properties themselves, as well as respecting the role such monuments and sites play in contemporary society” (ICOMOS, 2023).
Furthermore, the 2005 Faro Convention emphasizes that cultural heritage is not a static concept but is shaped by professionals and, at the same time, by the society that interacts with it. The preamble emphasizes the need to actively involve all members of society in the continuous process of defining and managing cultural heritage (Council of Europe 2021, p. 20). It should, therefore, be a concern for professionals to communicate to the public the opportunities and considerations behind the efforts to preserve cultural heritage (Flückiger 2018, p. 16).

In the past, several efforts have brought restoration content closer to the public and visitors to cultural sites.
The focus is mostly on communicating the restoration work: “We want to take a step towards greater awareness, which is called for in our ethics papers” (ibid., p.117ff).5

In Verborgene Wissenschaft? (Hidden Science), Andrea Funck devoted herself to the topic of restoration in museums in 2016. By evaluating expert interviews, a visitor analysis, and the evaluation of two visitor engagement opportunities (a tour in the restoration workshops and three restoration films of the permanent exhibition) at the Landesmuseum Württemberg, Andrea Funck showed how the mediation of restoration content could be improved (Funck 2016, p. 202f). In 2018, Flavia Flückiger analyzed the knowledge transfer in the field of conservation and restoration in the area of public relations using selected examples as part of her Master’s thesis in Bern. The results of her work were incorporated into a guide for sharing conservation expertise (Flückiger 2018, p.6). The European Heritage Days, known as the Day of the Monument in Austria, take place every year. The aim was to raise awareness of the diversity and value of cultural heritage in society (Bazil 2023). The annual Restoration Day showcases the often-hidden work of restorers. Throughout Europe, people are invited to get to know exemplary conservation and restoration projects in studios and on construction sites and to learn from experts about the profession of conservators and high-quality restorations (Association of Conservators 2023).

However, one neglected aspect is that most visitors do not realize that they contribute to the potential damaging of objects. In exhibitions such as “Im Detail. Die Welt der Konservierung und Restaurierung” which took place in cooperation with the University of Applied Arts Vienna from November 2022 to August 2023 at the the Tyrolean State Museum (Ferdinandeum) in Innsbruck, visitors were given insight into the working world of conservators. Case studies have illustrated the diverse tasks involved in researching, preserving, and presenting works of art. Causes of damage such as climate, light, and biogenic infestation were also displayed. A work of art that was damaged by a visitor’s carelessness during the exhibition was also shown (Probst 2023).

The “Conservator at Work” exhibition by the Institute of Conservation at the University of Applied Arts in Vienna ran from October 23 to the end of November 2023 at the Postsparkasse. A wide range of conservation projects from various disciplines were presented here. The exhibition was accompanied by lectures on conservation science, which allowed visitors to engage with the topic of cultural heritage and sensitization, enter a dialogue, and ask questions (University of Applied Arts Vienna, Institute for Conservation 2023).

Although it is not yet a standard practice, there is growing awareness of the importance of visitor research. Museums, in particular, are increasingly exploring this topic.
For example, a visitor structure analysis of the Leibniz Association’s eight research museums examines who visits which museums, for which reasons, and how often. The challenge often lies in translating insights gained into concrete actions and measures (Thoma et al. 2022, p.19).

However, to date, no documented study has been found that has investigated the effect of awareness-raising measures on visitor behavior.

As mentioned, there are few indications in historical houses urging visitors not to touch historical objects. On the websites of cultural institutions, rules of conduct are sometimes mentioned in-house. In addition, the following text is quoted on the website of the Bavarian Palace Administration: “The realization that restoration can never restore an object to its original condition contributes to a higher appreciation of restored objects. Lack of care can lead to damage” (Bavarian Administration of Palaces, Gardens, and Lakes, Preventive Conservation).6 In some scenes, a short video with prohibition signs emphasizes the appeal of mindfulness. Furthermore, some historic houses require the storage of backpacks or ask visitors to wear them on front, and dedicated supervisors admonish visitors to behave accordingly.
To ensure the preservation of collections, conservators convey an understanding of preventive conservation to both supervisors and staff of the respective cultural institutions (Lloyd/Staniforth 2000, p. 118). Close cooperation and open communication are essential (Thomsen 1980, p. 47f). In addition to colleagues, visitors must also be made aware of sustainable behavior and damage prevention because our cultural heritage affects the entire world population; therefore, we bear responsibility for its preservation. Cultural heritage is a fragile and nonrenewable resource (Luger 2023). In the summer of 2022, an awareness-raising campaign was launched at Schönbrunn Palace to inform visitors and internal and external employees about sustainable behavior in dealing with cultural heritage. The campaign’s content will be communicated to everyone in the palace via various media (digital, print, and 3D). It will show the consequences that carelessness and ill-considered actions can have for historic furnishings. The aim is to create greater awareness of sustainability and personal responsibility to prevent and minimize future damage to historic furnishings in advance.7

An evaluation was conducted to measure the results of the tourist awareness campaign. Over 1500 visitors were surveyed on various media using questionnaires in the run-up to the awareness-raising measures (t0) and after implementation (t1).

3.1 Objective of the Evaluation

Evaluation research is concerned with the scientifically sound assessment of facts and intervention measures concerning various evaluation criteria, such as effectiveness, efficiency, acceptance, or sustainability (Döring/Bortz 2016, p. 977).

The results of the study should primarily be used to obtain evidence of the impact of the planned awareness-raising measures compared to the status quo (before implementation of the measures = t0), to improve the evaluated intervention (implemented measures, or after implementation of the measures = t1), or to make decisions about use, non-use, or continuation (ibid., p. 977).

Before the measures were implemented (t0), the historical furnishings were protected by glazing and cord barriers. Based on observations images of the damage, it became clear that barriers only prevented visitors from touching historic surfaces to a limited extent. They often lean over glazing or cords to haptically explore the objects they see or brush against the unprotected interior areas with their bags, robes, and bodies.

It was assumed that by creating greater awareness of sustainable behavior and more mindfulness in the cultural environment, less mechanical damage would be caused to the equipment in the future. This question was answered as either positive or negative. In the successful implementation of awareness-raising measures, visitors would need to perceive, understand, deem them meaningful, and act accordingly.

Figure 1 shows the measures implemented that were the focus of the evaluation.

Brief description and location of the measures:

The awareness-raising measures have been placed at various locations in the palace: in the Ticket Center (adjacent building), as well as on the first floor and the Beletage of the palace (see Fig. 2). Several “Do not touch” symbols (Fig. 1. A) were placed in the staterooms to remind visitors that the historical surfaces in the palace must not be touched. A half-restored armchair (Fig. 1 E) in the Fishbone Room at the beginning of the palace tour showed clear signs of wear and damage on the left side caused by touching and improper handling. The accompanying text explains how damage is caused by touch and the effort involved in restoring this armchair. Further three-dimensional objects, such as tactile objects (Fig. 1 C) and a gold leaf (Fig. 1 D), are located in the central vestibule in front of the turnstile on the first floor. The four tactile objects illustrate that touching them can cause damage, as frequent contact with tourists has worn down the right-hand side, and the surface is badly damaged. The left side was covered with acrylic glass and was intact. The gold leaf displays how thin and fragile the gold layer is on the gilded surfaces of the staterooms. In addition, a comic film (Fig. 1 B) and posters (Fig. 1 G) in the central vestibule inform visitors about sustainable behavior in the cultural environment. The film displays the behavior that can lead to damage and why this should be avoided in the palace. The comic is also displayed in the entrance area on the first floor and in the Ticket Center. There is also another poster on sustainability at the Ticket Center. A folder (Fig. 1 F), which also contains information on sustainability, can be picked up from the checkroom in the palace’s entrance area.

In addition to data collection, the focus of the evaluation process, in line with current evaluation research and practice, is on enabling/creating a continuous, systematized learning process.

The degree of setting and achieving the goals was determined based on the evaluation questions defined together with two evaluators.8

The degree of achievement was measured using both quantitative and qualitative data (Gollwitzer/Jäger 2014, p. 60f). This information was collected through a questionnaire survey (3.2.), reflections, and discussions in kick-off and final workshops (3.3.).9 In addition, to create more in-depth findings, several more studies were conducted to measure the achievement of objectives. They included participatory observations of visitors and internal and external employees, as well as interviews with tourists, employees, guides, the top management of the Schönbrunn Group, and the management of the visitors areas Schönbrunn Palace.

3.2 Questionnaire

Two online surveys were conducted in June and July 2022, t0 and t1 respectively. The questionnaire was made available in two languages (German and English). It could be completed via a link (online ticket orders), QR code (signage in the palace), and touch terminal at the end of the palace tour.

The first survey, t0, took place with visitors and employees (internal and external) over 2.5 weeks. The second survey, t1, ran for three weeks to ensure questionnaires were returned for comparison.

The questionnaire consisted of three parts. The first part had the function of a teaser/motivator for participation in a “short quiz” (multiple choice) and also contained pictures. The answers to the questions are displayed at the end of the questionnaire.

The following questions were asked:

• Approximately how many hours are needed to restore one-half of this armchair (Fig. 3 left)?

• How much would it cost to restore an entire armchair?

• There are many gold elements in Schönbrunn Palace, though it's important to note that most of them are not made of pure gold but rather gilded.

• How fragile (fine, sensitive, and delicate) is the gold leaf used to produce gilding?

• How long does it take for one person to restore and reconstruct the polished white frame in the Great Gallery (Fig. 3 center)?

• Who did this bed belong to (Fig. 3 right)?

• What do you think causes the most damage to historical surfaces in palace rooms in the long term?

In the middle section, questions were asked about the personal importance of protecting cultural property, prevention of damage to cultural property, and protection options:

• How important do you personally find the topic “protecting cultural heritage”?

• How do you think the historical objects in the palace could best be protected?

• How aware are you of the potential impact of your behavior on the preservation of the palace rooms?

• What makes you feel well-informed?

The middle part of the survey was supplemented for t1 with the following two additional questions.

• What kind of information did you notice during your visit to the palace?

• Which of these pieces of information fosters the highest awareness regarding the potential conservation implications your individual conduct may have on the rooms of the palace?

The last part of the questionnaire covered sociodemographic factors, the “type of visit to the palace,” and, in the broadest sense, the cultural affinity of the respondents.

• Country, age, gender

• How did you walk through the palace? E.g., audio guide, guided tour

• The frequency of visits to museums and exhibitions

For the evaluation, it was of interest whether the assessments of visitors at t0 and t1 differed. The data were analyzed both descriptively and inferentially using mean and significance tests.10 The analysis was conducted using SPSS software.11

Where the scale level allowed, mean values and standard deviations were calculated. Nonparametric methods (Mann-Whitney U tests [DATAtab Team 2023] or Chi² tests (Döring/Bortz 2016, p. 967)) were applied for both comparing the two survey dates (t0, t1) and group comparisons.

3.3 Workshops

The workshops served as the basis for implementing the evaluation measures. This exchange formed an important groundwork for interpreting the results. The participants consisted of the project management, two evaluators, the management of visitor areas, and employees of the Schönbrunn Group who were directly or indirectly affected by the implementation and/or impact of the measures.

During the evaluation, a response rate of 1.2% for all visitors at t0 (n=62,810) and 1% at t1 (n = 72,532) was achieved for the online questionnaire. The response to the questionnaire can be rated as highly satisfactory, especially when it is considered that hardly any feedback forms are usually completed by tourists in the palace. A response rate of 0.2% is typically achieved. Based on the size of the population (n=total number of visitors), the required minimum sample size of (nmin = 659) was achieved with a confidence interval of 99% and a margin of error of 5%. More than twice as many people participated in the study as originally required.

4.1 Before Implementation of the Measures (t0)

Visitors

In the first survey, most visitors said that protecting cultural assets was very important to them.
However, only one in five respondents felt very well informed about the effects their own behavior in the historic palace rooms could have on the preservation of the furnishings. One in seven respondents did not feel informed at all or could not say for sure (do not know). Thus, the need for education was displayed before the awareness-raising measures were implemented.

When asked how visitors felt that cultural assets could best be protected, just over half of the respondents felt that dust protection, light protection, and information be effective protective measures. A third considered surveillance measures useful. Examples of other measures for the open-response option are:

• More protection against contact with visitors

• “Cover fancy stuff with glass”

• More seats

• Determining the number of visitors per day

• Education, environmental controls

• A complete ban on visits, although it would be regrettable.

The survey revealed that visitors underestimated the time and money required for restoration. Less than half of the respondents could estimate the hours and costs involved in restoring a chair. When estimating the time required for restoring the polished white frame in the Great Gallery,12 19.2% only guessed the correct answer.

Employees

Employees were also invited to complete the online questionnaire t0. The primary aim was to draw attention to the project and underline the importance of sustainable behavior in the cultural environment. Approximately 40 employees participated in this survey. Before implementing the measures, 21% of employees felt insufficiently (little) informed about the effects of their behavior on the protection of cultural assets or were not informed at all. They mentioned dust protection and information provision as the best protective measures for cultural assets.

4.2 After the Implementation of the Measures

The personal weighting of cultural property protection was just as high in the post-survey (t1) as in the pre-survey (t0). Given the positive results of the first survey, an increase was hardly expected (ceiling effect) (Hemmerich 2023).
There were significant differences in the results for the question of awareness. Respondents from t1 stated that they were more informed than respondents from t0.13 In t0, 53% of participants thought they were relatively well or well-informed. In t1, this figure represents 75% of respondents (Fig. 4).

In particular, it was significantly more frequently stated that visitors felt informed by cues in the palace.14 Clarification through prior knowledge and guidance from the guide were mentioned about as often as in t0. This is noteworthy because most respondents toured the state rooms with an audio guide (88%). These measures are not currently mentioned in the audio guides. This means that visitors independently perceived them.

The symbol signs (Fig. 1A) in the historic staterooms and the half-restored armchair (62.9 %) (Fig. 1 E) were most frequently observed (83.6 %).

Respondents also stated that the symbols (73%) and the armchair (32%) were the best way of explaining the “right” behavior (see Figure 4).

Online measures were registered the least (websites: approximately 15.7%; social media: approx. 6.6%).

4.3 Subdivision into groups

Based on the available data, the differences in the following groups can be calculated at t0 and t1:

• between visitors from Europe and North America

• between visitors from different European countries (Germany, Austria, France, and Italy);

• between visitors with an affinity for culture and those with a lower affinity for culture.

4.4 Country Clusters

Several external factors influence the tourism system. Developments such as globalization, changes in demographics and lifestyles, and the global COVID-19 pandemic have impacted visitors’ travel behavior.

The latter shaped the travel behavior of visitors to Vienna during the evaluation in the summer of 2022. At that time, Vienna recorded an increase in European overnight stays compared to the previous year, but tourists from Asia accounted for only 1/10 of the previous volume (before the pandemic). The number of visitors from the USA rose above the pre-crisis level in 2019 (City of Vienna 2023).

The geographical composition of the evaluation samples is shown (Fig. 7). 

To ensure that the awareness-raising measures were understandable for international visitors to Schönbrunn Palace and to be able to adapt and expand them if necessary, after the evaluation, the samples of visitors were divided according to their countries of origin as part of the detailed analyses.

It was assumed that different nations receive and perceive the information provided in different ways and may differ in their views on the protection of cultural property, education, and personal responsibility.

At the time of the evaluation, the following classification was made based on the number of visitors:

Classification of visitors by continent: Europe (t0: 75 %; t1: 76 %) and North America (t0: 16 %; t1: 17 %)

Classification of visitors by European country: Germany, Austria, France, and Italy.

The results confirmed some of the considerations:

However, it must be mentioned that the distribution across continents and countries was not even, as respondents from Europe and Germany were significantly more frequently represented at the time of the surveys than participants from other regions.15

Comparison “Europe and North America”

In both t0 and t1, there were no differences between European and North American visitors concerning the importance of protecting cultural property, the perceived level of enlightenment, and what makes visitors feel enlightened.

European visitors were significantly more likely to say that they saw “surveillance” as a suitable protection option (in both t0 and t1).16

On the other hand, North American visitors are significantly more likely to think that protection through “information” is the most suitable approach.17 This tendency was already visible in t0, and was mentioned significantly more often in t1.

Furthermore, the comparison between North America and Europe shows that the former perceived three-dimensional objects (tactile objects,18 the gold leaf,19 and the armchair20) significantly more often. On the other hand, the latter tended to perceive information on websites21 and symbols22 more frequently.

European visitors also significantly mentioned symbols as more important for raising sustainability awareness.

In comparing European countries, no significant differences were found regarding the personal weighting of cultural protection and enlightenment. Respondents from Germany perceived the “half-restored armchair” 23 most frequently. The other measures were rated roughly equally by European respondents.

4.5 Cultural Affinity

For the detailed analyses, the sample of visitors was divided into “culturally oriented” (t0: 50.4 %, t1: 53 %) and “less culturally oriented” (t0: 49.6 %, t1: 47 %) individuals.

It was assumed that the importance of cultural heritage protection, the degree of awareness and personal feelings on it, and the understanding of sustainable behavior in palace rooms vary between the two groups.

It was also assumed that there may be differences in the perception of information measures and amount of information received.

Some of these assumptions were confirmed:

The protection of cultural assets is significantly more important for people with an affinity for culture (both in t0 and t1) than for people with a distance to culture.24 On the other hand, there was no statistically significant difference (both in t0 and t1) with regard to the general assessment of awareness of one’s own behavior in the palace rooms and its possible effects on the preservation of the furnishings.

There is a difference in what makes people feel informed: culture-savvy people state significantly more often that they have prior knowledge.25

In t1, people with a greater affinity for culture are significantly more likely to believe that providing information could protect cultural assets.26

In addition, people with an affinity for culture were significantly more aware of the measures outside the historic state rooms (tactile objects,27 gold leaf objects,28 and posters29) than respondents with less affinity for culture. They appear to have been more attentive even before entering historic staterooms than those who visited cultural institutions less frequently. There were no differences between the two groups when asked directly which measures they felt were particularly suitable for raising awareness. In this regard, visitors agreed that the don´t touch symbols and the armchair are the most suitable means for education.

The protection of cultural assets holds predominantly high significance among the respondents. The evaluation revealed a significant difference in the personal assessment of their level of awareness when comparing t0 to t1. At t0, approximately half of the respondents claimed to be relatively well or well-informed. After the implementation of the measures, around three-quarters of visitors felt well-informed. Thus, this study proved that information and education contribute to a higher awareness of sustainable behavior in the cultural environment.

The educational measures placed in the staterooms (symbol signs and half-restored armchairs) were predominantly mentioned as a suitable medium to educate on sustainable behavior in the cultural environment.

However, the study showed that the perception of the measures, their positioning in the palace, and the origin of the visitors, or their cultural affinity, play a role. Therefore, combining measures seems to be the best way to reach as many visitors as possible.

It is recommended that more awareness-raising measures be implemented in historic staterooms/on the tour, as this is where they were best perceived. In addition, placing the touch objects and gold leaf in the historic rooms of Schönbrunn Palace enables a better connection to the original materials. Although staterooms are the best choice for placing educational measures, locations on palace grounds associated with waiting times are also the second-best option for providing effective information. The effectiveness of the measures portfolio could be significantly increased if the audio guide were also used for awareness-raising. In contrast to the current bilingual awareness campaign, information on the audio guide is presented in 16 languages. Additionally, it is recommended that guides provide information on sustainable behavior during their tours.

It became apparent that there is a need for action among employees regarding education and knowledge transfer. They also consider sensitization through information materials to be useful. Protecting cultural assets through the provision of information appears to be effective not only for visitors but also for employees. The active involvement of employees as multipliers is essential for successful visitor sensitization, especially for those who work directly in the historic premises in the vicinity of visitor flow.

Sensitizing visitors to sustainable behavior in the cultural environment is an ongoing process intended to benefit our cultural heritage. To increase the effectiveness of awareness-raising measures, it is advisable to provide information on the consequences of careless and incorrect behavior several times on cultural sites through various communication channels. In addition, exchanges between conservators, employees, and visitors should be promoted to achieve a mutual learning process.

Statistics Austria, “Kulturstatistik”, 2021. URL: www.statistik.at/fileadmin/publications/Kulturstatistik_2019.pdf, accessed on April 20 2023.

Austrian Commission for UNESCO, Vienna “Science: New UNESCO Chair for Austria”, URL: https://www.unesco.at/wissenschaft/artikel/article/neuer-unesco-lehrstuhl-fuer-oesterreich, accessed on October 10 2023.

Austrian Commission for UNESCO, Vienna “World Heritage: The Cultural and Natural Heritage of Humanity”, URL: Available at: //www.unesco.at/kultur/welterbe, accessed on October 10 2023.

Austrian UNESCO Commission, Vienna, “World Heritage: Schönbrunn Palace and Gardens”, URL: https://www.unesco.at/kultur/welterbe/unesco-welterbe-in-oesterreich/schloss-und-gaerten-von-schoenbrunn, accessed on April 20 2023.

Elfriede Iby/Alexander Koller, Schönbrunn, vol. 1. edition. Vienna: Brandstätter Verlag, 2007.

Fonda Ghiardi Thomsen, “Problems created by visitor use in historic house museums”, Studies in Conservation, Vol. 25/No. sup1/1980, pp. 47f., DOI: 10.1179/sic.1980.25.Supplement-1.47.

Michael Henry/Wendy Jessup, “From the Outside In: A Collaborative Approach to Context-Driven and Capacity-Constrained Preventive Conservation Strategies for Collections in Heritage Buildings and Sites”, Studies in Conservation, vol. 63/no. sup1/2018, pp. 121-126, DOI: 10.1080/00393630.2018.1473101.

Küpper, “Charter of Venice (1964)”, URL: https://www.charta-von-venedig.de/internationale-charta-zur-konservierung-und-restaurierung.html, accessed on December 8 2023.

ICOMOS, “The NARA document on authenticity (1994) ”, URL: https://www.icomos.org/en/charters-and-texts/179-articles-en-francais/ressources/charters-and-standards/386-the-nara-document-on-authenticity-1994, accessed on December 5 2023.

Council of Europe, “New Directions for Cultural Heritage, The Faro Convention”, March 2021, URL: https://rm.coe.int/die-faro-konvention-neue-wege-fur-das-kulturerbe/1680a1e631, accessed on October 9 2023.

Flavia Flückiger, “Perceiving and shaping cultural heritage”, URL: https://www.nike-kulturerbe.ch/fileadmin/user_upload/Bulletin/2018/4_2018/Kulturerbe_wahrnehmen.pdf, accessed on October 20 2023.

Andrea Funck, Hidden science? Restaurierung als Vermittlungsthema in Museen, Edition Museum Bd. 22, transcript, Bielefeld 2016.

Flavia Flückiger, The Communication of Restoration Content Using Selected Examples. An Examination of Three Examples of Restoration Education and the Development of Guidelines for Teaching Restoration Content, Master’s thesis (unpublished), Bern 2018.

Christoph Bazil, “Monument Day: denkmal [er:sie:wir] leben 2023”, URL: https://tagdesdenkmals.at/, accessed on October 11 2023.

Association of Restorers (VDR), “European Restoration Day 2023”, URL: https://www.tag-der-restaurierung.de/, accessed on October 10 2023.

Elisabeth Probst, “The real world of restoration”, URL: https://www.tiroler-landesmuseen.at/blog-die-wahre-welt-der-restaurierung/, accessed on October 11 2023.

University of Applied Arts Vienna, Institute for Conservation and Restoration, “Conservator at Work”, URL: https://konservierung-restaurierung.uni-ak.ac.at/, accessed on October 11 2023.

Gun-Brit Thoma et al. “Wer geht in welches Museum? Vergleichende Besucherstrukturanalyse in den acht Forschungsmuseen der Leibniz-Gemeinschaft”, in: Deutsches Museum Studies, No. 10. Munich: Deutsches Museum 2022.

Bavarian Administration of State Palaces, Gardens and Lakes, Preventive Conservation “Preventive Conservation at the Restoration Center of the Bavarian Palace Administration”, URL: https://www.schloesser.bayern.de/deutsch/ueberuns/rz/rz_pra-konservierung.htm, accessed on October 11 2023.

Helen Lloyd/Sarah Staniforth, “Preventive Conservation And ’A Madness To Gaze At Trifles’: A Sustainable Future For Historic Houses”, Studies in Conservation, vol. 45, no. sup1,/2000, pp. 118-123, DOI: 10.1179/sic.2000.45.Supplement-1.118.

Kurt Luger, “UNESCO Chair of Cultural Heritage and Tourism. Chair holder: Prof. Dr. Kurt Luger” 2023, URL: https://www.kurt-luger.com/unesco, accessed on April 20 2023.

Nicola Döring/Jürgen Bortz, Research Methods and Evaluation in the Social and Human Sciences, Wiesbaden: Springer Berlin/Heidelberg 2016.

Mario Gollwitzer/Reinhold Jäger, Evaluation Kompakt. Weinheim, Basel: Beltz Verlag, 2014.

DATAtab Team, “DATAtab: Online Statistics Calculator: Mann-Whitney U-Test”, URL: https://datatab.de/tutorial/mann-whitney-u-test, accessed on April 21 2023.

Wanja Hemmerich, “StatistikGuru, Ceiling Effect”, URL: https://statistikguru.de/lexikon/deckeneffekt.html, accessed on April 21 2023.

City of Vienna, “Presse-Service Rathauskorrespondenz, Wiens Tourismus schafft Trendumkehr: 13,2 Mio. Nächtigungen im Jahr 2022”, 25.01.2023, URL: https://presse.wien.gv.at/2023/01/25/wiens-tourismus-schafft-trendumkehr-13-2-mio-naechtigungen-im-jahr-2022, accessed on April 21 2023.

Fig. nr. 1: Measures implemented (t1): A: “Do not touch” symbol, B: educational film (comic), C: tactile objects (4 pieces), D: gold leaf, E: half-restored armchair, F: information folder, G: poster, H: website, I: social media © Schönbrunn Palace Kultur und Betriebsges.m.b.h.

Fig. nr. 2: Location and brief description of the awareness-raising measures in the palace © Schloss Schönbrunn Kultur und Betriebsges.m.b.h.

Fig. nr. 3: From left to right: Half-restored armchair, The Great Gallery (polished surfaces of the wall was marked with red arrows), The Imperial Couple’s Bedroom © Schloss Schönbrunn Kultur und Betriebsges.m.b.h/Pachler.

Fig. nr. 4: Before the implementation of measures (t0) - Assessment of own awareness and personal weighting of cultural protection © Pachler.

Fig. nr. 5: Positive development of the assessment of own enlightenment in comparison of t0 and t1 © Pachler.

Fig. nr. 6: t1 Visitors’ perception and assessment of measures to protect cultural assets © Pachler.

Fig. nr. 7: Comparison of t0 and t1 sample breakdown by continent or country according to frequency. Note: The “Other country” cluster mainly includes Belgium, Canada, UK, NL, Poland, Czech Republic and Hungary (9<n<27) © Pachler.

© 2024. This work by Gabriela Krist and Marie-Christine Pachler is licensed under CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. 

reposition ISSN: 2960-4354 (Print) 2960-4362 (Online), ISBN: 978-3-9505090-8-3, doi.org/10.22501/repos