CC BY
10
Original scientific paper
UDC:
930.85:004.9(497.11)
Received: July, 10, 2023. Revised: August, 01.2023. Accepted: August, 11.2023.
© 10.23947/2334-8496-2023-11-2-221-229
H) Check for updates
The Importance of the Digitization Process for the Promotion of Cultural Heritage of the Republic of Serbia: Empirical and Statistical Findings
Abstract: Timely, comprehensive, and continuous protection, as well as the use and presentation of authentic tangible and intangible cultural-historical heritage of a certain area can greatly contribute to the economic, ecological and social development of the community and the strengthening of the competitive position. Digitization should relax all previously known forms of cultural expression and enable access to the broadest audience and their participation in cultural life. This paper has the ambition to contribute to a more comprehensive appreciation of the digitization process, facilitate access to digital content and motivate new thinking about the continuous improvement of the availability of movable and immovable cultural assets, as well as intangible cultural heritage. A primary questionnaire was created in order to assess the views and opinions of the citizens of the Republic of Serbia on the importance of the digitization process for the promotion of cultural heritage. The research sample was an opportunistic, convenient sampling of residents of the Republic of Serbia from all 5 regions (n=138). The importance of the digitization process for the promotion and preservation of cultural heritage has been established. Modern technologies are insufficiently represented in the promotion and preservation of cultural heritage, while this attitude is supported by a slightly higher percentage of respondents with the highest level of education. The importance of the digitization process for the promotion and preservation of cultural heritage has been proven, and respondents with the highest level of education attach the highest degree of importance to it. The greatest contribution can be seen in the preservation of the national identity and cultural diversity of the national communities, of our region, with social networks being the media that can contribute the most to the promotion of cultural heritage.
Keywords: cultural heritage, digitization, national identity, media.
The digital revolution has changed the conventional way of acquiring images and reproducing the existing or imaginary world, leading to new forms and dimensions of reality. New approaches, through 360° technology, augmented reality (AR), mixed reality (MR) or virtual reality (VR) platforms, serve the purpose of studying, preserving, and improving the promotion of cultural heritage (Belhi et al., 2017; Siountri et al., 2019). Such an approach to digitization sets even higher standards, requiring more significant institutional and public participation of cultural heritage in the overall cultural exchange, thus contributing to the protection and preservation of cultural heritage for future generations.
The digitalization process has subjected institutional cultural memory to significant changes. The focus is on three areas: digitization of cultural assets as a technical activity, creation of digital access to cultural artifacts, as a relevant prerequisite for the entire concept of digitization, and transformation of the management process and performance of institutional work within the sector (Schilz and Rehbein, 2022). Digitization of tangible entities, as noted by Pavlidis and Koutsoudis (2022), is a process that focuses on the transformation of the real world, and its features, into a virtual world, which comes together with a typical set of rules, advantages, limitations, and possibilities. Digitization of valuable entities not only protects them in the virtual world, but opens new horizons for presentation, dissemination of knowledge, research and study, conservation, and even physical reproduction. Some authors put the relevance of storytelling along the same value plane for articulating the value and impact of digitized material that is
'Corresponding author: branislav.sancanin@famns.edu.rs
Branislav Sancanin1" , Aleksandra Penjisevic1
1Faculty of Management, Sremski Karlovci; Union - Nikola Tesla University, Belgrade, Serbia e-mail: branislav.sancanin@famns.edu.rs; aleksandra.penjisevic@famns.edu.rs
Introduction
© 2023 by the authors. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
preserved in cultural heritage institutions (Marsh et al., 2015).
The identification, protection and valorization of cultural and historical heritage, along with the integration and synergistic reflections of numerous related activities, can significantly strengthen the sustainable economic and ecological development of the community and contribute to strengthening the competitive position (Sancanin et al., 2023), appreciating that cultural heritage has a cohesive force to link different research activities (architectural history, geomatics, drawing and measurement, restoration, regeneration and design), thereby creating the conditions for developing tools for rapid research and multi-level readings, as well as robust procedures for interventions and recycling on different levels of built heritage (Alici et al., 2019).
Focusing on archaeoacoustic research, Dordevic et al. (2019) emphasize that the digitization of cultural heritage must systematically include acoustic heritage proving that the sound of historic sites can be explored and that it can be shown to contribute to our knowledge of past building practices. The authors suggest the development of guidelines for the digitization of acoustic heritage and its presentation through auralization, which will make the heritage available for further use.
Horvat and Zivkovic (2010) actualize the question of copyright issues related to cultural heritage, pointing to the lack of databases or registers containing data on authors, as well as to the different approaches of institutions to digital copies. Namely, some institutions are of the opinion that digitization is a means of protecting originals, while others emphasize themselves as publishers and holders of rights to new digital editions. Digitized material that appears on the global network is free for private exploitation, or for scientific research activities, while use for commercial purposes must be paid for so that part of the funds will be used as financial support for further digitization. Peña, Jaramillo and Peña(2023) indicate that in case of cultural heritage, which consists of digital elements that need to be preserved due to their cultural value, unknowns have emerged regarding their legal protection. One of the challenges is the lack of precision on how the elements that make up heritage should be protected, which creates doubt as to how intellectual property can help resolve the identified ambiguities.
In 2011, the European Commission adopted a recommendation on digitization and online availability of cultural material and digital preservation, with the aim of optimizing the economic and cultural potential of cultural heritage via the Internet. Digitization and the provision of broader access to cultural resources offer enormous economic opportunities and is an essential condition for the further development of Europe's cultural and creative capacities and its industrial approach in this area (European Commission, 2011).
The Rulebook on closer conditions for the digitization of cultural heritage (Official Gazette of RS, 2018) defines that digitization, in the Republic of Serbia, should ensure the protection and long-term preservation of digital objects in order to ensure the availability of information on cultural heritage, the exchange of data between protection institutions, the creation of new and the addition of existing documentation on cultural heritage, followed by its promotion and presentation, as well as increasing the number of users, creating new content and introducing new services.
It is a general opinion that the spread of information and communication technologies (ICT) in cultural institutions can affect their mission and activities, reshaping their role as producers and distributors of cultural content. In this sense, Cavalieri et al. (2023) found that supply, demand, and contextual factors, throughout the territory of Italy, are significantly related to the use of ICT by museums and similar institutions.
Great Britain implemented the "Culture Online" project from 2002 to 2007 in order to provide easier access to cultural content using new technologies. Through the Icons program, intended primarily for children and young people, an Internet site about the cultural material of England was created, and already in the first year it had recorded about a million visitors (Vukicevic, 2011).
Analyzing the digitalization strategies of heritage in Doha (Qatar) and Singapore, Molho (2023) recalls that new technologies trigger a more inclusive heritage discourse with numerous narratives. These cities have invested significant resources in preserving and protecting heritage and digital technology, consolidating their positions on the platform of smart, creative and culturally diverse urban centers.
There are more and more ways for cities in post-authoritarian, post-war or post-colonial countries, which have been largely damaged and significantly structured by severe physical destruction, displacement, and other traumas, to experience political and social transformation, using the past as a resource. In this context, Tornquist - Plewaa and Pietraszewski (2022) offer as an illustrative example the transformation of the Polish city of Wroclaw, which after the fall of communism was transformed from a slum into an attractive neighborhood and a representation of how the local environment functions with its challenging, dissonant heritage. Namely, after the Second World War, German heritage was suppressed and the Polish authoritarian communist regime established a hegemonic and nationalist narrative for
remembering Wroclaw as "always a Polish city". Today the city is a successful example of creating a cultural heritage for a cosmopolitan, more inclusive future and an inspiration for practitioners in other cities.
However, there are also numerous examples of permanent loss of heritage. The destruction of ancient sites and monuments across the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) has prompted the international community to act to fund initiatives aimed at recording, preserving, and restoring endangered archaeological heritage across the region. These activities refer not only to large-scale destruction, but also to a more damaging and persistent form of low-level vandalism of isolated rural sites that can destroy entire heritage landscapes, especially if the loot reaches the antiquities black market (Greaves et al., 2023).
Materials and Methods
The primary survey was created to assess the views and opinions of the citizens of the Republic of Serbia on the importance of the digitization process for the promotion of the cultural heritage of the Republic of Serbia. Accordingly, the following research questions were asked:
Q1. How and to what extent are modern technologies represented in the cultural heritage plans of the Republic of Serbia?
Q2. How and to what extent is the digitization process important for the promotion of the cultural heritage of the Republic of Serbia?
Q3. What is the biggest contribution of cultural heritage digitalization?
The data was collected using a survey method via Google Forms. Participation in the survey was voluntary for the purposes of this paper and may not be used for other purposes. The research sample was opportunistic, convenient sampling of residents from each of the five regions of the Republic of Serbia. The pilot survey included 27 respondents. After the analysis of the pilot research, which involved checking the content validity of all aspects measured in this research through the prism of assessing the importance of modern technologies and digitalization of the cultural heritage of the Republic of Serbia, the final version of the questionnaire was compiled and the research was conducted on a new group of 138 respondents (n=138). Period of data collection from March 2023 to May 2023.
The questionnaire consisted of two parts. The first part consisted of general questions on gender, region, current level of education and age. In the second part, students evaluated, on a scale, the importance of the digitalization process on the promotion of cultural heritage, as well as the influence of certain social networks (1-I don't agree at all/ No input at all, 7-I completely agree/ Great contribution), the contribution of digitalization promotion for cultural heritage, and adequate representation of modern technologies in the digitalization plans of the cultural heritage of the Republic of Serbia. In order to obtain answers to the research questions, descriptive measures, measures of dispersion and measures of symmetry were calculated. Non-parametric techniques (Chi-square Test, Mann-Whitney U test, Kruskal-Wallis test) were used for hypothesis testing. Data was processed using the SPSS software package.
Results and Discussion
The research results are based on the "Influence of the media on the promotion of the cultural heritage of the Republic of Serbia" questionnaire. As previously stated, 138 respondents participated in the research, of which 75 (54.3%) were Male and 63 (45.7%) were Female. The average age of the respondents was 33.71 years, and the median was 27 years of age. However, we can see that the largest percentage of respondents was between 18 and 25 years of age (50%), as well as that the largest percentage of respondents had a current level of high school education (47.8%). See Table 1 for more.
Table 1
Summary of demographics
Frequency Percent
Gender Male 75 54.3
Female 63 45.7
Total 138 100.0
Age Category 18-25 69 50.00
26-33 8 5.80
34-41 16 11.60
42-49 20 14.50
50-57 11 8.00
58+ 14 10.10
Total 138 100.00
Region Vojvodina 30 21.7
Belgrade 33 23.9
Southern and Eastern Serbia 62 44.9
Sumadija and Western Serbia 13 9.4
Total 138 100.0
Level of High school 66 47.8
Education Higher education 6 4.3
College 40 29.0
Magister, Master of Science 13 9.4
Doctor of Science, PhD 13 9.4
Total 138 100.0
Source: Authors (2023), results of primary research
Adequate representation of modern technologies in cultural heritage digitization plans according to respondents was "Not enough" for 44.2% of them, 24.6% responded with "I do not know", 20.3% stated "No", while 10.9% stated "Yes".
Garaph 1. Representation of modern technologies within digitization plans Source: Authors (2023), results of primary research
The Chi-square test of independence did not show a significant relationship between the attitude about the representation of modern technologies in the digitalization of cultural heritage and the gender of the respondents, x2(3, n=138)=6.625, p=0,100, while a slightly higher percentage of female respondents, 52.4% of them, were of the "Not enough" opinion compared to 37.3% of Male respondents. In addition, 25.3% of Males had a "No attitude" opinion, compared to 14.3% of Female respondents. The "Yes" attitude was held by 14.7% of Male and 6.3% of Female respondents. In addition, the Chi-square test of independence did not show a significant relationship between the attitude about the representation of modern technologies in the digitalization of cultural heritage and the current level of education of the respondents, x2(12, n=138)=11.539, p=0,483. What can be noticed is that the "Yes" attitude had the highest percentage of High school respondents 16.7%, the "No" answers were provided by 38.5% of Magister, Master of Science respondents, while the "Not enough" attitude had the highest percentage of Doctor of Science, PhD respondents with 61.6%. If we look at the representation of modern technologies within cultural heritage digitization plans, in relation to the age of respondents by category, respondents aged 18-25 gave an approximate percentage for each of the answers ("Yes", "No", "Not enough", and "I do not know"). Respondents in the other groups gave the "Not enough" answer in a much higher percentage, about 60%.
The respondents rated the importance of the digitization process for the preservation of cultural heritage with an average score of 5.68, the median was 6 and the mode was 7, the first quartile (Q1) was 5 and the third quartile (Q3) was 7. The variable shows strong negative asymmetry (Skewness=-1.00) and relatively weak variability, the coefficient of variation was 27.17%, it its outlier data and IQR was 2. Females gave a slightly higher average score of 5.75 to the importance of the digitization process on the preservation of cultural heritage, compared to Males who give an average score of 5.63. What should be emphasized is that respondents with the Doctor of Science, PhD level of education gave a much higher average score than the other groups of respondents, namely 6.85.
The Kruskal Wallis test revealed a statistically significant difference related to the importance of the digitization process for the preservation of cultural heritage for five groups of educational level (Gp1, n=66: High school, Gp2, n=6: Higher education, Gp3, n=40: College, Gp4, n=13: Magister, Master of Science, Gp5, n=13: Doctor of Science, PhD), x2(4, n=138)=11.611, p=0,020. The group of respondents with the Doctor of Science, PhD degree had the highest Mean Rank.
The Mann-Whitney U test did not reveal a statistically significant difference related to the importance of the digitization process on the preservation of cultural heritage for Magister, Master of Science (Me=7.0, n=13) and Doctor of Science, PhD (Me=7.0, n=13), U=55.500, z= -1.828, p=0.068, however, respondents with the Doctor of Science, PhD level of education had a higher Mean Rank.
High school Higher education
College
1-r
Magister, Master of Doctor of Science, Science PhD
Level of Education
Garaph 2. The importance of the digitization process on the promotion of cultural heritage in
relation to the degree of education Source: Authors (2023), results of primary research
Histogram
Mean = 5,68 Std. Dev. = 1, N = 138
20"
O"1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-
1 2 3 4 S 6 7
Garaph 3. The importance of the digitization process on the promotion of cultural heritage Source: Authors (2023), results of primary research
Digitization of cultural heritage, according to respondents, can contribute the most to "Preservation of the national identity and cultural diversity of the national communities of our climate", which is supported by 45.65% of respondents, all other reasons are represented in an approximate percentage. If we look at the contributions in relation to the current level of education of the respondents and the region in which they live, 69.2% of the respondents with the level of education Doctor of Science, PhD, as well as 53.8%, respondents from the region of Sumadija and Western Serbia think that it is "Preservation of the national identity and cultural diversity of the national communities of our climate", while other groups of respondents estimate this item with around 45%. The highest percentage, 23.1% for the item "Building a knowledge-based society" was also given by the group of respondents with the level of education Doctor of Science, PhD, the group of respondents from the region of Sumadija and Western Serbia, and a slightly higher percentage of Female respondents 17.5% compared to Male 13.3 % respondents.
Preservation of the national _ identity and cultural diversity of the national communities of our climate
Improving the position of the ■ Republic of Serbia on the global level
Scientific research work and application in science and education _ Building a knowledge-based society
Garaph 4. Contribution of digitization of cultural heritage Source: Authors (2023), results of primary research
"Social networks" (66.7%), followed by "TV" (26.8%), "Printed media" 4.3% and "Radio" 2.2% have the greatest contribution to the promotion of cultural heritage. Respondents with a lower level of education (High school and Higher education), in a higher percentage of about 80%, think that" Social networks have a greater contribution to the promotion of cultural heritage than other media", while respondents with higher levels of education estimate the importance of Social networks compared to other media at about
50 %. Respondents with a Magister, Master of Science and Doctor of Science, PhD level of education give greater importance to Printed media's contribution to promotion with about 8% compared to respondents with a lower level of education.
The Chi-square test of independence showed a significant relationship between the type of media that contributes to the promotion of cultural heritage and the region where the respondents live, X2(9, n=138)=21.008, p=0,013. The value of Cramer's V was 0.225, so we can say that the influence is medium (R-1/K-1 is 3 (four categories)) (Gravetter and Wallnau, 2004, 2012). The values in the Adjusted Residual cell (in the SPSS report) for respondents from Belgrade and "TV", as well as for respondents from Southern and Eastern Serbia and "Social networks" are greater than 2 and amount to 3.2 and 2.4 respectively, which indicates that the number of cases is significantly higher than expected, while the values in the Adjusted Residual cells for respondents from Belgrade and "Social networks", as well as for respondents from Southern and Eastern Serbia and "TV" are less than -2 and amount to -2.1 and -3.7 respectively, which indicates that the number of cases is significantly lower than expected.
Table 2
Crosstab
Which of the above, in your opinion, contributes the most to
the promotion of cultural heritage Total
Printed media Radio TV Social networks
Region Vojvodina Count 2 0 10 18 30
% within Region 6,7% ,0% 33,3% 60,0% 100,0%
Adjusted Residual ,7 -,9 ,9 -,9
Belgrade Count 0 0 16 17 33
% within Region ,0% ,0% 48,5% 51,5% 100,0%
Adjusted Residual -1,4 -1,0 3,2 -2,1
Southern and Count 4 3 7 48 62
Eastern Serbia % within Region 6,5% 4,8% 11,3% 77,4% 100,0%
Adjusted Residual 1,1 1,9 -3,7 2,4
Sumadije and Count 0 0 4 9 13
Western Serbia % within Region ,0% ,0% 30,8% 69,2% 100,0%
Adjusted Residual -,8 ,3 ,2
Total Count 6 3 37 92 138
% within Region 4,3% 2,2% 26,8% 66,7% 100,0%
Source: Authors (2023), results of primary research
Conclusions
Despite the unequivocal recognition of the numerous and diverse benefits of digitization such as the preservation, accessibility and presentation of cultural heritage, the results of this research show that modern technologies are insufficiently represented in plans for the digitization of cultural heritage. This attitude is held by a slightly higher percentage of respondents with the highest level of education, i.e., Doctor of Science, PhD. Respondents aged 25+ are also more knowledgeable about the representation of modern technologies within cultural heritage digitization plans. The importance of the digitization process for the promotion and preservation of cultural heritage has been proven, and respondents with the degree of education - Doctor of Science, PhD, attach the highest degree of importance. The implications of the research results are presented through the key contribution of the digitalization of cultural heritage, i.e., through the visualization of the continuous process of preserving national identity, as well as through the cultural diversity of the national communities of our region. However, respondents with the highest level of education also see great importance in building a society based on knowledge. The media that can contribute the most to the promotion of cultural heritage are social networks. Digitization of cultural
heritage remains a significant issue for every segment of the entire cultural heritage sector. It is important to point out that it is essential that with the increase in the volume of digitized heritage, institutions that deal with cultural heritage should actively participate in the establishment of quality standards for digitized content, and the reasons can most often be detected in the growing demand of various interested parties: researchers, educators, the culture sector, as well as the IT sector. Cultural institutions face great challenges and opportunities in implementing a wide range of artificial intelligence methods and tools, while respecting legislative and ethical limitations.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the respondents who voluntarily participated in the research. In addition, the authors express their gratitude to the reviewers for their constructive suggestions.
Author Contributions
Conceptualization, B.S. and A.P; methodology, B.S. and A.P; software B.S. and A.P.; formal analysis B.S. and A.P; validation, B.S. and A.P; writing—original draft preparation, B.S. and A.P; writing—review and editing, B.S. and A.P. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Conflict of interests
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
Alici, A., Bonvini, P., Clini, P., Ferretti, M., Savina Malinverni, E., Mariano, F., Mondaini, G., & Quattrini, R. (2019). Cultural Heritage and Landscape: Analysis, Digitization and Design Aiming at a Resilient Future. In: Longhi, S., Monteriü, A., Freddi, A., Frontoni, E., Germani, M., Revel, G. (eds) The First Outstanding 50 Years of "Universitá Politécnica delle Marche". Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-32762-0 21 * Belhi, A., Foufou, S., Bouras, A., Sadka, A.H. (2017). Digitization and Preservation of Cultural Heritage Products. In: Ríos, J., Bernard, A., Bouras, A., Foufou, S. (eds) Product Lifecycle Management and the Industry of the Future. PLM 2017. IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology, vol 517. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-72905-3 22
Cavalieri, M., Ferrante, L., Martorana, M., & Rizzo, I. (2023). The ICT strategy of Italian museums: institutional, supply and demand side drivers. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 1-21. https://doi.org/10.1080/10438599.2023.2 222268
Dordevic, Z., Dragisic, M., Manzetti, M. C., & Novkovic, D. (2020). Digitization of Acoustic Heritage in a Service of Protection, Research and Promotion of European Cultural Heritage. In: Kremers, H. (eds) Digital Cultural Heritage. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-15200-0 30 European commission. (2011). Commission recommendation of 27 October 2011 on the digitisation and online accessibility of
cultural material and digital preservation. Official Journal of the European Union, L 283: 39-43 Gravetter, F. J., & Wallnau, L. B. (2004, 2012). Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences (10th ed). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Greaves, A. M., Oz, A., Yegen, G., Apaydin, V., & Gilby, C. (2023). Heritage education and active learning: Developing community and promoting diversity in Turkey. Journal of Community Archaeology & Heritage, 1-18. https://doi.org/10. 1080/20518196.2023.2176087
Horvat, A., & Zivkovic, D. (2010). Copyright issues related to the digitization of cultural heritage in Croatia. In Technological Convergence and Social Networks in Information Management: Second International Symposium on Information Management in a Changing World, IMCW 2010, Ankara, Turkey, September 22-24, 2010. Proceedings 2 (pp. 161174). Springer Berlin Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-16032-5 15 Marsh, D., Punzalan, R., Leopold, R., Butler, B. & Petrozzi, M. (2016). Stories of impact: the role of narrative in understanding the value and impact of digital collections. Archival Science 16, 327-372. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10502-015-9253-5 Molho, J. (2023). The promises and limitations of digital participation in heritage: Planning transmedia heritage districts in
superdiverse cities. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1080/13527258.2023.2220301 Pavlidis, G., & Koutsoudis, A. (2022). 3D Digitization of Tangible Heritage. In: D'Amico, S., Venuti, V. (eds) Handbook of
Cultural Heritage Analysis. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-60016-7 47 Peña, K. I. C., Jaramillo, Y. A. M., & Peña, A. M. C. (2023). Instruments for the Legal Protection of Digitized Cultural Heritage in Colombia. International Journal for the Semiotics of Law-Revue internationale de Sémiotique juridique, 1-20. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s11196-023-09980-3 Pravilnik o blizim uslovima za digitalizaciju kulturnog nasleda (2018). Sluzbeni glasnik RS [Official Gazette of RS], 76/2018. Sancanin, B., Penjisevic, A., & Stojanovic, K. (2023). Key cultural-historical determinanst of tourism improvements of the
Municipality of Bac. Hotel and Tourism Management, 11(1): 177-191. https://doi.org/10.5937/menhottur2301177S Schilz, A., & Rehbein, M. (2022). Digitization of Cultural Heritage. In Handbook Industry 4.0: Law, Technology, Society (pp.
1193-1212). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-64448-5 64 Siountri, K., Vagena, E., Vergados, D. D., Stefanou, J., & Anagnostopoulos, C. N. (2019). The digitization of the tangible
cultural heritage and the related policy framework. In Transdisciplinary Multispectral Modeling and Cooperation for the Preservation of Cultural Heritage: First International Conference, tMm_CH 2018, Athens, Greece, October 10-13, 2018, Revised Selected Papers, Part I 1 (pp. 250-260). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-12957-6 17
Tornquist-Plewa, B., & Pietraszewski, I. (2023). Creating Cultural Heritage for a Better Future. The case of the "District of Mutual Respect' in the Polish city of Wroclaw. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 13527258.2023.2225059
Vukicevic, V. (2011). Digitalization of cultural heritage in the function of achieving cultural policy goals. Kultura, (130), 165-182. https://doi.org/10.5937/kultura1130165V
