Beyond visitor numbers: Hong Kong must track the full worth of its art and culture
Without robust data, cultural funding remains vulnerable: proving the social return on investment secures our cultural institutions
With billions of dollars being poured into mega-events, arts hubs and wider cultural initiatives, we are tracking the economic and infrastructural output of these endeavours. Yet we are failing to adequately measure their more profound impact on the individuals and communities at the heart of these projects.
The tangible aspects of cultural investments benefit from rigorous, science-based targets and frameworks. Environmentally, carbon emissions can be counted; energy efficiency can be audited. Logistics, materials, built environments, waste management and net-zero targets all yield quantifiable metrics. On the governance side, ethical production processes and fair wages are widely embedded into leadership structures, alongside verification of the provenance of artwork.
But human and social outcomes are more nebulous and harder to pin down. How do you quantify community cohesion or intergenerational bonding? How do you measure the strengthening of cultural identity or enhancement of public health and well-being? Difficult to capture on a spreadsheet, these outcomes are often relegated to the realm of anecdotes or catchy quotes on glossy corporate brochures.
This is not, however, for a lack of evidence on the social value of cultural events. Mounting research shows the social value of arts and culture is profound and tangible.