Template-Type: ReDIF-Article 1.0 Author-Name: Miguel González-Mohino Sánchez Author-Name: Maria Angeles Rodríguez Domenech Author-Name: Ana Isabel Callejas Albiñana Title: PATRONES DE CONOCIMIENTO ESCOLAR SOBRE EL PATRIMONIO LOCAL EN CIUDADES DE MEDIANO TAMAÑO DE CASTILLA-LA MANCHA. EL CASO DE CIUDAD REAL Abstract: Resumen:Este trabajo se centra en el conocimiento del patrimonio local dividido en bienes patrimoniales (Cultural, y Natural) y bienes urbanos (Ocio y Servicios), de la población escolar de Ciudad Real. Nuestra hipótesis inicial plantea una relación entre la ubicación de un centro educativo y el conocimiento que sus estudiantes tienen del patrimonio físico más cercano a él. En otras palabras, esperamos que los estudiantes conozcan y demuestren una mayor afición e interés por los espacios más cercanos a su entorno. Una segunda propuesta buscó relacionar los niveles socioeducativos de diferentes áreas con el conocimiento de su patrimonio local. Basamos nuestro análisis en una muestra de 200 estudiantes de Ciudad Real durante el año académico 2016/2017. Abstract:This work focuses on the knowledge of local heritage divided into heritage assets (Cultural, and Natural) and urban goods (Leisure and Services)of the school population of Ciudad Real. Our initial hypothesis was that there is a relationship between a school’s location and the knowledge that its students have of the heritage that is physically closest to it. In other words, we expected school children to know and demonstrate a greater liking for, and interest in, spaces closest to their environment. A second proposal sought to relate the socio-educational levels of different areas with knowledge of their local heritage. We based our analysis on a sample of 200 students from Ciudad Real during the 2016/2017 academic year.   METHODOLOGY For the study, the city was divided into three main zones: Zone 1-Center, Zone 2-Semi-periphery and Zone 3-Periphery. The sample consists of 200 people, taking into account that Zone 1 is composed of 103 students, Zone 2 of 29 students and Zone 3 of 68 students.We used the SPSS (version 24.0) statistics programme to analyse our results. We then obtained relevant descriptive results (frequencies and percentages) and also looked-for relationships between the different variables and areas using the cross-tables statistical application.The information sources used have been obtained from secondary data provided by the National Institute of Statistics (INE) that has micro-scale data on the spatial location of public educational facilities, covering primary and secondary basic education levels. The base mapping was provided by the Municipal Planning Service. The educational centers have been georeferenced through the ArcGis 10.03 program. RESULTS The most well-known assets, regardless of the situation where the respondents are located, are located in the Zone 1-Center, since in it are the Cultural Heritage buildings that are known for more than 90% of the total, although surprising is the case of the council that does not reach 70%. The rest of the components of this area (natural, leisure and services) are around 75%. The Zone 2- periphery within Rounds, is identified in its entirety by 75% of the participants, and the least known elements belong to the Zone 3- periphery outside Rounds, although they are recognized by more than 50%. The most known building would be Parque Gasset, followed by Plaza del Pilar. Based on the results from the sum totals obtained from the cross-tables for Area vs Heritage Goods and Urban Goods (including buildings, public spaces and monuments) and the related hypotheses, we were able to:

-   Reject H1a =Schools located in Area 1 will have a high knowledge relationship for Cultural Heritage due to their proximity. This had to be rejected because there was no significant correlation between this area and the space in question.

-   Reject H1b =Schools located in Area 2 and Area 3 will have a positive knowledge relationship with the Urban Services Good due to their proximity. This was because there was no significant correlation between the areas indicated in the hypothesis.

-   Reject H1c =Schools located in Area 1 will have a positive knowledge relationship with the Urban Leisure Good due its proximity. This was because there was no significant relationship between the area and the heritage found there. However, it is relevant to highlight the significantly negative relationship between Area 3 and Leisure, which indicated that those interviewed in this area were not aware of the leisure areas available there.

-   Reject H1d =Schools located in Area 3 will have a favourable knowledge relationship with Natural Heritage due their proximity. No significant relationship between the two variables was detected.

-   Accept H2 =The areas containing the schools with the highest socio-educational level were positively associated with a knowledge of the different Heritage spaces in the city. CONCLUSIONS The conclusions that we drew from this research can be summarised in the following points:

1)      It was not possible to confirm our initial hypothesis which stated that children attending school in an area equipped with certain elements of urban heritage would tend to know them. Our results showed otherwise.

2)      From the other conclusion, we can infer that in medium-sized cities, such as Ciudad Real, the knowledge of local heritage will depend more on the type of the heritage item in question than on its location. Thus, the cultural and historical types of heritage are known to almost all of the population, regardless of where they live, while the natural, leisure and service types are not any better known on account of their proximity, but rather of the use that is made of them.

3)      The data obtained showed that the city’s cultural heritage was the type best known by almost all of the participants, albeit with clear differences between the three areas established.      In summary, from an analysis of the results of this study, we were able to conclude that there was no predictive relationship between the proximity of the schools attended by those surveyed and their knowledge of the heritage elements in the city. This conclusion is based on the fact that this was not a determining factor according to the sample that we analysed.  Although we were able to observe a similar level of university studies in each of the different area, this was somewhat misleading because when the areas were designed, the centres with a medium to high level of university studies were grouped together with others in whose closest area was one with a low level of university studies (see table 4). However, when the study was carried out individually, for each centre, it produced different data relating to the knowledge of heritage within the city. In this, we saw that the hypothesis proved true and that there were sufficient indices to affirm that the socio-educational level of the locations of the schools influenced students’ knowledge of the city. This work paves the way for future studies and measures that could be undertaken by local corporations.These could involve promoting some of the less well-known areas via tourism marketing campaigns. They could also have a positive influence on the level of business activity in the city, helping futureentrepreneurs to locate their businesses. It would also be convenient for educational curricula to work on providing a more exhaustive knowledge of the immediate surroundings, starting with the city in which the students live, to make the artistic heritage known to all members of the local area and to even generate greater identification with the place itself. Classification-JEL: R1 Keywords: Patrimonio de la Ciudad, Conocimiento, Ubicación, Socioeducativo, Centro Escolar, Heritage of The City, Knowledge Economy, Industrial Location, Socio-Educational, School Center Pages: 79-112 Volume: 3 Year: 2020 File-URL: http://www.revistaestudiosregionales.com/documentos/articulos/pdf-articulo-2600.pdf File-Format: Application/pdf Handle: RePEc:rer:articu:v:3:y:2020:p:79-112