Cultural heritage governance and management has been shifting from the sole authority of the state and public bodies towards approaches that list multi-actor partnerships in several combinations involving public actors, civil society, private actors and community. This paper examines the public–civil, public–private and public–private–community partnerships through expounding rationales, conceptual backgrounds and theoretical framings for each partnership, followed by a systemic review and analysis of the academic literature sourced through the PRISMA protocol. The analysis objective was to assess the main advantages and disadvantages of each of the partnerships in governing and managing cultural heritage, noting the levels of representation of each governance and management approach. The results have shown that the public–civil and public–private–community partnerships have similar advantages and disadvantages, with the public–civil partnership being the least represented approach in the literature, while the public–private partnership has the highest level of representation with advantages and disadvantages that are inclined towards more pragmatic aims than those of the other two examined approaches. The so-called ‘new governance models’ of heritage were also detected in the analysis; however, they represent only a variant of the already analysed models.

Through their design, museums can craft specific experiences for their visitors, ranging from more hedonic to more eudaimonic well‐being experiences. Little is known, however, about whether potential visitors anticipate eudaimonic or hedonic well‐being experiences depending on how the museum design is described. To answer this question, we conducted three social‐psychological experiments with Croatian (Study 1, N = 128 and Study 3, N = 213) and American (Study 2, N = 289) participants. Participants in Study 1 and 2 read about either one of the two different hedonically designed museums or one eudaimonically designed museum which was the same across the studies, and then reported their anticipated well‐being and emotional experience. Particularly for Studies 1 and 3, our findings revealed strong support for the differentiation of eudaimonic and hedonic well‐being in the anticipation of different museum visits. Moreover, the anticipated eudaimonic experience moved beyond the typical positive hedonic experience by uniquely including both positive and negative emotions such as compassion, awe, sadness and guilt. We discuss the implications of our findings for modern psychological theorising on well‐being and emotions, and, in a more applied sense, the relevance of describing the design of museums to potential visitors to guide their anticipation of the museum experience.

Museums must adapt to the increasing demand for wellbeing experiences that promote personal growth, requiring specific leadership skills and mindsets. This study explores: (1) museums’ role in promoting wellbeing, (2) leadership skills needed for wellbeing initiatives, and (3) the influence of a growth mindset. We conducted interviews and a leadership mindset survey with eight Croatian museum leaders. Results show leaders view museums as “third places” – a physical location other than work or home where conversation and social gathering are the primary activities – and believe they an expanding role in societal wellbeing. Nine key leadership skills were identified which leaders believe can be developed through training. Recommendations for fostering a growth mindset and leadership skills are provided.

Museums are increasingly perceived as spaces where visitors' experience extends to their well‐being, functioning as potential well‐being generators. However, little is known about whether museums can foster different types of well‐being (i.e., hedonic and eudaimonic), which psychological processes are involved, and how visitors' pre‐visit factors shape these outcomes. To answer these questions, we conducted a pre/post‐visit field study to examine the experiences of 386 visitors across a hedonically designed (Museum of Chocolate) and a eudaimonically designed museum (Museum of Broken Relationships). Results showed that the hedonically designed museum elicited greater hedonic well‐being than the eudaimonically designed museum, while both museums equally fostered eudaimonic well‐being. Furthermore, the hedonically designed museum evoked predominantly positive emotions and more hedonic behavior, whereas the eudaimonically designed museum elicited a mix of positive and negative emotions and more eudaimonic behavior. Moreover, visitors who entered either museum with higher expectations and higher pre‐visit well‐being reported higher post‐visit well‐being. We discuss how these novel findings fit with the idea of museums as well‐being generators, highlight the role that pre‐visit well‐being and expectations play in shaping well‐being during and after the visit, and discuss practical implications for museum design.