Advances in Cultural Tourism Research: Bart Neuts João Martins Marinos Ioannides

Advances in Digital and Cultural Tourism Management
Bart Neuts
João Martins
Marinos Ioannides Editors
Advances in
Cultural Tourism
Research
Proceedings of the International
Conference on Cultural Tourism Advances,
June 2023, Belgium
Advances in Digital and Cultural Tourism
Management
Series Editors
Marinos Ioannides , Cyprus University of Technology, Limassol, Cyprus
Bart Neuts, Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, Katholieke
Universiteit Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
João Martins, CTS-UNINOVA and FCT/UNL, Monte de Caparica, Portugal
This series highlights works dealing with the economic and social impact of cultural
tourism in Europe, with a focus on digital and cultural heritage tourism. It targets
policymakers, researchers, and industry professionals interested in sustainable devel-
opment and innovative approaches to cultural tourism. Books cover topics such as
Digital/eTourism, Cultural and Heritage Management, and Tourism Technologies.
Each book follows a structured editorial process including review by key experts
in the related topics, ensuring high quality and relevance. With an emphasis on
successful policies, emerging trends, visitor management systems, and the integra-
tion of digital technologies, the series aims to enhance understanding and promote
smart, sustainable, and inclusive growth in the cultural tourism sector.
Bart Neuts · João Martins · Marinos Ioannides
Editors
Advances in Cultural
Tourism Research
Proceedings of the International Conference
on Cultural Tourism Advances, June 2023,
Belgium
Editors
Bart Neuts João Martins
Department of Earth and Environmental NOVA School of Science and Technology
Sciences UNINOVA-CTS and LASI, NOVA
Katholieke Universiteit Leuven University Lisbon
Leuven, Belgium Monte de Caparica, Portugal
Marinos Ioannides
UNESCO Chair on Digital Cultural
Heritage at the Cyprus University
of Technology
Limassol, Cyprus
Advances in Digital and Cultural Tourism Management

ISBN 978-3-031-65536-4 ISBN 978-3-031-65537-1 (eBook)
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-65537-1
© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2025. This book is an open access publication.
Open Access This book is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International
License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribu-
tion and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original
author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were
made.
The images or other third party material in this book are included in the book’s Creative Commons license,
unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the book’s Creative
Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted
use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication
does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant
protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book
are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or
the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any
errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional
claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
If disposing of this product, please recycle the paper.

Foreword
Anyone who has worked in the field of cultural heritage knows the importance of
its preservation. The cultural heritage lover does not need explanations. However,
they are confronted sometimes with the need to explain to others why we should
preserve our European thousands of years old legacy. Often, the love we feel for this
magnificent cultural richness standing on European soil does not seem to be enough
to convince some people. When this occurs, we have to turn to too well-known
arguments to persuade those who are not at all interested in history and culture: the
economy.
Nowadays no one is discussing the economic benefits that culture brings to a given
area having a rich cultural heritage. “There we have an argument”, think those who
love history and heritage for their own sake, and, more important, a valid argument
that everybody understands.
Cultural tourism is gaining more and more adepts, this creates markets and
economic flows and brings benefits. But we are starting to experience in Europe
also the problems of over-dimensioned touristic flows in some areas.
Cultural heritage is fragile. Flows of thousands of tourists, without the necessary
protection measures, can kill the hen with the golden eggs. Once heritage is destroyed,
there is no way back, the damage is irreversible.
Therefore, it is paramount to carry on multidisciplinary research bringing together
specialists from a large variety of fields that analyse the problems from a wide
diversity of angles.
This is what the six projects funded by the Horizon Europe programme have done,
to bring a constellation of European Researchers to work together, each researcher
within the frame of their project, and each project cooperating with the others.
v
vi Foreword
This book is the result of their work, and we hope it will be a landmark in the
research on the field of cultural tourism.
Brussels, Belgium Dr. Rodrigo Martín Galán

Research Programme Officer
Research Executive Agency
European Commission
Unit C.1—Inclusive, Innovative
and Reflective Societies
Disclaimer The opinions expressed in this foreword are strictly those of the author
and, as such, they do not reflect the opinion or policies of the European Research
Executive Agency.
Preface
This book presents new roads, perspectives, and approaches in cultural tourism,
consolidating insights from six European-funded projects and presented during the
International Conference on Cultural Tourism Advances, organized in Brussels on
27–28 June 2023. The European Union has long recognized the importance of culture
as part of a qualitative and unique tourist experience and as an element to enhance
the profile and values of Europe. While exact estimates are difficult to make due to
incomplete arrival and motivation-based statistics, it is estimated that approximately
40% of all European tourists base their destination choice on tangible and intangible
cultural offerings, ranging from museums, historical cities, and archaeological sites,
to music, and gastronomy. Similarly, at local levels, national and regional destination
management organizations have typically leveraged local cultures as main attractors
for the regional and international market.
Furthermore, cultural tourism is often juxtaposed to less sustainable forms of
mass tourism and identified as a potential driver and enabler of sustainable develop-
ment, supporting regional and macro-regional development strategies and potentially
inviting visitors with genuine interests in local values, experiences and products. This
leads to significant economic effects and has further strengthened the view of cultural
heritage as a strategic resource for its economic impact but also for its role in creating
and enhancing social capital and achieving the goals of smart, sustainable and inclu-
sive growth. Notwithstanding the potential beneficial effects of cultural tourism, its
development also introduces important challenges to destinations, related to potential
issues such as overcrowding—or rather an uneven tourist spread leading to both over
and under exploitation—cultural appropriation, gentrification, the loss of authen-
ticity, and an unequal distribution of economic effects, often being more prevalent
in urbanized areas.
The goal of the Conference on Cultural Tourism Advances—and thus also of
this book—is to further the understanding of the sustainable development potential
of cultural tourism by focusing on successful policy interventions and participatory
approaches for community-based development, providing assessment frameworks
vii
viii Preface
for responsible and human-centred tourism, and introducing new digital and analyt-
ical applications to advance cultural tourism management and planning. This book
is organized as follows:
Participatory Approaches to Cultural Tourism Management
The first part of the book highlights the importance of an integrated local community
and stakeholder involvement as an essential building block for sustainable devel-
opment through cultural tourism. In the first chapter of this part, Hanna Szemző,
Eszter Turai, and Gergö Berta (Chap. Challenges in Developing Sustainable Tourism
Locally: Viewpoints from the Ground) discuss the challenges and perspectives of
bottom-up driven cultural tourism development in light of communities as multi-
faceted entities with diverging interests and understandings about local heritage.
Elena Bussolati, Serena Cecere, Roberta De Bonis Patrignani, and Matteo Tabasso
(Chap. How Cultural Tourism Management Initiatives Come to Light Starting
from Local Needs: The Case of the Crespi D’Adda Company Town) focus on the
case of Crespi d’Adda company town, and particularly the integration of a bottom-
up approach with local stakeholder and resident involvement within the process of
defining a UNESCO Management Plan, explaining both the participatory processes
themselves as well as the way the actions were identified and customized.
Subsequently, Shabnam Pasandideh, João Martins, Pedro Pereira, Alessandra
Gandini, Mikel Zubiaga De La Cal, Tarmo Kalvet, Tatjana Koor, Amaia Sopelana,
and Amaia Lopez de Aguileta (Chap. Co-Creation Method for Fostering Cultural
Tourism Impact) present a novel method to enhance the impact of cultural tourism
through collecting and analysing data from diverse sources, including stakeholders
and local communities and recreating a comprehensive decision-making system.
Furthering local community involvement strategies, Małgorzata Ćwikła, Cristina
Garzillo, Martina Bosone, and Antonia Gravagnuolo (Chap. Stakeholders Engage-
ment Processes for Co-Creation of Strategic Action Plans for Circular and Human–
Centred Cultural Tourism in European Heritage Sites) describe co-creative processes
conducted with various types of stakeholders in six European regions, with the
specific aim to activate local communities to co-create innovative solutions within
the framework of a circular economy-oriented approach.
In the final chapter of the first part, Theano S. Terkenli and Vasilki Georgoula
(Chap. Cultural Tourism in the Cyclades Before and After the Pandemic: A Stake-
holders’ Perspective) discuss the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on cultural
tourism in the Cyclades, from the perspective of local tourism stakeholders and with
a particular focus on the problems, pitfalls and potential ensuing from the pandemic,
moving towards a more resilient, sustainable, and transformative future.
Preface ix
Responsible, Circular, and Human-Centred Regional

Development Potential
The second part of this book introduces a number of management frameworks, devel-
opment indicators, and key factors to support informed and evidence-driven decision-
making and planning. Vanessa Glindmeier and Gary Treacy (Chap. A Frame-
work for Responsible Tourism in Scotland’s Historic Environment: Experiences
from Transforming Tourism at a Film-Induced Heritage Visitor Attraction) provide
an overview of the application of the Responsible Tourism Framework of Historic
Environment Scotland on the case study of Doune Castle, aiming to put respon-
sible tourism practices at the heart of decision-making, balancing the needs of local
communities, visitors, the environment, and the cultural heritage itself.
Zvonimir Kuliš and Blanka Šimundic (Chap. Heritage and Territory: Tangible
and Intangible Cultural Resources as Drivers of Regional Development in Croatia)
present an analytical spatial autoregressive approach, investigating the relation-
ship between cultural heritage, tourism demand, and regional development in
Croatia, revealing that cultural heritage has a significantly positive effect on regional
development at NUTS 3 level, both directly and indirectly.
Ludovica La Rocca, Francesca Buglione, Eugenio Muccio, Martina Bosone,
Maria Cerreta, Pasquale De Toro, and Antonia Gravagnuolo (Chap. Towards
a Circular Cultural Tourism Impact Assessment Framework for Decision Support
in Less-Known and Remote Destinations) highlight a newly developed methodolog-
ical and operational approach, based on a set of impact criteria and indicators and
reconsidering the linearity of the Theory of Change, to guide the evaluation and
monitoring process of circular and human-centred cultural tourism strategies in less-
known and remote cultural tourism destinations in a dynamic and iterative process.
Related to this topic, Milada Šťastná and Antonín Vaishar (Chap. Golden Rules
for Sustainable Cultural Tourism Development: Findings of the EU SPOT Project)
present the findings of 15 case studies aimed at exploring the use of cultural tourism
as a vehicle for improving the social and economic fabric of disadvantaged rural
areas. Through stakeholder dialogues and statistical data, key factors are described
that need to be addressed for the aim to progress sustainable cultural tourism in new
locations or to capitalize on existing examples.
New Data Methods and Digital Tools
In the final part of the book, a number of digital tools and analytical approaches are
covered to help better understand and manage destinations, visitor flows, motivations,
and inform strategic planning. Marinos Ioannides, Orestis Rizopoulos, Drew Baker,
Elena Karittevli, Maria Hadjiathanasiou, Panayiota Samara, Ioannis Panayi, Marina
Mateou, Iliana Koulafeti, Marios Koundouris, Kyriakos Efstathiou, George Savva,
x Preface
and Elina Argyridou (Chap. The Holistic, Digital Cultural Heritage Documentation
of the Fikardou Traditional Village in Cyprus) present the case study of Fikardou
village in Cyprus, a UNESCO World Heritage Tentative List monument, particularly
focusing on the adoption of digital technology as a force multiplier to achieve the
aims for a sustainable destination management strategy. Continuing with the potential
of digital applications, Karima Kourtit, Peter Nijkamp, Henk Scholten, and Yneke
van Iersel (Chap. Methodology and Application of 3D Visualization in Sustainable
Cultural Tourism Planning) introduce the concept of digital twins which provide 3D
visualizations of spatial tourist realities, applied to the Parkstad region in Limburg,
the Netherlands, as a potential tool for evidence-based planning.
Bart Neuts (Chap. Identifying Cultural Tourists via Computational Text Analysis
and Association Rule Mining) presents an analytical approach to assist in identifying
cultural tourist motivations through computational text analysis and association rule
mining, as an alternative to traditional visitor surveys. The methodology is tested on
scraped user-generated content for the city of Ghent, lending additional information
on the relative importance of different cultural travel motives.
Anat Tchetchik, Shilo Shiff, Yaron Michael, Michael Sinclair, Irit Cohen-Amit,
Irit Shmuel, and Micheal Sofer (Chap. SPOT-IT: An Advanced Tool for Dynamic
Cultural Tourism Management and Regional Development) equally focus on the
obstacles on achieving reliable information on the diverse nature of cultural tourism,
presenting a decision-supporting platform that includes both traditional and novel
concepts and components, reflecting contemporary tourism patterns and trends.
Finally, João Martins, Pedro Pereira, Shabnam Pasandideh, Kashyap Raiyani, Tarmo
Kalvet, Mikel Zubiaga De la cal, and Alessandra Gandini (Chap. Redefining Cultural
Tourism Leadership: Innovative Approach and Tool) continue this discussion on
innovative approaches to manage cultural heritage through novel tools and data,
offering a forward-looking perspective through assessing the impact of strategic
decisions.
We wish to express our thanks to all the contributors to this volume.
Leuven, Belgium Bart Neuts

Monte de Caparica, Portugal João Martins
Limassol, Cyprus Marinos Ioannides
Acknowledgements and Disclaimer
This work was partially supported by the European Commission, grant number
870747 IMPACTOUR and by Portuguese national funds through FCT Fundação
para a Ciência e a Tecnologia with reference UIDB/00066/2020 and UIDP/00066/
2020, the TExTOUR project, which has received funding from the European Union’s
Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement number
101004687, the SPOT project, which has received funding from the European
Union’s Horizon 2020 programme for research and innovation under grant agreement
number 870644, the INCULTUM project, which has received funding from the Euro-
pean Union’s Horizon 2020 programme research and innovation under Grant Agree-
ment number 101004552, the SmartCulTour project, which has received funding
from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme
under grant agreement number 870708 and the Be.CULTOUR project, which has
received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation
programme under grant agreement number 101004627.
However, the content of this publication reflects only the authors’ views and
the European Commission, the Research Executive Agency in Brussels, the Cyprus
University of Technology, Limassol, Cyprus, KU Leuven in Belgium, the UNINOVA
Research Institute, Lisbon, Portugal are not liable for any use that may be made of
the information contained herein.
xi
Contents
Participatory Approaches to Cultural Tourism Management

Challenges in Developing Sustainable Tourism Locally: Viewpoints
from the Ground . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Hanna Szemző, Eszter Turai, and Gergő Berta
How Cultural Tourism Management Initiatives Come to Light
Starting from Local Needs: The Case of the Crespi D’Adda
Company Town . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Elena Bussolati, Serena Cecere, Roberta De Bonis Patrignani,
and Matteo Tabasso
Co-Creation Method for Fostering Cultural Tourism Impact . . . . . . . . . . 35
Shabnam Pasandideh, João Martins, Pedro Pereira,
Alessandra Gandini, Mikel Zubiaga De La Cal, Tarmo Kalvet,
Tatjana Koor, Amaia Sopelana, and Amaia Lopez de Aguileta
Stakeholders Engagement Processes for Co-Creation of Strategic
Action Plans for Circular and Human-Centred Cultural Tourism
in European Heritage Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Małgorzata Ćwikła, Cristina Garzillo, Martina Bosone,
and Antonia Gravagnuolo
Cultural Tourism in the Cyclades Before and After the Pandemic:
A Stakeholders’ Perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
Theano S. Terkenli and Vasilki Georgoula
Responsible, Circular, and Human-Centred Regional Development

Potential
A Framework for Responsible Tourism in Scotland’s Historic
Environment: Experiences from Transforming Tourism
at a Film-Induced Heritage Visitor Attraction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
Vanessa Glindmeier and Gary Treacy
xiii
xiv Contents
Heritage and Territory: Tangible and Intangible Cultural

Resources as Drivers of Regional Development in Croatia . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
Zvonimir Kuliš and Blanka Šimundić
Towards a Circular Cultural Tourism Impact Assessment
Framework for Decision Support in Less-Known and Remote
Destinations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
Ludovica La Rocca, Francesca Buglione, Eugenio Muccio,
Martina Bosone, Maria Cerreta, Pasquale De Toro,
Golden Rules for Sustainable Cultural Tourism Development:
Findings of the EU SPOT Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141
Milada Šťastná and Antonín Vaishar

The Holistic, Digital Cultural Heritage Documentation
of the Fikardou Traditional Village in Cyprus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153
Marinos Ioannides, Orestis Rizopoulos, Drew Baker, Elena Karittevli,
Maria Hadjiathanasiou, Panayiota Samara, Ioannis Panayi,
Marina Mateou, Iliana Koulafeti, Marios Koundouris,
Kyriakos Efstathiou, George Savva, and Elina Argyridou
Methodology and Application of 3D Visualization in Sustainable
Cultural Tourism Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173
Karima Kourtit, Peter Nijkamp, Henk Scholten, and Yneke van Iersel
Identifying Cultural Tourists via Computational Text Analysis
and Association Rule Mining . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187
Bart Neuts
SPOT-IT: An Advanced Tool for Dynamic Cultural Tourism
Management and Regional Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203
Anat Tchetchik, Shilo Shiff, Yaron Michael, Michael Sinclair,
Irit Cohen-Amit, Irit Shmuel, and Micheal Sofer
Redefining Cultural Tourism Leadership: Innovative Approach
and Tool . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 217
João Martins, Pedro Pereira, Shabnam Pasandideh, Kashyap Raiyani,
Tarmo Kalvet, Mikel Zubiaga De la cal, and Alessandra Gandini
Participatory Approaches to Cultural
Tourism Management
Challenges in Developing Sustainable
Tourism Locally: Viewpoints
from the Ground
Hanna Szemző, Eszter Turai, and Gergő Berta
Abstract Sustainability has become a key concept for tourism development. Under-
standing and using local resources, developing an area in a way that is in line
with the wishes and aspirations of the local community is essential, however, not
without complications. Communities themselves are multi-faceted entities, with
diverging interests and understandings about local heritage, its value and its possible
social/economic role. Relying on the research carried out in the TExTOUR (Social
Innovation and Technologies for sustainable growth through participative cultural
TOURism) project the paper explores community attitudes towards local heritage
and tourism, and creates a more in-depth picture about the challenges and perspec-
tives of bottom-up driven cultural tourism development, as well as its social context.
The paper uses the results of the qualitative interviews and focus groups carried out
in 8 pilots in the course of 2021, and relies on deliverables produced in the project.
TExTOUR is an EU-funded project operating for 45 months, which co-designs
pioneering and sustainable cultural tourism strategies to improve deprived areas
in Europe and beyond. The project has received funding from the European
Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement
No.101004687. The project started in January 2021 and finishes in September, 2024.
More details about the project can be found in its website: https://textour-project.eu/
The two deliverables in question are TExTOUR D1.3 “Data collection method-
ology” and TExTOUR D1.4 “Results from the data collection phase”.
1 Introduction
Recent decades have brought about the complete restructuring of the tourism sector
worldwide, generating increasing visitor numbers everywhere, and making tourism
the main source of income for a rising number of households (UNWTO, 2021). This
process has contributed substantially to pushing the issue of sustainable tourism in
the centre of attention both in academic research and policy debates, all with the
H. Szemző (B) · E. Turai · G. Berta

Metropolitan Research Institute, Budapest, Hungary
e-mail: szemzo@mri.hu
© The Author(s) 2025 3

B. Neuts et al. (eds.), Advances in Cultural Tourism Research, Advances in Digital and
Cultural Tourism Management, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-65537-1_1
4 H. Szemző et al.
aim to critically analyse and find solutions to the economic, ecological and social
challenges and ensuing inequalities created by the rise of the global tourism sector
(for a comprehensive summary see Mowforth & Munt, 2016).
Nevertheless, defining sustainable tourism and narrowing down its content has
been a long process, partially because the concept of sustainability has become rather
elusive. It emerged with a broad ecological focus in the 1980s (Redclift, 2005), and the
ensuing crises—including subsequent political and economic changes—have given
increasing attention to the concept in various fields, including the areas of heritage
management and tourism (Butler, 1999; Loulanski & Loulanski, 2011; Buckley,
2012; Harvey & Perry, 2015). As a consequence, during the last two decades various
aspects of sustainability—mostly social, economic and environmental—have been
addressed in tourism literature, with a surging push for the inclusion of culture as
its fourth aspect to embrace the multifaceted nature of the term (Sabatini, 2019;
Ottaviani et al., 2023). Moreover numerous debates took place about the value and
the appropriate application of the concept and the necessity to make it even more
comprehensive (Mooney et al., 2022; Rastegar et al., 2023).
In parallel, diverse international bodies—like the World Tourism Organisation
(WTO), the United Nations Environmental Body (UNEP) or the European Commis-
sion—have started to focus on sustainable tourism from a practical point of view.
The former two developed guidelines for sustainable tourism in 2005, targeting
governments at various levels, and pledging the need for tourism in general to
become sustainable, whereby the sustainability would mean minimizing its nega-
tive effects and empowering the local communities. As both the WTO and UNEP
stress, the development of sustainable tourism entails the careful use of environ-
mental resources, respect of the local culture and traditions and finally the support of
economic and business models that benefit the local community. (UNEP and WTO,
2005). Similarly, the European Commission, when reviewing the uses of cultural
heritage, has pledged its support for its innovative and sustainable use, highlighting
its ability to “actively engage people,—thereby helping to secure integration, inclu-
siveness, social cohesion and sound investment, all necessary ingredients of smart,
sustainable and inclusive growth.” (European Commission, 2015, p. 9.)
To complement debates and approaches about sustainable tourism various tools to
support the planning and management of touristic destinations as well as to measure
tourism’s local impact were developed. These have contributed to gaining a more
comprehensive overview of the effects of tourism, and have been part of an effort
to find ways of achieving a more balanced distribution of revenues, of providing
techniques for anti-exploitation measures, of supporting eco-friendly solutions and
fighting unequal development in the sector (Gössling, Hall, & Scott, 2015; Jauhari,
2021).
Situated in this context, the TExTOUR project specifically focuses on the issues
of sustainability and sustainable tourism development in off beat areas that lay in
the shadows of more prominent touristic places and are in need of more invest-
ment and attention. The project works to establish methods and ways to support the
development of the local communities residing there, allowing them to become the
primary developers and the beneficiaries of cultural tourism in their areas. To this
Challenges in Developing Sustainable Tourism Locally: Viewpoints … 5
Pilot cases and routes
Crespi d’Adda
Narva
Umgebindeland
Via Regia
Trebinje
Tarnowskie Góry
Vale do Coa – Siega Verde
Anfeh – Fikardou
Fig. 1 List of TExTOUR pilots. Source TExTOUR website, https://textour-project.eu/
end TExTOUR has worked with 8 pilots1 (see Fig. 1), collaborating closely with the
local communities, local experts and stakeholders and strengthening the local tourism
ecosystem. This focus on local empowerment is in line with the policy suggestions
of the UNEP and WTO (2005), who foresee the development of sustainable tourism
primarily a local task, where national policies only provide the supporting framework.
The current paper focuses on these TExTOUR pilots, and examines community
attitudes towards local heritage and tourism development in them, creating a more
in-depth picture about the challenges and perspectives of bottom-up driven sustain-
able tourism development. The point of departure is embedded in the conviction that
identity and community building are hard to define and difficult processes, especially
in areas undergoing major transitions. Issues like how heritage is perceived and dealt,
the role it plays in the life of the communities are highly volatile and strongly inter-
linked with socio-economic changes (Sadowy & Szemző, 2023). The paper relies
on data collected by semi-structured interviews and focus groups in the TExTOUR
project, enabling a better understanding of this multi-dimensional phenomena. The
1 The pilots sites are Crespi d’Adda (Italy), Narva (Estonia), Umgebindeland (Germany), Via Regia
(the European route’s Ukraine section), Trebinje (Bosnia), Tarnowskie Góry (Poland), Vale do Côa
(Portugal) and the double sites of Anfeh (Lebanon) and Fikardou (Cyprus).
6 H. Szemző et al.
following section describes the data collection methodology, whereafter the results
are explained. The paper then ends with the conclusions.
2 Data Collection and Methodology
The data collection was qualitative and it relied on expert interviews and focus
groups. Expert interviews were semi-structured, that provided a base for an in-depth
analysis focusing on the unique experiences and perspectives of a single respon-
dent. They also allowed the comparison between different interviewees. In each
pilot site four interviews were conducted, largely in the native languages to provide
better accessibility to information and evade language barriers. The interviews were
recorded, transcribed and then translated into English, reating a rich material for
the analysis. To choose the appropriate experts to be interviewed, five categories
were identified: representatives of the local municipality, representatives of the local
tourism bureau/tourist info centre, owners/employees from local SMEs interested in
(cultural/sustainable) tourism, representatives of locally important cultural institu-
tion (e.g. museum, library) and finally, representatives of local NGOs active in the
field of (cultural) tourism (e.g. heritage preservation or active in representing local
interests). The distribution of interviewees among the categories was flexible, which
was a conscious decision, allowing the pilots to choose the interviewees according to
their specific local interests. At the same time, it was clearly communicated that more
categories should be chosen for each pilot to assure the richness of perspectives.
The expert interviews were divided into four main sections: the first enquired
after how the potential for sustainable tourism development was viewed, the second
focused on the challenges and barriers associated with it, the third zoomed in on the
attitudes and opinions about local culture and heritage, and finally, the last one asked
about their attitudes and opinions towards Europe and Europeanization. At the end
interviewees also had the chance to bring up any other related topics that they felt
were important to the pilots.
Unlike the expert interviews, the focus group discussions were targeting local
residents. Generally, the focus group technique is an effective tool to discover the
scale of opinions and attitudes of a certain target group of people about a specific topic
(Vicsek, 2006). In comparison with other qualitative research tools, this method helps
to uncover hidden agendas through group dynamics. Interaction between participants
may bring to light aspects that would likely remain hidden in a one-to-one situation
(Hennink & Leavy, 2015). As a result of the group environment, people tend to
be more motivated to elaborate and support their opinion, because they may be
confronted by other participants, while during individual interviews the interviewer
usually takes a neutral position (Vicsek, 2006). Furthermore, the group dynamic
often reveals “collective narratives” of a certain topic, producing data that would not
be available during one-on-one situations. On the other hand, some opinions may
be distorted or remain hidden as a result of conformity, peer pressure or other group
dynamics. Some of these tendencies can be managed or counterbalanced by careful

moderation.
Focus group discussions were organized in each pilot involving 8–12 local
community members. Still strongly affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, half of
the focus group events were held online. Participants were rather diverse, they
were chosen from groups that were important from the pilots’ perspective. Among
others, the panel of invited participants of Crespi d’Adda was composed of people
linked to the site and have some knowledge about it. The twelve participants of
Narva came from tourism, culture, and sport sectors. In the case of Umgebindeland,
all the respondents were residents of the Upper Lusatia region, most of them from the
German part, however, representatives from Poland were also present. The respon-
dents of Via Regia all represented non-governmental organizations of the Rivne
region, but with diverse backgrounds. The group in Trebinje consisted of young
people active in the tourism, cultural and civic sectors. This was in line with their
chosen topic about the involvement of young people in recent individual and group
initiatives. The background of the participants at Tarnowski Góry was also diverse but
everyone is connected to the region, some of them are teachers and students. Target
group of Vale de Côa consisted secondary school students from a certain institu-
tion related to the region. Through this the data shows an insight to the approach
of young people to cultural heritage and tourism. Finally, the focus group of Anfeh
involved 3 restaurant owners and 3 guesthouse owners which resulted in a well-
balanced discussion. Similarly, residents actively involved in the local community
council were present in Fikardou.
Topics to be raised were chosen to deepen and complement the information by then
already obtained through the expert interviews, supporting a deeper understanding
of the sites in the analysis. All the groups discussed the issues of identity and local
culture, which provided particular information from the sites and participants’ own
relation to the historical sites and culturally significant places of their settlement.
Barriers and development trajectories also appeared in most focus group discussions,
and often developed into a brainstorming about the future of the region. Finally, the
topic of Europeanization and community’s relation to European identity was also
debated everywhere.
3 Results and Analysis
The mix of institutional as well as occupational backgrounds of the respondents

and participants resulted that the interviews and focus groups reflected knowledge
from different official levels and fields of local tourism development and heritage
protection. The information obtained was multi-layered and pointed to many different
directions. This is beneficial as it reflects the complex reality of the local social fabric
around the questions of sustainable tourism.
In the following, the results are analysed according to three main topics, all consid-
ered necessary for sustainable tourism development. The first topic is ‘heritage and
8 H. Szemző et al.
identity’, which is viewed essential for building a common local understanding of

cultural tourism development. The second topic, ‘barriers to development’ helps
to assess the main difficulties as seen by the most important actors, local commu-
nities and experts. Finally, ‘sustainability and Europeanisation’ were looked at, in
an attempt to try to gauge if at all the concept of sustainability was known and
supported locally, and in what ways has it considered to be connected to the presence
of European values or the European Union itself.
3.1 Heritage and Identity
It is generally assumed that heritage and the relationship to heritage is a signifi-

cant part of local identities, whereby official definitions of heritage often neglect
what is considered important by residents (Harrison, 2010; Oevermann & Szemző,
2023). This premise has been partially reflected by the collected data as well, which
clearly showed that heritage means very different things for the various participants,
especially what regards the view of experts and residents. Whereas the formers
focused more on established sites, locals tended to name less institutionalised sites
and intangible heritage as well, like gastronomic traditions.
We were also curious if among interviewed experts a tangible consensus could be
detected about what can be regarded as heritage in a given location. So for the sake
of analysis we looked at how different heritage types were viewed2 by them, and
based on the extent experts discussed the different heritage types, different scores
were given for every type in each territory: thus a heritage type received 4 if all
interviewees mentioned it, and 1 if only one of them. The Table 1 below summarises
the results of this endeavour.
It shows that even experts differed among themselves about what were the most
important heritage sites/attractions of a pilot. In general, it could be observed that
much depended on the existence of an already dominant narrative which could “steer”
the experts in one direction in their assessment of local heritage values. Thus, for
experts in pilots with a dominant landmark, site, or even a tradition it was easier to
identify local heritage and find a focus of their heritage related tourism activities.
This was very typical for the group of pilots with industrial heritage (like Crespi
d’Adda in Italy, Narva, Estonia and Tarnowski Góry in Poland). For experts in most
of the other pilots it was either harder to highlight one dominant site, or besides the
dominant site the other existing heritage locations/traditions. This divergence also
underlines the lack of an overwhelming narrative about a pilot’s heritage. But it can
also be explained by the fact that interviewees occupy very different positions in the
cultural tourism industry, thus have a very different view point about it.
Moreover, it was striking how little was known among experts about the ways
the local community uses the heritage sites. Most expert interviews did not mention
2 For details about the heritage types see the differentiation on the TExTOUR website at https://tex
tour-project.eu/heritage-types/.
Table 1 Overview of heritage type assessment by the experts
Pilots/heritage types: Historical Archaeological Natural and Industrial Gastronomical Dark Religious
geological
01. Crespi d’Adda 4 - 4 3 - - -
02. Narva 4 - - 4 - - -
03. Umgebindeland 4 - 4 - - - -
04. Via Regia 4 1 3 - 1 - -
05. Trebinje 4 4 1 - 4 - 1
06. Tarnowskie Góry 3 - 1 3 - - 1
07. Vale do Côa—Siega Verde 3 4 4 - 2 - -
08 Anfeh 2 2 4 - 2 - -
Fikardou 2 2 4 - 2 - 2
Challenges in Developing Sustainable Tourism Locally: Viewpoints …
Source TExTOUR D1.4, “Results from the data collection phase”

9
10 H. Szemző et al.
this topic at all. The reason behind is hard to assess: it could be connected to the
professional attitude of the respondents, but also to the ways the interview questions
were asked. However, it also highlights a certain distance of the local population
from the interviewed experts themselves. Generally, the role of local community
was reflected upon from a contradictory perspective in the interviews. On the one
hand several interview partners mentioned such phenomena as the “spirit of the
city is the openness of people” (Trebinje—representative of a cultural institution) or
“the spirit of welcoming and hospitality” (Anfeh—local SME representative). These
statements always referred to the local community’s relation to tourists who are
visiting the area. However, many respondents also claimed that the local community
was not involved enough cultural tourism locally, and the decision-making around
it, although its involvement would be considered desirable.
Local people don’t go to these events and these people (tourists) don’t go to the local events.
(Narva—cultural institution representative)
In addition, intangible heritage—which is mostly related to the local community’s

activities—is surprisingly lacking from the interviews. Most people asked focused on
tangible heritage and cultural products, while intangible heritage remained hidden.
One exception was Vale do Côa in Portugal, where the case of old people sitting
outside their houses and telling stories was mentioned:
(…) can’t even realize how much value there can be, if we get that gentleman sitting on the
doorstep, in a village, and listen to his stories. Tourists love it. (Vale do Côa—local SME
representative)
Finally, it was striking, that the role of natural environment in tourism was a
frequently discussed topic, even without specific questions addressing it. Water seems
to be particularly cherished by experts, and not surprisingly this happens especially
in pilots with rivers and waterfront sites.
Somewhat different is the picture if we look at the results of the focus group
discussions. Here the topic of local identity was discussed in more detail than in the
expert interviews. Data was gained on the diversity of traditions and the forces that
unite these communities. Besides, the involvement of the local population came up
as a topic more often during the focus group discussions than in the interviews, and it
revealed how the local community uses the certain heritages of the pilot areas. Here,
a new pattern emerged, indicating that the local community has a strong connection
to the heritages sites around them:
Thus, in Tarnowski Góry in Poland, where the silver mine is designated as the
main attraction, locals not only want to show the site to tourists, but they also visit it
themselves. The mine is a very attractive place for families with children, who take
their children to the mine at least once. In a similar vein, the topic of gastronomy
got a stronger focus as in the expert interviews. Participants seem to have deeper
knowledge about gastronomic possibilities and they consider it more relevant than
experts in tourism development. It was especially revealing in the case of Rivne
in Ukraine, Trebinje in Bosnia, Anfeh in Lebanon and Fikardou in Cyprus, where
gastronomy turned out to be markedly important. The problem of seasonality is also
articulated in a more pronounced way (especially in the cases of Narva and Anfeh)
than it emerged from the expert interviews. Finally, participants of the focus groups
put less emphasis on natural heritage and the topic of nature around their settlements,
while during the expert interviews this was a widely discussed issue.
Surprisingly the topic of UNESCO World Heritage status emerged as an important
theme in the case of several pilots, including Crespi, Tarnowski Góry and Vale de
Côa. While traces of this was also apparent in the expert interviews; however, the
data of the focus group contextualized this matter properly. The UNESCO World
Heritage status is clearly part of local identity as it was observed in the case of
Crespi d’Adda and Tarnowski Góry, where residents spoke with special pride about
it. In Vale de Côa, the UNESCO World Heritage status plays a much less strong
role in the local identity, which may be connected to the way the status was gained,
through a top-down process.
Finally, it is important to highlight that participants in almost every focus group
emphasized the need to involve the local community to a higher degree. They stressed
that it would be good to organize similar events in the future. They also agreed
that the ideas of the local community cannot be left out when it comes to cultural
tourism development. Conversely, the involvement of local community can support
the changes. A vivid example of this with the words of one of the participants:
If you do not burn for a cause yourself, you cannot light a fire in others. (Umgebindeland,
focus group participant)
3.2 Barriers to Development
To gauge better how interviewees and focus group participants conceptualise barriers
and potentials for sustainable tourism development, the pilots were first classified
according to their size (see Table 2). This was done out of the conviction that the size
of a settlement profoundly influences both the type of problems (barriers) faced and its
potentials for development. Based on this, five pilots were categorised as ‘small towns
or villages’, whereas the remaining four were considered to be situated in ‘urban
areas’. Despite being one pilot, Anfeh and Fikardou were treated here separately due
to their physical distance and the fact that they both conducted individual interviews.
Table 2 Population numbers at the pilot sites

Small town or village Population Urban area Population
Crespi d’Adda ~1000 Narva ~53.000
Cunewalde (Umgebindeland) ~5000 Rivne (Via Regia) ~240.000
Vale do Côa—Siega Verde ~6000 Trebinje ~28.000
Anfeh ~7000 Tarnowskie Gory ~61.000
Fikardou ~15
Source TExTOUR D1.4, “Results from the data collection phase”
The size of a settlement seems to matter most regarding transportation, which was
mentioned as a barrier in pilots which are connected to a village or rural areas. A
case in point is Crespi d’Adda, which is a small town in the Lombardy region (Italy).
Despite being located between Milan and Bergamo, it is challenging to get there:
Surely, a first problem is that of connections. Crespi d’adda is a place that is not served by
public transport (…) (Local NGO representative)
However, the lack of parking spaces around attraction was mentioned more
unequivocally as a barrier, both for small towns and urban areas.
The most frequently mentioned barrier to cultural tourism development seems
to be the short stay of visitors. This topic arose regardless of pilot size in every
interview in some form. Understandably, it is essential for tourist-oriented services
to keep the tourists in their region as long as possible, as this generates revenue for
accommodation and service providers like. In parallel, the visitors, who spend more
time in a place are also able to engage in less well-known cultural activities and
visit lesser-known landmarks. Interviewees referred to this phenomenon as ‘long-
term tourism’, ‘overnight tourism’ or ‘long-stay tourism’ which is usually mentioned
among the goals to achieve. It is noticeable however, that the wish for ‘long-term
tourism’ is often connected with concepts such as the beauty of rural life, as if that
provided a special reason for lengthier stays.
The issue of location was also addressed in some cases, usually not only referring
to infrastructural barriers, but also to the lack of promotion and marketing. The
pilots, who put most emphasis on it—Crespi d’Adda, Umgebindeland, Rivne, and
Tarnowski Góry—are those in remote locations, with a tangible difficulty to be
reached.
What regards the lack of sufficient funding and the necessity of a unified commu-
nication and marketing strategy, it was underscored by the respondents the most.
In all cases, clear expectations have been formulated towards the public decision-
makers in the focus group discussions and expert interviews alike. According to the
unanimous opinion of most actors, many marketing and promotion issues cannot be
solved in a decentralized way or by private actors, but requires a higher-level response,
either from the city municipality, or from an even higher, regional or national level.
The expert interviewees saw great potential in coordinated marketing and strategic
planning, which would bring the desired numbers and types of tourists to their sites.
Lack of accessibility as a barrier is closely related to the presence of isolation
without exception. Attracting tourists more successfully can add a lot to the devel-
opment of these settlements, however there is the parallel risk that they will lose
out on the local cultural values that give the character of these places. Often this
danger is articulated by the locals although the development of tourism and cultural
tourism is a clear goal everywhere. This contradiction is mostly apparent for pilots in
Crespi d’Adda, Umgebindeland, Trebinje, Vale de Côa, Anfeh and Fikardou where
importance of isolation and the beauty of the simple, rural life was a core part of the
local identity, yet it very much contradicts the much desired touristic development.
Natural heritage and the nature around the pilot areas received special attention
during the focus group discussions. Although many of the experts included this
aspect where it had relevance, a more accurate picture emerges with the involvement
of focus group participants. In the case of Crespi d’Adda, Narva, and Vale de Côa
the role of the local river emerged as a major factor. Participants articulated that
developing the connection to the river would have a positive effect on tourism and
the life of the local community as well.
3.3 Sustainability and Europeanisation
What regards the topics of sustainability and Europeanisation, these are discussed
here together since many respondents, quite surprisingly, connected them. The orig-
inal aim of the research was to understand how local residents and stakeholders under-
stood these concepts, so separate questions were devised to detect their attitudes.
Nevertheless, there was relatively little response for both topics.
In general experts mostly understood the question of sustainability as an ecolog-
ical issue rather than an economic or a social one, showing that just as in academic
debates, the complex meaning of sustainability proliferates slowly other realms as
well. At the same time, as respondents realised that the benefits of cultural tourism,
the protection of local lifestyles and the environment was present in the term sustain-
able tourism, they started to resonate better with the question and expressed more
detailed opinions about the topic. In some cases, sustainable tourism was contrasted
with mass tourism. Whereas the first appeared as a desirable concept all the time, the
second was something to avoid. It should be noted however that over-touristification
is not threatening any of the pilot sites currently, rather there are all interested in
increasing their annual number of visitors. As the discussions unfolded, most of the
interviewees referred to sustainability as a balance between different aspects:
(…) we must always adhere to environmental standards and take care of both nature and the
local population. (Trebinje—tourism bureau representative)
Sustainability is a balance between revenue and responsible impact on the environment.
(Via Regia—local NGO representative)
Importantly, the concept of long-term sustainability was also connected to

increasing Europeanisation, which was viewed as a key to sustainability. This
happened despite the lack of clarity surrounding the term Europeanisation, which was
apparent in the interviews and focus groups alike. This vagueness is understandable,
as the multitude of meanings associated with the term have been subject to academic
debates and papers for a long time. Propelled by research in economics and polit-
ical science, Europeanisation has been a debated term since the 1970s (Buller &
Andrew, 2002; Olsen, 2022; Wach, 2015), but the subsequent accessions waves have
only fueled this debate with the focus of the research increasingly narrowing down
on the impact of EU membership on member states, the effects of integration and
the possible country differences (Exadactylos et al., 2020).
Among the interviewed experts and focus group members many equated Euro-
peanisation with the EU, while others associated the European values in general with
it. Overall, two groups of pilots could be distinguished: those within the borders of the
EU (Crespi d’Adda, Narva, Umgebindeland, Tarnowskie Góry, Vale do Côa—Siega
Verde) and those outside (Via Regia, Trebinje, Anfeh & Fikardou). This distinction
framed considerably the responses. The former pilots considered Europeanisation an
important factor regarding tourism development and mostly mentioned the possibility
of free border crossings and the funding they receive for tourism development. Expert
interviews showed that they were very much aware of the possibilities provided by
the EU to support tourism development, and some pilots have already applied to
funding successfully. This was of course not the case for the group of pilots outside
of the EU.
Locals’ attitudes towards the EU were somewhat ambiguous, and they tend to see
the European Union a remote entity which is not necessarily accessible or easy to
relate to. Nonetheless, their attitude towards the EU is mostly positive. Open borders
and international cooperation are recognized as having a key role, as the case in
Umgebindeland shows:
The enlargement of the EU has made life on both sides of the border even more common.
What is an experience for guests and tourists, i.e. travelling through three countries within a
very short time, is normal for the inhabitants and is part of everyday life. (Umgebindeland-
tourism bureau representative)
(...) the international character testifies to the diversity of Upper Lusatia, here Europe
and internationality is lived every day. (Umgebindeland—focus Group Participant)
4 Conclusions
Sustainability has become the key concept in tourism development. It supports the
use of local resources, the development of heritage sites and landscapes in a way
that is in line with the wishes and aspirations of the local community. Related to this
process in tourism, new approaches have also spread in heritage management that
require a deeper understanding of communities and their better, and more meaningful
involvement (Oeverman et al., 2023; Patti & Polyák, 2018). All this development
presupposes a different dynamic between various stakeholders, where community
members are entrusted with heritage protection in a collaborative way, caring for the
sites in questions (Veldpaus & Szemző, 2021).
Thus, defining and understanding communities has become a crucial step in
tourism development. Whereas the first activity was not in the focus of the current
research—for the sake of simplicity it had assumed that local residents, NGOs and
SMEs were part of the local community from the start—the second issue was in the
centre of its attention. While the results are no way representative, they clearly show
that what communities want is often hard to understand and contradictory. This is
partially because communities themselves are multi-faceted entities, with diverging
interests and understandings about local heritage, its value and its possible social/
economic role. But there is also an expert-community divide, creating a schism
between these two essential partners, which is undeniably a challenge to be faced.
There are differences between how certain topics, important from the point of view
of sustainability are approached by different communities. While the current research
could not find general explanatory variables that explain these differences, it seems
that the size of a site as well as its geographical position can influence substantially
how locals and experts think about tourism development and its potential for the
locality. This seems to be underlined by the fact that being close to national borders—
like in Narva, Umgebindeland, and Trebinje—seems to explain the positive attitudes
towards Europeanisation, and through this gives a different trajectory to tourism
development and local identity. Geographical position was also seen important when
pilots assessed their potentials and barriers, which were simultaneously connected
to the issue of proximity to their given borders or to big cities.
The data collection from the TExTOUR sites also demonstrated, that the exis-
tence of an authorized heritage discourse (Smith, 2006) influences strongly the local
processes. This creates an advantage for areas with clearly defined heritage sites,
providing them with ready answers about local heritage value. And those sites without
an acknowledged heritage have more struggles reaching a common understanding
about what constitutes their local heritage. Importantly, expert interviews and focus
groups both mentioned a diverse list of sites and artefacts, including historical monu-
ments, natural and geographical sites (both protected and not), churches, castles and
some local particularities, this lack of consensus between various stakeholders can
become a difficulty when developing a tourism strategy.
It seems that despite the obvious requirement about the increasing role of commu-
nities for a sustainable development, local experts and local residents approached this
topic very differently. While the importance of volunteer work and participation of the
community was highly valued in many focus group discussions, even understanding
this as something that allows building a “cultural bridge” and connecting countries
and people, expert interviews showed significantly less enthusiasm about community
involvement. The reason for this was beyond the scope of this research, however one
likely explanation is that in reality, the community-driven touristic development is
in its initial stages in most of the TExTOUR pilots, thus all actors still need to learn
a lot about the nuts and bolts of this difficult cooperation.
Finally, sustainability understood in an environmental sense seems to be a very
important topic of development for experts and communities alike. The importance of
isolation and the beauty of the simple, rural life are both topics that emerged over and
over in the material about local identity. While attracting tourists more successfully
can add a lot to the development of these settlements, there is an every growing
risk—acknowledged by some locals—that as a result they will lose out on the local
cultural values that give character to these places. This contradiction is exemplary,
as it showcases the utmost dilemma of sustainable development strategies: finding a
balance between its different priorities.
References
Primary sources
Pilot interview transcripts- 4 per each pilot site.

Focus group transcripts—1 per each pilot site.
Secondary sources
Buckley, R. (2012). Sustainable tourism: Research and reality. Annals of Tourism Research, 39,
528–546.
Buller, J., & Gamble, A. (2002). Conceptualising europeanisation. Public Policy and Administration,
17(2), 4–24. https://doi.org/10.1177/095207670201700202
Butler, Richard W. (1999). Sustainable tourism: A state-of-the-art review. Tourism Geographies, 1:
7–25. Gössling, Stefan, Colin Michael Hall, in Daniel Scott, ur. 2015. The Routledge handbook
of tourism and sustainability. London ; New York: Routledge.
European Commission. (2015). Getting cultural heritage to work for Europe: Report of the horizon
2020 expert group on cultural heritage. European Union: Luxembourg.
Exadaktylos, T., Graziano, P., & Vink, M. P. (2020). Europeanization: Concept, theory, and methods.
In S. Bulmer & C. Lesquene (Eds.), The Member States of the European Union (pp. 47–71).
Oxford University Press, Third Edition.
Harrison, R. (2010). Understanding the politics of heritage. Manchester University Press.
Harvey, D., & Perry, J. (2015). Heritage and climate change: the future is not the past. In D.
Harvey & J. Perry (Eds.), The future of heritage as climates change: Loss, adaptation and
creativity (pp. 3–21). Routledge.
Hennink, Monique M., & Patricia Leavy. (2015). Focus group discussions. Understanding Qual-
itative Research. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/ACPROF:OSOBL/
9780199856169.001.0001.
Jauhari, Vinnie. (2021). Managing sustainability in the hospitality and tourism industry: Paradigms
and directions for the future.
Mooney, S., Robinson, R., Solnet, D., & Baum, T. (2022). Rethinking tourism’s definition, scope
and future of sustainable work and employment. Journal of Sustainable Tourism., 30(12), 2707–
2725. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2022.2078338
Mowforth, Martin and Ian Munt. (2016). Tourism and sustainability. Fourth edition. Routledge.
Oevermann, Heike, & Hanna Szemző. (2023). What is open heritage? In Open Heritage:
Community-Driven Adaptive Reuse in Europe: Best Practice. Eds. Oevermann, Heike, Levente
Polyák, Hanna Szemző and Harald A. Mieg. Berlin, Boston: Birkhäuser Verlag, pp. 158–169.
Oevermann, H., Polyák, L., Szemző, H., & Mieg, H. A. (2023). Open heritage: Community-driven
adaptive reuse in Europe: Best practice. Birkhäuser Verlag. https://doi.org/10.1515/978303562
6827
Olsen, J. (2002). The many faces of Europeanization. Journal of Common Market Studies, 40(5),
921–952.
Patti, D., & Polyák, L. (2017). Funding the cooperative city. Cooperative City Books.
Rastegar, R., Higgins-Desbiolles, F., & Ruhanen, L. (2023). Tourism, global crises and justice:
Rethinking, redefining and reorienting tourism futures. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 31(12),
2613–2627. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2023.2219037
Redclift, M. R. (2005). Sustainable development (1987–2005): An oxymoron comes of age.
Sustainable Development, 13, 212–227.
Sabatini, Francesca. (2019). Culture as fourth pillar of sustainable development: Perspectives for
integration, paradigms of action. European Journal of Sustainable Development, 8(3), 31–40.
https://doi.org/10.14207/ejsd.2019.v8n3p31.
Sadowy, K., & Szemző, H. (2023). Aesthetics, gentrification and new identities: The comparison of
adaptive reuse practices in contemporary Budapest and Warsaw. Journal of Cultural Heritage
Management and Sustainable Development. https://doi.org/10.1108/JCHMSD-09-2022-0172
Smith, L. (2006). Uses of Heritage. Routledge.
TExTOUR Deliverable 1.3. (2021). Data collection methodology.
TExTOUR Deliverable 1.4. (2022). Results from the data collection phase.
UNEP and UNWTO. (2005). Making tourism more sustainable: A guide for policy makers, pp. 11–
12.
UNWTO. (2021). Yearbook of tourism statistics, data 2015—2019, 2021 Edition. World Tourism
Organization (UNWTO). https://doi.org/10.18111/9789284422487.
Veldpaus, Loes, & Hanna Szemző. (2021). Heritage as a matter of care, and conservation as caring
for the matter. In Care and the City, Encounters with Urban Studies. Ed. Angelika Gabauer,
Sabine Knierbein, Nir Cohen, Henrik Lebuhn, Kim Trogal, Tihomir Viderman and Tigran Haas.
Routledge, pp. 194–203. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003031536.
Vicsek, Lilla. (2006). Fókuszcsoport [Focus Group]. Budapest: Osiris.
Wach, Krysztof. (2015). Conceptualizing Europeanization: Theoretical approaches and research
designs. In Europeanization Processes from the Mesoeconomic Perspective: Industries and
Policies. Eds. Piotr Stanek and Krysztof Wach. Kraków: Cracow University of Economics,
pp. 11–23.
Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing,
adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate
credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and
indicate if changes were made.
The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter’s Creative
Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not
included in the chapter’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by
statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from
the copyright holder.
How Cultural Tourism Management
Initiatives Come to Light Starting
from Local Needs: The Case
of the Crespi D’Adda Company Town
Elena Bussolati, Serena Cecere, Roberta De Bonis Patrignani,

and Matteo Tabasso
Abstract The article illustrates the interactions and connections between the activ-
ities performed within the Horizon2020 project TExTOUR—Social Innovation and
Technologies for sustainable growth though participative cultural TOURism—by the
Italian partners on the Pilot site of Crespi d’Adda (UNESCO WHS) and the process
for the definition of the UNESCO Management Plan for the same site. The timing
of the two initiatives allowed to have a continuous exchange of information and,
besides the useful integration between the two processes, the main result was that
the actions identified within the TExTOUR project, through a bottom-up approach,
were included in the Management Plan as a contribution from the European Project.
The Management Plan is aimed at defining coordinated activities for the preser-
vation and conservation of the cultural site and the promotion of cultural values.
It includes the strategy design and the definition of specific initiatives through the
involvement of local stakeholders and residents. Some of the actions that emerged
in the TExTOUR project working group, also attended by some of the stakeholders
of the Crespi d’Adda site, were included among the actions envisaged by the new
UNESCO Management Plan. The paper explains both the participatory processes
and the way the actions were identified and customized.
Keywords Cultural tourism · Participatory process · Cultural heritage · Industrial

heritage · Sustainable growth · Development strategies
E. Bussolati
Unioncamere Lombardia, Via Ercole Oldofredi, 23, 20124 Milano, Italy
S. Cecere · R. De Bonis Patrignani · M. Tabasso (B)
Fondazione LINKS, Via Pier Carlo Boggio 61, 10138 Torino, Italy
e-mail: matteo.tabasso@linksfoundation.com

20 E. Bussolati et al.
1 Introduction
Cultural Tourism (CT) plays a crucial role in today’s economy. In 2018 it represented
37% of the total tourism sector, with an annual growth of approximately 15%. With
the COVID-19 pandemic, however, the tourism sector has been seriously hit. The
OECD estimates that international tourism fell by around 80% in 2020. Many coun-
tries are trying to build a more resilient tourism economy, promoting digital transition
and rethinking a more sustainable tourism system.
Against this backdrop, cultural tourism can be redesigned by regions and sites
that offer a high cultural, social and environmental potential.
To face those challenges, in January 2021, 18 transnational partners, representing
the quintuple social innovation helix: knowledge, business, society, government and
entrepreneurs kicked off the Horizon 2020 “TExTOUR” Project.
TExTOUR (Social Innovation and TEchnologies for sustainable growth through
participative cultural TOURism) aims at designing new strategies for improving
the socio-economic development of less known areas, but with a high cultural
value. The project co-designs, validates and upscales cultural tourism policies and
sustainable strategies. To do this, it works with eight Cultural Tourism Pilot projects
located in different EU and non-EU areas and involving various societal players and
stakeholders with a relevant role in the Cultural Tourism sector.
2 Theoretical Background
Tourism industry may have diversified effects, both positive and negative, on the
people living in touristic areas. (Angelini, 2020). In fact, it is often seen as a generator
of the necessary resources to preserve and enhance cultural heritage (Jamhawi &
Hajahjah, 2017), thus leading to greater economic development, increase in jobs and
services.
According to OECD (2021), culture, and cultural heritage in particular, can play
an important role in ensuring inclusive and cohesive societies. Furthermore, culture
strengthens local identities and creates a sense of belonging while the promotion of
cultural participation and the diversity of the cultural offer can help mitigate factors
leading to social and economic marginalization.
On the other hand, negative impacts of tourism can be represented by environ-
mental pollution, overcrowded spaces, loss of cultural identity, speculation on the
availability of resources while the positive aspects can be economic benefits and better
opportunities for local communities, higher circulation of ideas, more attention on
the maintenance of the territory (Solima, 2023).
A possible way to reduce the negative impacts for the local communities is the
promotion of cultural tourism based on the valorization of Cultural heritage, a concept
associated to the idea of “legacy of physical or intangible elements inherited from
How Cultural Tourism Management Initiatives Come to Light Starting … 21
past generations, maintained in the present and bestowed for future generations”
(UNESCO).
In fact, the concept of cultural tourism is strictly linked to the geographical context,
and a territory with a strong cultural identity can be defined as a cultural district that
means a geographical area characterized by the ability to create synergies between
local stakeholders (both businesses and individuals) (Angelini, 2020).
Furthermore, to reduce negative impacts and meet the needs of local communities
it is also very important to develop alternative methods and tools aimed at making the
processes of collaboration and involvement more inclusive to ensure the development
of a more sustainable tourism.
To this aim, the subjects involved for various reasons, have to be encouraged
to participate in the development process of sustainable tourism understood as a
sharing space in which the outcomes are not predefined. Thus, co-design related to
cultural tourism development can represent an opportunity to bring out new actions
and practices from positioning generated within sets of relationships (Liburd, 2020).
The appropriateness of the bottom-up approach to the design of development
strategies in depressed areas is reported in numerous published studies. In particular,
the bottom-up approach proves to be effective in making up for the lack of knowledge
of the territorial reality and the mismatch between the measures envisaged and the
actual interests of the local community. In fact, the top-down approach is less effective
and barely brings direct benefits to the territories concerned (Ruiz, 2020).
In general, participatory and bottom-up approach can significantly enhance the
sustainable management of cultural tourism but this requires that the different
stakeholders are systematically involved (Jamhawi & Hajahjah, 2017).
3 The Pilot Site of Crespi D’Adda
Sustainable cultural tourism is the integrated management of cultural heritage and tourism
activities in conjunction with the local community creating social, environmental and
economic benefits for all stakeholders, to achieve tangible and intangible cultural heritage
conservation and sustainable tourism development.1
Based on the above definition of sustainable and cultural tourism, and according
to the principles of sustainable cultural tourism, in Italy, the pilot site identified is
the workers’ village of Crespi d’Adda—a hamlet in the municipality of Capriate
San Gervasio, near the city of Bergamo—a well-preserved Company town including
factories, housing and services. In December 1995, Crespi, together with the factory
(still active in that period), was inscribed on UNESCO World Heritage list, as “an
outstanding example of the 19th and early twentieth century ‘company towns’ built
in Europe and North America, by enlightened industrialists to meet the workers’
needs.”
1 www.culturaltourism-network.eu.
The industrial activity of the factory (see Fig. 1), built in 1878, has signifi-
cantly declined at the end of twentieth century and closed in 2004. In 2013, a local
entrepreneur who decided to use the buildings as headquarters of his companies,
purchased the factory, but to date the business has not re-started yet, although a
Program Agreement between the owners and the institutions was signed at the end
of 2022.
The inhabitants of Crespi d’Adda, who grew up in a symbiotic relationship with
the factory, suffer from the fact that the factory is closed and hope that its reopening
will become an opportunity to return to their condition before closing, when the life
of the Village was focused on work in the factory and so the activities for workers’
families. This vision of life, combined with a lack of confidence in the tourist vocation
of the Village, means that residents of Crespi mainly grasp the negative aspects and
do not evaluate the possible positive effects that tourism could have for them and
their quality of life.
The village of Crespi d’Adda is located at the tip of the Isola Bergamasca, a strip
of land created by the meeting of the rivers Adda and Brembo and this position
deprives the Village of the opportunity to be visited or discovered as a transit place
to go elsewhere. You get to Crespi d’Adda if that’s where you want to go.
Although there are still no problems of overtourism in Crespi, residents often find
the behavior of tourists disrespectful and generally complain about the restriction on
buildings resulting from the presence of the UNESCO site. With the aim of fostering
the development of sustainable cultural tourism, the municipality therefore decided to
use the drafting of the new management plan to initiate participatory design processes
and put the local community and the protection of cultural heritage at the center of
decision-making processes.
Moreover, although it suffers of isolation due to its geographical location, Crespi
d’Adda is located within a territorial system characterized by numerous cultural
and natural attractions with which, however, the relationships and synergies are
practically non-existent, despite the physical and, in some cases, thematic proximity.
For these reasons, in the framework of TExTOUR project, the pilot area was not
limited to the workers’ Village but was extended to a wider area that includes 10
municipalities located along the Adda river (see Fig. 2).
4 The Identification of the Actions for the Promotion

of Cultural Tourism in Crespi D’Adda
and the Surrounding Area
In the framework of the TExTOUR project, in 2022 Unioncamere Lombardia and

LINKS Foundation coordinated the participatory process for the development of
Cultural tourism in the pilot area.
The process for the identification of actions to be implemented in Crespi d’Adda
was based on a co-design approach and involved several local stakeholders based
Fig. 1 The village of Crespi d’Adda with its factory
in Crespi d’Adda and in the surrounding areas along the Adda river. The structure
was defined by the University of Bologna during the first year of TExTOUR and
it was based on the organization of 4 structured workshops with the involvement
of all the local stakeholders according to a bottom-up approach (see Fig. 3). Each
session lasted two and a half hours, the first and the third workshop were online,
Fig. 2 The pilot area considered within the TExTOUR project
whereas the second was held in presence at the Crespi d’Adda UNESCO visitor
center (head office of the Association Crespi d’Adda), the average attendance was
of fifteen people in each workshop.
The stakeholders engaged were selected starting with the existing contacts and
enlarging the auditors to public and private entities dealing with cultural tourism
issues in the surrounding of Crespi d’Adda (i.e., public bodies, non-governmental
organizations (NGOs), associations, tourism and Territorial promotion agencies,
local stakeholders, etc., …).
Fig. 3 The 4 steps methodology developed by the University of Bologna
After the stakeholder engagement activities, organized in the previous phase of

the project, the first workshop (Cultural Heritage Tourism) was dedicated to the
definition of the objectives for the area and to the identification and mapping of the
cultural sites and attractions located in the proximity of the main pilot site (Crespi
d’Adda). The first activity was dedicated to the identification of common goals,
values, and objectives and to the identification and mapping of the attractions in the
area surrounding Crespi d’Adda, mainly located along the river (see Fig. 4). This
process has been made with the help of Miro board Visual collaboration software.
Fig. 4 Map of cultural sites and attractions identified during the first workshop
Fig. 5 The second workshop with local stakeholders held in Crespi d’Adda
The following workshops were dedicated to the definition of several Actions to

be jointly implemented.
In particular, the second workshop (ICT integration) (see Fig. 5) was aimed at
the identification of possible actions by the local stakeholders (Crespi d’Adda and
surrounding area), taking inspiration from a list of actions proposed by the University
of Bologna. Three of the actions proposed were directly inspired by the good practices
illustrated in the list:
• #1 Transformation of Rockerill Charleroi factory—use of industrial heritage for
touristic purpose
• #2 Village Tourism: 5 villages in East Germany—requalification of traditional
villages
• #3 Green Western way: ecotourism in Ireland—routes (mainly hiking) in Ireland
In addition, 12 new actions were proposed collectively within the Workshop 2

and grouped in wider domains:
Institutional actions:
• #4 Consortium among public and private bodies
• #5 Reuse of brownfield areas and spaces
• #7 Development of a municipal App
• #12 Monitoring of tourist flows
• #13 Vademecum for tourists
• #14 Shared timetable of events and site visits
Heritage enhancement projects:
• #6 Lighting of monuments
• #8 Network of cycle and pedestrian paths
• #9 Naturalistic/hydrological/gastronomic heritage network
• #10 Network of cultural sites

• #15 QR-codes in the village of Crespi d’Adda
Events:
• #11 Historical re-enactments
Between the second and the third workshop the actions proposed were revised,
shortlisted and aggregated.
At the end of the process the actions identified were 5, but one of them, concerning
the Transformation and reconversion of public buildings, was not developed within
TExTOUR because it was already included in the UNESCO Management Plan for
Crespi d’Adda.
From the process of re-definition, the 4 actions that were confirmed for Crespi
d’Adda are the following:
4.1 Action 1: Green and Blue Routes
The action concerns the development of a network of routes (hiking/bicycle/

accessible boat) that improve local tourism and increase opportunities for discov-
ering the area. It comes from the integration of the following actions proposed during
the second Workshop:
• #3 Green Western way: ecotourism in Ireland.
• #6 Lighting monuments project.
• #7 Development of a municipal App.
• #9 Naturalistic/hydrological/gastronomic heritage network.
• #14 Timetable for guided tours.
• #15 QR-codes in the village of Crespi d’Adda.
The action responds to the need, clarified by many stakeholders, to coordinate
the promotion of touristic resources, making them available for tourists in a single
website.
4.2 Action 2: Permanent Working Table on Cultural Tourism

with Local Stakeholders
This action aims at creating a permanent working table with all the stakeholders
that are working on cultural tourism in Crespi d’Adda area in order to exploit
opportunities, coordinate communication of attractions and develop new services.
It comes from the integration of the following actions:
• #4 Consortium among public and private bodies.
• #10 Network of cultural sites.

The action responds to the need, common to many stakeholders, to create a table
to share, discuss and coordinate all policies and projects on tourism in the area.
4.3 Action 3: Vademecum for Citizens and Tourists
The action aims at defining a Vademecum to reduce the externalities of touristic

flows on residents. It is focused on various aspects related to the theme of education,
declined in different ways and oriented to different targets: tourists, local authorities
and citizens.
This includes the following actions:
• #1 Transformation of the old Rockerill Charleroi factories.
• #11 Historical re-enactments.
• #13 Vademecum for tourists.
• #15 QR-codes in the village of Crespi d’Adda.
The action responds to the need of residents to see their privacy respected (reducing
externalities of touristic flows).
4.4 Action 4: Monitoring System for Touristic Flows Using

ICT
The idea of the action is to identify a methodology that helps to monitor the figures
and characteristics of tourists in the area.
This is based on the following actions:
• #7 Development of a municipal app.
• #12 Monitoring of tourist flows.
The action responds to the need of the municipality and the Association Crespi
d’Adda, to know the characteristics of touristic flows in order to manage them,
avoiding overcrowding in certain areas/period of time.
The third workshop was then dedicated to the definition of specific Busi-
ness Model Canvas for 3 of the 4 actions: for the Permanent Working Table on
Cultural tourism, it was not considered to develop a model as it mainly represents
an organizational and networking activity related to policy.
Since the purpose of the project is more focused on sustainability than on
economic, within the TExTOUR project the researchers from the University of
Bologna designed a specific model called “Sustainability-Driven Business Model
Canvas” (see Fig. 6), specifically tailored for sustainable cultural tourism and
Fig. 6 Sustainability-driven business model canvas developed by the University of Bologna
embracing all four pillars of sustainability (social, economic, environmental and

cultural) (Ottaviani, 2023).
A fourth workshop was restricted to the TExTOUR partners with the aim of
defining the targets that the actions have to meet by the end of the project and
match those targets with the Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) defined in the
previous phases of the project regarding different domains: economic, social, cultural,
environmental (see Fig. 7).
The whole process developed for the area of Crespi d’Adda was interesting for
several reasons. In fact, thanks to the bottom-up approach, the actions were not
“imposed” by any authority but raised from the local communities’ needs. Further-
more, it helped to build trust among the actors of the area and provided a context in
which all stakeholders could work together (and, hopefully, will continue, beyond
the end of the project).
The methodology tested in Crespi d’Adda and in the other TExTOUR pilot sites
can be easily applied to other cultural sites or point of interests. To this purpose, a
call to identify new pilot sites for the replication of the method was launched and
new sites will be involved to test, promote and extend the methodology to a wider
number of Cultural sites.
The project requires huge involvement of stakeholders for the realization of the
actions and the process of fundraising is not so easy. Besides, more effort will be
needed to involve touristic actors in the development of the actions.
The project’s acquired knowledge will be made available on the TExTOUR inno-
vative open access platform for policy makers, practitioners and local communities.
This will allow them to assess cultural tourism strategies and services. Other Euro-
pean and non-European cultural sites and ecosystems will have access to the platform
so that they can benefit from the project’s achievements too.
Fig. 7 The fourth workshop

analysis of KPIs and the pilot
actions
Fig. 8 Tables for the discussion of the UNESCO management plan
5 The UNESCO Management Plan and the Integration

with TExTOUR Project Activities and Results
The process of identification of the actions foreseen by the European project occurred
in parallel with the process of definition of the UNESCO Management Plan for the
Village of Crespi d’Adda and this allowed a profitable exchange between the two
initiatives.
A management plan for a World Heritage site is an integrated planning and action
concept that lays down goals and measures for the protection, conservation, use
and development of World Heritage sites.2 With the aim of creating a Management
Plan as much as possible oriented towards satisfying the needs and expectations of
citizens and stakeholders interested in the future of the Village of Crespi d’Adda, the
population was involved in participatory planning activities (see Fig. 8).
The participatory process was aimed to create cohesion between the parties and
encourage a renewed social identity according to the new vision of the Village (which
emerged from the various meetings). Furthermore, in the long run, the collaboration
has the effect of intensifying the engagement of the participants in the activities
included in the Plan itself.
The participatory process has given the subjects involved the opportunity to influ-
ence the dynamics of urban transformation through their knowledge of the territory.
It also represented an opportunity for growth for the participants, who became aware
of the plurality of perspectives from which situations must be observed to be able
2Management Plans for World Heritage Sites – A practical guide (German Commission for
UNESCO - Bonn, 2008).
to deal with them effectively, guaranteeing both respect for the cultural heritage and
the needs and interests of all, often in conflict with each other.
For the implementation of participatory planning, three meetings were organized,
of which: 2 with local actors directly involved in economic and cultural activities
and a third to which the entire population of Crespi d’Adda was invited.
After introducing the Management Plan, the importance of participatory planning
was highlighted, and some suggestions were given on the aims of the plan and above
all on the importance of finding a vision in line with the development path that they
hope for the site and for their own town. Finally, it was explained how the individual
projects that emerged will contribute to these higher-level objectives. In the first
two workshops, groups were formed with different categories of stakeholders, who
worked using the Business Model Canvas (see Fig. 9) as a tool aimed at facilitating
discussion and collaboration between the participants.
To allow everyone to propose their ideas, the participants of the 3 meetings were
then asked to suggest one or more activities or projects in line with the Vision, which
could be included in the Management Plan.
In total, more than 70 project files were collected, analysed and aggregated when
they referred to similar or complementary actions, and then traced back to 7 macro-
themes: Management/Governance; Infrastructure, energy and green; Preservation;
Society and economic valorisation; Tourism; Communication.
The 4 actions that emerged from the working tables within the TExTOUR project
for sustainable tourism were included within the sphere of actions linked to Tourism,
as they combined ideas and purposes in line with the Management Plan and repre-
sented some of the activities or objectives included among the 70 proposed by the
participants. Namely, the 4 actions are:
Fig. 9 The business model canvas developed within the preparation of the UNESCO management
plan
• Identification of a network of tourist itineraries in the area and between UNESCO

sites;
• Establishment of a working table for the organization of the integrated tourist
offer;
• Creation of a Vademecum for tourists and residents;
• Monitoring of tourist flows.
6 Conclusions
Although Crespi d’Adda suffers from the isolation due to its geographical position,
thanks to its cultural heritage and the UNESCO label, at the same time it also attracts
a large number of tourists. To make tourism sustainable, therefore, it was neces-
sary to work on the one hand to integrate Crespi and generate synergies with the
more structured territorial system (and characterized both by cultural and natural
attractions); on the other, to regulate and facilitate coexistence between tourists and
residents within the Village on the busiest days.
The participatory process implemented within the TExTOUR project supported
the extension of the network of stakeholders involved, from the local level (on which
the Management Plan was already working) to a wider territorial area. The integration
of the results emerged from the two participatory processes has made it possible to
match the local stakeholders’ needs and, at the same time, to give visibility and
enhance the cultural heritage of Crespi d’Adda within the wider touristic network
linked to the TExTOUR project, ensuring greater sustainability over time.
References
ECTN European Cultural Tourism Network website—www.culturaltourism-network.eu, last

accessed 2023/06/20.
TExTOUR Project website—www.textour-project.eu, last accessed 2023/06/15.
UNESCO official website. https://ich.unesco.org/en/what-is-intangible-heritage-00003. last
accessed 2023/06/15.
German Commission for UNESCO: Management Plans for World Heritage Sites—A practical
guide (2008).
Crespi d’Adda Management Plan. https://xoom.virgilio.it/source_filemanager/su/up/supermik/
2023_varie/Allegato1_PdG_Crespi_v9_def_protocollo_4631_13_03_2023.PDF.
Angelini, L., Borlizzi, D., Carlucci, A., Ciardella, G., Destefanis, A., Governale, G., & Morfini, I.
(2020). Cultural tourism development and the impact on local communities: A case study from
the South of Italy.- CERN 2020. https://doi.org/10.23726/cij.2020.1054 (2020).
Solima, L., & Minguzzi, A. (2015). Territorial development through cultural tourism and creative
activities. Mondes Du Tourisme. https://doi.org/10.4000/tourisme.366
Liburd, J., Duedahl, E., Heape, C. (2020). Co-designing tourism for sustainable development.
Journal of Sustainable Tourism. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2020.1839473.
Jamhawi, M., & Hajahjah, Z. (2017). A bottom-up approach for cultural tourism management in
the old city of As-Salt, Jordan. Journal of Cultural Heritage Management and Sustainable
Development, 7, 91–106. https://doi.org/10.1108/JCHMSD-07-2015-0027
OECD. (2021). Culture, tourism and local development: new strategies for Italian heritage cities in
the post-pandemic scenario. https://www.oecd.org/fr/cfe/leed/italian-heritage-cities.htm.
Ruiz, Á., & Cañizares, M. (2020). Enhancing the territorial heritage of declining rural areas in Spain:
Towards integrating Top-Down and Bottom-Up approaches, in Sustainable Rural Development
Strategies, Good Practices and Opportunities—Land MDPI ed.
Ottaviani, D., Demiröz, M., Szemzo, H., & De Luca, C. (2023). Adapting methods and tools
for participatory heritage-based tourism planning to embrace the four pillars of sustainability.
Sustainability, 15, 4741. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15064741
Co-Creation Method for Fostering
Cultural Tourism Impact
Shabnam Pasandideh , João Martins , Pedro Pereira ,

Alessandra Gandini , Mikel Zubiaga De La Cal , Tarmo Kalvet ,
Tatjana Koor, Amaia Sopelana , and Amaia Lopez de Aguileta
Abstract This chapter describes the IMPACTOUR co-creation method, which is

developed to enhance the impact of cultural tourism in various destinations. The
method utilizes effective strategies and actions to monitor and increase the impact of
cultural tourism. The primary objective of the IMPACTOUR technique is to support
decision-makers in improving the sustainability and competitiveness of cultural
tourists in their destinations. The method involves collecting and analyzing data
from diverse sources, including tourism stakeholders and specifically local commu-
nities to create a comprehensive decision-making system. The resulting recommen-
dations aim to promote the positive impacts of cultural tourism while minimizing
negative effects and fostering long-term development. Ultimately, the IMPACTOUR
method seeks to assist destinations and attractions in becoming more competitive
and attractive to cultural visitors, while ensuring their long-term sustainability.
Keywords Cultural tourism · Decision making · Cultural tourism strategies ·

Sustainability
S. Pasandideh (B) · J. Martins · P. Pereira

NOVA School of Science and Technology, UNINOVA-CTS and LASI, Universidade NOVA de
Lisboa, 2829-516 Caparica, Portugal
e-mail: Shabnam.pasandide@uninova.pt
A. Gandini · M. Z. De La Cal · A. Sopelana · A. L. de Aguileta
TECNALIA, Basque Research and Technology Alliance (BRTA), Parque Científico y
Tecnológico de Bizkaia. Astondo Bidea, Edificio 700. E-48160, Derio, Spain
T. Kalvet
Institute of Baltic Studies, Lai 30, 51005 Tartu, Estonia and Department of Business
Administration, Tallinn University of Technology 5, 19086 Tallinn, Estonia
T. Koor
Estonian Tourist Board, Lasnamäe 2, 11412 Tallinn, Estonia

36 S. Pasandideh et al.
1 Introduction
Cultural Tourism (CT) has been identified as a driver of growth, jobs, and economic
development in European regions and cities, as well as intercultural understanding
and social development. However, there is still a knowledge gap regarding methods to
assess multilevel and cross-border strategies, policies, and practices that contribute to
sustainable development and Tourism Destination Competitiveness (TDC). Because
of the diversity of goals and destinations, it is difficult to grasp concurrent solutions
for all types of destinations.
Some places compete to improve their economic development, while others diver-
sify their economies or expand their market share. As a result, sustainability and TDC
have been described from several angles. A first point of view holds that a destina-
tion should focus on developing value-added items in order to strengthen its market
position (d’Hauteserre, 2000). In this regard, organizations are required to improve
corporate efficiency, use cutting-edge technologies, seek competitive and sustainable
advantages in tourism products and services, compete for a larger market share, and
establish proper indicators to monitor their performance.
Moreover, the expansion of tourism has prompted the creation of a number of
technologies to aid in management decisions related to tourism. One such technology
is decision-making support systems (DMSS), which offer analytical tools to support
decision-making in a variety of industries, including tourism.
DMSS has the ability to greatly enhance sustainability and TDC in the tourism
industry. The creation and application of DMSS will be more crucial than ever for
the cultural tourism sector’s long-term sustainability as technology develops.
In this regard, IMPACTOUR methodology is providing the backbone for the
DMSS to support decision makers. IMPACTOUR is a H2020 project which brings
together CT-related stakeholders and researchers to develop new techniques that
take advantage of the vast volumes of information that policymakers confront. By
applying DMSS it helps decision-making in cultural tourism destination manage-
ment by giving a thorough grasp of the location’s characterizations and recommends
appropriate strategies to improve destination´s sustainability and TDC.
1.1 State of the Art (of Strategic Cultural Tourism Planning)
Strategic tourism planning is a dynamic and future-oriented process or roadmap that

sets goals for a destination, tourism organization, or other entity, and produces the
direction and specific steps for the future. It is a collaborative management process
that can be used to help determine a destination’s or organization’s present situation,
impact factors, vision, goals, objectives, strategies, and actions and give an approach
to directing the use of resources and communicating the interests of the stakeholders
including community.
Co-Creation Method for Fostering Cultural Tourism Impact 37
Due to the complex context created by the nature of cultural tourism and the
challenges of the twin transition, the entities responsible for strategic tourism plan-
ning (whether at the local, regional, or national level) need a strong organizational-
operational and administrative capacity—qualities that enable an effective manage-
ment of resources in order to deliver strategic objectives (El-Taliawi & Wal,
2019). Adequate capacity is important throughout the strategy cycle, from strategy
development and implementation to monitoring and evaluation.
The characteristics of a successful and competitive destination are (World Tourism
Organization (UNWTO), 2019; Morrison, 2018):
• awareness—information and knowledge about the destination
• attractiveness—diverse factors of the destination that attract visitors
• availability—ease of booking options and number of channels
• access—ease and comfort of reaching the destination and moving around there,
smart-solutions
• appearance—the impression of the destination when arriving there as well as
being there
• activities—opportunities and diversity of activities for visitors
• assurance—guaranteed safety and security
• appreciation—hospitality and welcoming attitude in the destination
• action—long-term tourism planning, marketing activities, crisis management
plans
• accountability—destination management and evaluation of Destination Manage-
ment Organizations (DMO) activities.
Strategic planning may be either a simple straightforward decision-making
process or in some cases a complex set of multiple decision directions (Dredge, &
Jenkins, 2011). However, in both cases, the strategic planning process should consider
economic, environmental, social, and cultural factors, the overall sustainability of the
organization or destination (Edgell & Swanson, 2013) and analyze the current situa-
tion of destinations, influencing factors, and stakeholders´ awareness, expectations,
opinion of importance and needs for development (Mason, 2016; Miočić et al., 2016).
1.2 Purpose and Scope of the Paper
The proposed methodology provides an easy-to-follow guide for decision-making

that travel destinations are advised to use when choosing the best development
strategy for cultural tourism at their location.
We describe the IMPACTOUR co-creation method, which assists the decision-
maker, whether a novice or an expert, in the selection and development of ad hoc
selected strategies for boosting cultural tourism impact in their historic context. The
framework of the method provides an innovative solution to propose customized
plans and actions based on site features, data availability, and monitoring capacity
indicators built based on four main domains. These four domains include Cultural,
Social, Economic and Environmental domains.
We define the holistic method for sustainable cultural tourism development. The
method definition includes setting up the workflow and sequence of steps, the iden-
tification of information required, and the information flow needed for the imple-
mentation of the method in a real case. The inputs (information type, structure, data
management and visualization, semantic organization…) for the calculation of the
Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) will be selected, and how strategies are filtered in
function of the systematized strategies, according to their replicability, their success
factors and the different characteristics and needs of the cultural tourism categories.
The focus of this paper is on the procedure of establishing the recommended
strategies and introducing their criteria, main categories and results.
The remainder of this paper is organized as following: Sect. 2, provides different
definitions and IMPACTOUR definition on Cultural tourism; Sect. 3, describes the
IMPACTOUR methodology; Sect. 4, explains how under the proposed methodology,
the impact of the strategies can be measured and finally Sect. 5, concludes the results
of the study.
2 Facing Cultural Tourism
Cultural tourism is a type of tourism that focuses on the culture, tradition, and way
of life of a specific town or region. It includes things like visiting historical sites,
going to cultural events, and learning about local customs (UNWTO). According
to Richards and Wilson (Richards & Wilson, 2006), CT is “the subset of tourism
concerned with the country or region’s culture, specifically the lifestyle, history, art,
architecture, religion, and other elements that help shape the identity of the country
or region.”
In the same way, Sharpley (Sharpley, 2014) characterizes cultural tourism as a
type of tourism that involves the pursuit of cultural experiences, specifically those
that are unique to a particular destination or community. CT has been also defined
as “traveling for the purpose of experiencing the authenticity, history, and character
of a place, including its cultural, natural, and built heritage (Rasoolimanesh et al.,
2021)”.
The motivation and interests of cultural tourists can be described as the activities
of tourists who are motivated by cultural interests and activities that include visiting
cultural attractions, attending cultural events, participating in cultural activities, and
interacting with the local people (Poria et al., 2006).
There are some common themes throughout these definitions notwithstanding
their differences. First of all, cultural tourism entails traveling to experience cultural
attractions and activities. Second, cultural tourism concentrates on a destination’s
cultural heritage, which includes its history, architecture, art, and other components
that help to define its identity. Thirdly, cultural tourism entails mingling with locals,
which is regarded as a crucial aspect of the experience.
2.1 Definition and Driving Indicators
The definition of cultural tourism will be significantly affected by the continually

evolving meanings and interpretations of the term “culture,” which will be one of
the largest problems (Richards, 2018). IMPACTOUR defines cultural tourism as “A
type of tourism activity in which the visitor’s motivation and aim is to learn, discover,
experience, participate and benefit from the tangible and intangible cultural offers in
a tourism destination. These offers relate to a set of distinctive material, intellectual,
spiritual and emotional features and the relationships with and within a society. It
encompasses the places they inhabit, arts and architecture, historical and cultural and
natural heritage, landscapes, culinary heritage, literature, music, creative industries
and the living cultures with their cultural and social values”.
The experience gained during the analysis of existing indicators systems previ-
ously performed and the successive interactions with the IMPACTOUR pilots’
community drove to the evolution of some baseline indicators, which are required
for a dynamic tool able to measure the impact derived by strategies implementation.
For succeeding in such an evolution, the results from the Data Gathering process run
by the project with the pilots community, as well as the conclusions derived from the
benchmarking in relation to the KPIs, were explored and analyzed against two refer-
ences from UNESCO (the UNESCO Culture 2030 indicators (UNESCO, 2019) and
the UNESCO World Heritage Sustainable Tourism Toolkit (UNESCO xxxx) They
provide respectively relevant background on the role of culture in the Sustainable
Development Goals (SDGs) and best practice approaches to sustainable economic
development through tourism.
2.2 Importance of Local Communities
It is crucial to involve the local community in tourism planning and decision-making

processes in order to mitigate the negative impacts of cultural tourism on local
communities. This can ensure that tourism growth is sustainable and helps the local
community as well as outside investors, rather than the other way around. Also,
they play a critical role in cultural tourism as they possess unique knowledge and
experiences that can be leveraged to create more authentic and immersive tourism
experiences.
The study found (Muganda et al., 2013) that local communities desire involve-
ment in tourism policy-making processes to ensure that their needs are met, and
their concerns are addressed. They also expressed a desire to participate in tourism
development decisions to protect community interests, increase transparency and
accountability. The prevailing top-down approach in decision-making for cultural
tourism development was widely rejected by the local communities, indicating a
need for more participatory approaches. The study suggests a need for policymakers
to involve local communities in decision-making processes to ensure the success
and sustainability of cultural tourism development initiatives. Using the experiences

of local communities to establish cultural tourism initiatives can thus be a useful
method to creating more authentic and sustainable tourism experiences.
Participatory planning is one method for utilizing the knowledge of local people to
create strategies for enhancing cultural tourism. Engaging local communities in the
planning of the tourism industry and incorporating their suggestions and ideas into the
final product is known as participatory planning. With this strategy, the development
of the tourism product is guaranteed to be respectful of local values, traditions, and
customs as well as culturally suitable. Additionally, by fostering community support
and buy-in, this strategy may increase the ownership of the tourism product and the
likelihood of its long-term success.
3 Methodology: Co-Creation a Method for Fostering

Cultural Tourism
The IMPACTOUR method consists of co-creation process of indicators with pilots’

community, the process of establishing strategy criteria analysis and propose the
strategies based on the pilot´s characterizations which are describe extensively in
Sect. 4.
According to the workshops and the successful stories learnt from the pilots /case
studies, there are three main attributes to recommend proper strategies: The type
of lands, their objectives and cultural activities. Based on the results we suggested
the proper strategies to enhance the impact of cultural tourism according to their
preferences between domains.
3.1 Building Indicators
The whole process of defining an integrated impact assessment set of strategies for CT
has been developed and co-created with the IMPACTOUR Community. An iterative
approach between technical and pilot partners was established, based on different
participatory activities, which is explained in detail in the following sections.
The exercise provided some insight into the type of indicators and their relation-
ship with some of the identified recommendations. It was the first step to getting
pilots familiarized with indicators and start thinking about monitoring the transfor-
mative impacts of cultural tourism strategies. Following are the main categorization
of the indicators and their connections to recommended strategies:
• Characterization, resilience and social indicators resulted as most relevant for

diversification and marketing recommendations and governance recommenda-
tions, aiming at better understanding and quantifying the resources of the destina-
tion, the existence of recovery plans and funds and the availability of intangible
heritage and traditional skills respectively.
• Cultural and environmental groups of indicators were ranked as most relevant
for governance recommendations and business recommendations, concerning the
promotion of cultural events, cultural tourism contribution to the conservation and
restoration of heritage sites, local products availability and participation of local
companies in environmental and ecosystems protection.
• Indicators classified in the category “others” apply to all types of recommen-
dations, as their main field of application varies across the above-mentioned
domains. Indicators related to accessibility are the most addressed, together with
the vulnerability of natural and cultural heritage to over-tourism, branding and
economic contribution of cultural industries. With this information, a Baseline
Indicator list was developed, aiming to build a cultural tourism assessment frame-
work tailored to different types of destinations and scales and adjusted to real data
on destinations.
• Overall, the indicators “Destination Management Organization (DMO)”,
“Existing contingency and/or recovery plans (vulnerability against Hazards or
others)” and “Percentage of local enterprises in the tourism sector actively
supporting the conservation of local biodiversity and landscapes” have been rated
as highly relevant and included on the top of the benchmarking list.
• Indicators “Tourism pressure to residents”, “Alternative Cultural Attractions
(considering the surrounding area or territory near to the destination: surrounding
resources + diversification options)” and “Employment in cultural tourism activ-
ities” even if not selected as highly relevant in the questionnaire were poste-
riorly included in the benchmarking list, being considered as connected with
recommendations.
• Responses with regards to resilience indicators confirmed that the unexpected
events putting the CT incomes at risk are highly relevant thus, the decreases
should be monitored as well as the affected employment rates. Surprisingly, the
measurement of the digital tourism offer receiving an economic return was ranked
with very low relevance.
• Those indicators which were not rated as relevant were selected for further discus-
sion in the posterior stages since in some cases the definition initially provided
required improvement and adaptation.
The cultural tourism development strategies (Fig. 1) were formulated based on
the indicators, previous IMPACTOUR actions results and deliverables, various docu-
ments, including reports of other projects and development strategies and sugges-
tions, academic literature review, and discussions with the project partners and
pilots.
Fig. 1 IMPACTOUR recommended strategies and categories
3.2 Evaluation and Assessment
The IMPACTOUR community evaluated them considering their current practices

and expertise and consequently, several indicators were discarded due to the lack
of available data or due to the complex process of homogenization in destinations
covering different areas with administrative diversity.
Having the data-gathering process finished and following scientific knowledge
obtained, a Draft list of impact KPIs was developed, maturing from the Baseline
Indicators set. This Draft list of KPIs included all the inputs already mentioned and
included some of the indicators initially discarded but which the co-creation process
arose as significant ones.
Benefitting from the opportunity of the pilots’ attendance at the General Assembly
held in the Azores (Atlantic Session), and hosted by one of the pilot sites, a new
exercise was proposed to put into practice the interrelated levels mentioned at the
beginning in Fig. 2 (strategic, impact and performance indicators levels). Undoubt-
edly, the impact of IMPACTOUR strategies over the sites should be guaranteed and
the measuring framework and its KPIs should be aligned with the strategic objectives
they are aiming for.
Fig. 2 Interrelations between the three operative levels
The two main questions were proposed to the attendees during the workshop:
• Are we (as project scientific partners) able to develop all the IMPACTOUR
strategies with the information and links we have so far?
• Are we (as project scientific partners) able to measure all the expected from those
strategies?
Such an exercise represented a qualitative validation process arranged to allow
pilot sites to experience the reflection process of defining their CT plans following
the interrelation between KPIs, actions and the IMPACTOUR strategies.
4 Measuring the Impact of Strategies on Cultural Tourism
Building upon the interaction of strategies, actions and KPIs, the site manager is able
to monitor the changes in relevant KPIs, according to the action’s implementation,
considering the extent of the impact of strategies as well.
The information is be provided in two ways:
• The KPIs that directly and indirectly impacted by the implementation of the
selected actions.
• In how many KPIs a specific action will impact on, and of these, how many will
be directly impacted.
The recommended strategies depend on understanding the generic context of
the destination plus its main strategic objectives when facing any transition in CT
management.
Therefore, depending on the user’s specific characteristics, most proper strate-

gies can be recommended to achieve their objectives as are described in Table 1.
Based on the findings of our studies and the practical insights gained from work-
shops, we figured out these characteristics are the main criteria used to recognize
and differentiate the pilot’s profile.
By monitoring the KPIs related to the actions and strategies, the stakeholders can
modify their strategies and actions accordingly, and ensure that they are effective
and aligned with the specific needs of each pilot. Ultimately, this approach can lead
to more successful and sustainable tourism development that benefits both the pilots
and the broader destination.
Table 1 The main criteria and values for recommending the proper strategies
Criteria Values Definitions
Type of site 1. Rural IMPACTOUR partners and the IMPACTOUR
2. Urban Community have been working with four types
3. Natural of sites closely linked to the piloting regions’
4. Itinerary features: Rural sites, Urban sites, Natural sites
and Itineraries
Type of cultural 1. Cultural Heritage The IMPACTOUR Cultural Tourism definition
activities (based on) 2. Experience suggests that an activity can be classified into
3. Agriculture four types of cultural activities or resources: the
4. Natural Heritage Cultural Heritage Based “tangible and intangible
cultural offer”; the Experience Based activities
such as “learn, discover, experience, participate”;
the productive use and/or “culinary heritage”
means of a territory (Agriculture Based) is
considered a cultural activity itself; and, the
Natural Heritage and “landscape”, considered a
type of cultural activity
Current CT impact 1. No tourism activity Aiming to understand how the site manager
on the site 2. Tourism activity but interprets the current CT impact, the user should
no Cultural Tourism select among a list of statements describing the
3. Overtourism CT situation in their site, so the most appropriate
4. Seasonal tourism Strategy is provided in each case
5. The touristic
activity directly
damages cultural
heritage
6. Unbalanced impact
of tourism
7. Highly dependent
of international
tourism
1. Lack of knowledge
about cultural
tourism impact
5 Conclusion
As aforementioned, the co-creation process held with the IMPACTOUR pilots’

community during the project served to build a framework which relies as much
as possible on existing data sources. Nevertheless, considering the complexity of
gathering sectorial data specific to cultural tourism, the qualitative perspective has
also been included.
The IMPACTOUR project has shown that the barriers to be overcome by cultural
destinations are different depending on their context, their geography or even their
cultural resources. Therefore, their success in achieving the expected impact depends
on their regional context. Moreover, the objectives in cultural tourism management
depend on the prioritization of those roadblocks to overcome.
Acknowledgements This work was partially supported by the European Commission, grant
number 870747 IMPACTOUR, by Portuguese national funds through FCT Fundação para a Ciência
e a Tecnologia with reference UIDB/00066/2020 and UIDP/00066/2020, and by the TExTOUR
project, which has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and
innovation programme under grant agreement number 101004687.
References
d’Hauteserre, A.-M. (2000). Lessons in managed destination competitiveness: The case of foxwoods
casino resort. Tourism Management, 21, 23–32.
El-Taliawi, O. G., & Van Der Wal, Z. (2019). Developing administrative capacity: An agenda for
research and practice. Policy Design and Practice, 2(3), 243–257. https://doi.org/10.1080/257
41292.2019.1595916
World Tourism Organization (UNWTO). (2019). UNWTO Guidelines for Institutional Strength-
ening of Destination Management Organizations (DMOs)—Preparing DMOs for new chal-
lenges. Madrid. https://doi.org/10.18111/9789284420841.
Morrison, A. M. (2018). Marketing and managing tourism destinations. Routledge.
Dredge, D., & Jenkins, J. (Eds.). (2011). Stories and Practice: Tourism Policy and Planning. Ed
directions in tourism analysis. Ashgate: Burlington.
Edgell, D. L., & Swanson, J. R. (2013). Tourism policy and planning: Yesterday, today, and tomorrow
(2nd ed.). London, New York.
Mason, P. (2016). Tourism impacts, planning and management (3rd ed.). New York.
Miočić, B. K., Razović, M., & Klarin, T. (2016). Management of sustainable tourism destination
through stakeholder cooperation. Management, 21(2), 99–120.
Richards, G., & Wilson, J. (2006). Developing creativity in tourist experiences: A solution to the
serial reproduction of culture? Tourism Management, 27(6), 1209–1223.
Sharpley, R. (2014). Host perceptions of tourism: A review of the research. Tourism Management,
42, 37–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2013.10.007
Rasoolimanesh, S. M., Seyfi, S., Hall, C. M., & Hatamifar, P. (2021). Understanding memorable
tourism experiences and behavioural intentions of heritage tourists. Journal of Destination
Marketing & Management, 21, 100621. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdmm.2021.100621
Poria, Y., Reichel, A., & Biran, A. (2006). Heritage site perceptions and motivations to visit. Journal
of Travel Research, 44(3), 318–326. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287505279004
Richards, G. (2018). Cultural tourism: A review of recent research and trends. Journal of Hospitality
and Tourism Management, 36, 12–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhtm.2018.03.005
UNESCO. (2019). Culture 2030 Indicators: Thematic Indicators for Culture in the 2030 Agenda.
UNESCO. World Heritage Sustainable Tourism Toolkit. Available online: http://whc.unesco.org/
sustainabletourismtoolkit/welcome-unesco-world-heritage-sustainable-tourism-toolkit.).
Muganda, M., Sirima, A., & Ezra, P. M. (2013). The role of local communities in tourism develop-
ment: Grassroots perspectives from Tanzania. Journal of Human Ecology, 41(1), 53–66. https://
doi.org/10.1080/09709274.2013.11906553
Stakeholders Engagement Processes
for Co-Creation of Strategic Action Plans
for Circular and Human-Centred
Cultural Tourism in European Heritage
Sites
Małgorzata Ćwikła , Cristina Garzillo, Martina Bosone ,

Abstract Sustainable cultural tourism can be a powerful means to enhance commu-

nities’ wellbeing increasing economic wealth in currently less known and remote
areas, as well as residents’ awareness on local culture and cultural heritage,
environmental preservation and social cohesion. However, tourism activities can
threaten cultural and natural resources, especially in fragile natural & cultural areas.
Sustainability-led innovation and creativity could contribute to ensure that tourism
activity is conducted within a responsible framework, engaging local operators
and stakeholders towards reaching shared objectives. The integration of a circular
economy oriented approach in cultural tourism strategies can be beneficial to allow
sustainable tourism activities which avoid depletion of natural resources, excessive
greenhouse gas emissions, over-consumption of cultural resources. Local communi-
ties represent the owners and custodians of important natural and cultural resources,
thus their active role in cultural tourism strategies development is fundamental to
ensure their conservation, regeneration and valorisation over time. Engaging stake-
holder groups already at the initial stage of designing changes, can contribute to the
development of strategies aiming at implementation of community-based circular
and human-centred actions in various areas. The paper describes the co-creation
process conducted with various types of stakeholders in six European regions within
the Horizon 2020 Be.CULTOUR project. Special attention was given to the process of
activating local communities and making them co-create and co-initiative innovative
solutions.
Keywords Circular tourism · Cultural tourism · Co-creation · Stakeholders

engagement · Innovation · Sustainable cultural tourism · Human-centered
approach · Action plans
M. Ćwikła · C. Garzillo
ICLEI Europe, Breisgau, Germany
M. Bosone · A. Gravagnuolo (B)
CNR National Research Council, Rome, Italy
e-mail: antonia.gravagnuolo@cnr.it

48 M. Ćwikła et al.
1 Introduction
Cultural tourism represents a particular tourism sector focused on the appreciation

and valorisation of cultural resources, including cultural heritage in both tangible
and intangible expressions. As a sub-sector of the whole tourism industry, cultural
tourism can generate positive or negative impacts in cities and regions, depending
on the way in which it is managed by destination managers and tourism operators,
but also on visitors and residents behaviour. Sustainable cultural tourism should
avoid the negative impacts of tourism activity, such as overconsumption of envi-
ronmental and cultural resources, over-crowding, seasonality, commodification of
cultural heritage, loss of authenticity and integrity of heritage sites, unfair distribution
of economic benefits and other impacts. Particularly, cultural and natural resources
should be conserved and maintained, ensuring that these resources are kept available
for residents and visitors, as well as for future generations. Diverse research papers,
international documents and initiatives underline the importance of sustainability in
the tourism industry, which is one of the most relevant sources of jobs especially
in European countries, rich in historic and cultural sites (European Union, 2022).
However, the Covid-19 pandemic threatened the entire tourism sector due to travel
bans and health issues, exposing the fragility of tourism worldwide. Moreover, the
environmental crisis highlighted by recent research (Gupta et al., 2019; IPCC Climate
Change, 2014; IPCC Global Warming, 2018; IPCC Special Report, 2019; UNEP,
2011; Watts et al., 2018) requires renewed attention towards the depletion of natural
resources such as energy, land, water, materials, as well as climate altering emissions,
biodiversity preservation and an overall better balance between human activity in
all sectors and the need of regenerating natural resources (Fusco Girard & Nocca,
2020). To achieve a long-term sustainability without reducing the level of wealth for
all people, many studies, policies and initiatives highlight the urgency to transition
from a “linear” production and consumption model based on “take-make-dispose”,
in all sectors, towards a “circular” development model (Angrisano et al., 2016; Ellen
MacArthur, 2013, 2014, 2015a, b; The European Parliament New Circular Economy
Action Plan, 2021; European Commission, 2019, 2021a, b) in which no wastes
are generated, thanks to processes of reduction of natural resources consumption,
recycling of materials and wastes, recovering, reusing, refurbishing. The ‘circular
economy’ raised in the last decade from a niche sector of studies and experimen-
tation to a potential solution to global issues, adopted by governments and private
organisations worldwide, and fostered in public policies to accelerate the adoption
of a more sustainable production and consumption model at the societal level. The
circular economy has been recently explored in the tourism sector to reduce the envi-
ronmental impact of tourism activity, from sustainable mobility to eco-hotels, ‘slow’
tourism models, renewable energy generation on site, water recovery systems, etc.,
evoking a ‘circular tourism economy’ (Bosone & Nocca, 2022; Nocca et al., 1845;
Gravagnuolo & Varotto, 2021; Fusco Girard & Gravagnuolo, 2017; Patti & Messina,
2019; Manniche et al. 2017; Hanza, 2018; Sorin & Einarsson, 2020; Naydenov, 2018;
Fusco Girard et al. 2019). Moreover, the circular economy can be relevant for cultural
Stakeholders Engagement Processes for Co-Creation of Strategic … 49
heritage reuse and regeneration (see CLIC project—Circular models Leveraging

Investments in Cultural heritage adaptive reuse, 2017) fostering the reuse of aban-
doned and underused heritage buildings and sites, and introducing circularity princi-
ples in construction and conservation interventions. The research studies and practice
experiences of circular economy implementation in tourism and cultural heritage
sectors led to the development of a new framework for circular cultural tourism
which was implemented in the Horizon 2020 project Be.CULTOUR (Horizon, 2020
project, 2020), aiming at exploring and experimenting innovative ways through which
the circular economy can contribute to the sustainability of cultural tourism desti-
nations, contributing also to better balance between overcrowded and less known
cultural destinations. However, a circular tourism economy, grounded on ecological
economics, should also contribute to communities and people wellbeing adopting a
human-centred approach where people and nature thrive in higher synergy.
This contribution aims to explore how less known and remote areas can become
innovative circular and human-centred cultural tourism destinations, enhancing
cultural and natural resources and engaging local communities in the transition
towards a more sustainable and circular tourism organisation. Six pilot heritage sites
in Europe (Aragon in Spain, Basilicata in Italy, Larnaca in Cyprus, Västra Götaland
in Sweden, Vojvodina in Serbia, cross-border region Romania-Moldova) engaged
actively to stimulate a collective reflection at local level on the objectives of a circular
cultural tourism and the related actions to be implemented in specific heritage sites
through a collaborative effort with local tourism operators, public bodies, cultural and
creative industries, agricultural activities, research and innovation actors, as well as
active citizens to co-design and co-implement a new sustainable and circular model
of tourism in European cultural destinations.
2 Methodology: Stakeholders’ Engagement to Co-Design

Innovative Circular and Human-Centred Cultural
Tourism Destinations
Human-centred design in the innovation processes continually gains attention of the

researchers and practitioners (Bosone et al., 2019; Fusco Girard, 2019; Giacomin,
2014a; Krippendorff, 2004; Munhoz et al., 2020). In relation to sustainability, a
human-centred approach is crucial to ensure social relevance of the transformative
ambitions and build an affirmative foundation for change that is not only implemented
but first of all co-created by people themselves (European Commission, 2020a, b).
The six pilot heritage sites of Be.CULTOUR project started a co-design journey to
stimulate a collective reflection on the meanings and objectives of a circular and
human-centred cultural tourism and how this model could support the sustainable
development of less known and remote cultural heritage destinations. Strategic co-
design experimentation was implemented in the pilot areas to set the what, why, and
how of circular and human-centred cultural tourism in the remote areas participating
in the project.
The aim of the strategic co-design experimentation was to show the process of
awakening creativity and empowering the ecosystems of local stakeholders, called
to reflect on the relevance of cultural tourism as an opportunity for sustainable devel-
opment of remote areas and to actively shape the path of their strategic develop-
ment as circular cultural tourism destinations. The overall methodology adopted was
grounded on solid research and experimentation previously conducted within other
European heritage sites, and particularly within previous Horizon 2020 projects in
which action plans or similar strategic documents for cultural heritage conservation in
relation to environmental challenges were developed. This included other Horizon
2020 projects such as CLIC (CLIC Project, 2021), Open Heritage project (Open
Heritage Project Organizing, 2019), ILUCIDARE project (ILUCIDARE, 2020),
ROCK project ().
The co-creation process was organized in three main steps, including: problem
exploration, problem definition, problem solving (see Fig. 1). In all phases, a human-
centred approach was adopted, focusing on stakeholders’ and communities’ needs
and people wellbeing and health as a priority, strictly linked to ecosystems regener-
ation, as a key objective of every strategic design and policy in line with the circular
economy approach.
The first phase of problem exploration was dedicated to the identification of
specific challenges for circular cultural tourism in the target areas, identifying
strengths and weaknesses in terms of cultural heritage valorisation, infrastructure
development, accessibility, services and facilities, policies, investments and incen-
tives beyond the tourism sector and including cultural and creative industry, agricul-
tural activities in rural landscapes, circular economy sector, technological and social
Fig. 1 Co-creation methodological framework in Be.CULTOUR. Source Gravagnuolo et al.

(2021a, b)
innovation. After conducting an initial mapping of stakeholders, from the first phase
onwards the project made efforts to balance different interests among the identified
stakeholders. The second phase of problem definition focused on the co-design of
possible solutions to overcome barriers and achieve specific objectives related to
local challenges. In this phase, strategic Action Plans were co-created with local
stakeholders in each pilot area, defining the targets to be reached and the moni-
toring framework. This strategic thinking and co-design exercise was particularly
relevant as stakeholders were supported to strengthen their collaboration capacity
through a series of facilitated co-design workshops during which diverse aspects
of circular and human-centred cultural tourism were debated, analysed and synthe-
sized into clear objectives and actions to be undertaken in the pilot sites. This was
achieved through facilitated dialogue, consensus building, collaborative decision-
making, adaptive management and transparent communication. The workshop organ-
isers were provided toolboxes supporting facilitation. All exercises in the toolboxes
were designed to overcome power imbalance as well as overcoming the challenge of
limited resources in remote and smaller regions. Finally, the third phase of problem
solving included diverse activities towards the implementation of the actions defined
in the action plans, ranging from co-development of innovative solutions through
hackathon and business acceleration process, as well as the implementation of collab-
orative actions by local organisations leading the action plan co-design process. This
phase was important to start-up the action plans and test the feasibility of the proposed
solutions, through a continuous monitoring, co-evaluation and feedback loop in the
territories, which is fundamental to progress for turning ‘usual’ behavioural patterns
into different actions that are able to contribute to intentionally reach the targets and
objectives.
2.1 The Human-Centred Approach in the Be.CULTOUR

Strategic Co-Design Experimentation
The human-centred approach provided a basis for new solutions towards circular
cultural tourism in the Be.CULTOUR project (Bosone et al., 2019; Fusco Girard,
2019; Giacomin, 2014a; Krippendorff, 2004; Munhoz et al., 2020). It highlighted
several aspects resulting from the empowerment of the people involved in the co-
creation process (European Commission, 2020a, b). Local communities were consid-
ered to be experts in understanding of their place and potential and thus genuine
cultural tourism attractiveness (in relation to opportunities as well as risks). People,
organisations, individuals and communities, were involved in the design process in
all pilot sites as holders of knowledge and awareness of the uniqueness of the area
(Bosone et al., 2019; Gravagnuolo et al., 2021). At the same time, however, commu-
nities living in a given space need to see their surroundings with new eyes to restore
local ‘pride’ and re-discover hidden ‘treasures’. In working with various groups
facing similar challenges, numerous approaches based on cooperation and analysis of
problems from the perspective of people experiencing them were applied. Examples
include Action Research, Participatory Action Research, community-based partici-
patory research. References were made to these methods during particular exercises
(e.g. serious game, stakeholder mapping, iteration in various workshop co-design
modules), however the general approach in the co-creation was more creativity and
innovation oriented. This enabled the communities to think about cultural heritage as
a means of re-establishing local identity, to consider themselves at the same time as
service providers, beneficiaries and visitors in the region who are taking advantage of
what it has to offer and are also shaping this offer by understanding how to meet the
needs of people coming from other areas. The famous sentence Belief in your creative
capacity lies at the heart of innovation by David Kelley (IDEO) served as inspiration
for developing this concept of work on the ground, facilitated by the local coordinators
with the support of mentors and experts. In this way, as highlighted in the literature
on human-centred approach, reference was made to the users and simultaneously
to the principles of design for all (Clarkson & Coleman, 2010), human-centred city
(European Commission, 2020a, b). Objectives of using this methodology and also
adapting elements of other approaches in particular exercises delivered during work-
shops (e.g. customer journey mapping, scenario development, role-playing) were
fostering innovation, deepening awareness of the challenges resulting from the envi-
ronmental crisis and developing unique answers that can be applied locally and also
replicated in other less-known cultural tourism destinations.
With the strong focus on human-centred approach in six Pilot Heritage Sites,
while developing the framework for the process involving real communities with
their values, needs, working conditions and organisational culture, it was necessary
to know the advantages and disadvantages of the methods and tools themselves
(Brandsen et al., 2018; Watts et al., 2018). The questions connected to the empathy
and ethics included the issues of how to centre attention on humans while solving
environmental problems caused by humans, how to ideate rapidly giving the diverse
participants with various skills and abilities the opportunity to contribute, how to
deal with the authorship of ideas in open innovation, how to use the unique creativity
of the participants of the process and taking a responsibility once the tasks fore-
seen in the project are completed. The solution to these problems was to develop
a Community of Practice stimulating mutual trust and collaboration. This applied
to both the relationships within the international community of practice generated
by the Be.CULTOUR network and within the local stakeholder ecosystems. This
whole process of supporting the development of the Action Plans can be intended
as a meta-reflection of the process of the development of the Action Plans—itera-
tive, enabling feedback loops, inclusive and affirmative. On the basis of interviews,
documentation, discussion, bilateral talks and community meetings, problems were
identified and specific solutions were sought.
3 Towards a Replicable Model for Co-Design of Circular

and Human-Centred Cultural Tourism Destinations
The aim of the strategic co-design exercise was to develop first concept ideas of
innovative solutions for circular cultural tourism in the target areas. According to
the human-centred approach, this phase was collaborative, inclusive, and iterative to
ensure equal participation of diverse stakeholders. Local communities were working
together to ideate concepts responding to the identified needs and reflecting to identify
sustainable, circular solutions. The co-design process was developed in several sub-
tasks:
1. Building ‘Heritage Innovation Networks’ in Pilot Heritage Sites and mapping
stakeholders
2. Organise Local Workshops (three in each Pilot Heritage Site)
3. Define the initial collaboration Pact (“Local Pact”)
4. Identify specific Innovation Areas of circular cultural tourism, as well as
transversal innovation approaches and emerging trends, which are relevant for
the pilot heritage site
5. Identify actions linked to potential innovative solutions in line with the Innovation
Areas defined
6. Adopt the Action Plan and monitor progress
At the local level, the following Be.CULTOUR Innovation areas were taken into
consideration while defining actions, sub-actions and innovative solutions: Rural co-
living, Sensorial Heritage Experience, Contemporary Meanings of Heritage, Spir-
itual Travel Experience, Nature as Heritage, Industrial Heritage Experience, along
with the following transversal innovation approaches: Circular tourism, Cultural
Europeanisation, Human-centred, fair and responsible tourism, smart destination
management.
3.1 Strategic Action Plans Co-Creation Methods
Collaborative innovation has been defined as the pursuit of innovations through the
sharing of ideas, knowledge, expertise and opportunities (Ketchen et al., 2007). It can
encompass a broad spectrum of external parties (e.g. customers, suppliers, competi-
tors, universities and research institutes) and cover a range of collaboration forms
and approaches (Chesbrough, 2003), including alliances, partnerships, networks and
cooperative agreements (Feranita et al., 2017). Research and practice stress the rela-
tionship between collaboration in tourism innovation and the implementation of
sustainable tourism. In this context, collaborative innovation through co-creation
and co-design of sustainable products, services and experiences is key for capturing
needs of residents and visitors (Font & Lynes, 2018) and ensure ongoing engage-
ment and interest. A review of research highlights the importance of collaborative
Fig. 2 Workshops
methodological scheme
Local Workshop 1 - Problem exploration
Local Workshop 2 - Problem definition
Local Workshop 3 - Problem solving
innovation as a driver of (Marasco et al., 2018): superior performance (e.g. prof-

itability) and innovativeness of tourism firms; new service market outcomes, new
service development speed, quality of new services; democratized citizenship and
creative practices for the innovation of urban tourism concepts/services; destination
competitiveness through new or improved services and smart innovations; knowledge
sharing of tacit and explicit knowledge among different stakeholders in networks;
spin-offs and spill-overs.
In addition to the multi-stakeholder approach, the place-based dimension of
collaborative innovation is crucial. Innovation takes place in a precise location,
which suggests that the physical proximity of innovation players matters (Cohan,
2018; Misuraca et al., 2017). The strategic Action Plans were developed by the
six communities primarily during the local workshops. The workshops provided
a framework for the whole communities to meet and work together, while other
activities (like community meetings and bilateral calls) included research partners
and local coordinators. The entire process was conducted for one year including the
preparatory phases, and the 18 workshops in total were delivered from November
2021 to June 2022. As shown in Fig. 2, the logic of the process followed three
steps: problem exploration (workshop 1), problem definition (workshop 2), problem
solving (workshop 3).
The Action Plans are therefore based on three pillars—diagnosis (of the local
potentials, needs and challenges), mission (agreeing as an ecosystem of stake-
holders—Heritage Innovation Network—on the path towards circular cultural
tourism), and vision (concrete steps that will be implemented within indicated time
frame). Additionally, the Action Plans:
• Contribute to the development strategies of pilot heritage sites and local
governments
• Map the circular economy concept in the unique context of the local heritage and
in connection to circular cultural tourism and beyond
• Refer to cultural Europeanisation, highlighting the European value of heritage in
the pilot areas
• Valorise or re-valorise concrete intangible and tangible cultural heritage assets
• Use principles of human-centred approach (applied to both communities and
visitors, all understood as beneficiaries of the revitalisation of the territory)
• Focus on Be.CULTOUR innovation areas
• Cover short-term and long-term perspectives going beyond the implementation
of the project
• Be feasible in a given region and possible to be implemented by the local

authorities or external stakeholders.
The process of Action Plans development was rooted in the preliminary work
conducted to identify challenges and potentials of the heritage sites and overall
cultural destinations, based on interviews to stakeholders, surveys to visitors and resi-
dents, statistical and territorial data collection and interpretation. This continuity was
crucial in guaranteeing the relevance and importance of the Be.CULTOUR Action
Plans in synergy with existing strategies and resources at territorial level, starting
from building the knowledge framework and local context conditions. In this way
it was also possible to identify stakeholders with various level of interest and influ-
ence on the project and approach them all, despite the power relations. Based on the
identified gaps and potential, Action Plans contribute in innovative ways to existing
plans and strategies and put the local communities at the centre of positive change.
In reference to the human-centred approach methodology, the workshop prepa-
ration process was based on the use of visual elements in co-creation exercises and
processes (McKim, 1980; Norman, 2002). On the one hand, this meant using images
in the materials. On the other hand, the goal was to encourage participants to form
ideas in drawings, schemes, posters. In selected exercises local maps, newspapers,
postcards and photos were used enabling visual storytelling fostering the co-creation
process. Visual materials also served to widely disseminate the project approach
and results (see Fig. 3). Within the Action Plans preparation process, the six pilot
heritage sites were invited to interact on a collaborative digital board and reflect on the
visual metaphor that best shows their experience in aligning bottom-up community
plans with municipal, regional and national strategies. The exercise was inspired by
the book Images of Organization by Alexander and Morgan (Alexander & Morgan,
1988) and concerned four selected metaphors (brain, machine, organism, instrument
of domination) that illustrate complex relationships in a simple way. The aim was
to provoke self-reflection of the participants and possible search for better ways of
cooperation and communication between the various levels in the further work on
Action Plans.
3.2 Results of the Six Strategic Action Plans in the European

Pilot Heritage Sites
The core of the co-creation processes in human-centred approach during the

Be.CULTOUR workshops was the empowerment of the communities involved in
creating actions, based on the capacities and needs of representatives of various
groups. Participants of workshops at the community level had the opportunity to
address the development of circular and sustainable cultural tourism in the field
of heritage via innovative activities, currently in the process of being implemented
(2022–2023). In these community driven, bottom-up strategic visions, sustainability
and circularity were “mediated” in two ways. First through culture as a means of
Fig. 3 Visual co-creation in Pilot Heritage Sites. Copyrights: Be.CULTOUR project, pictures
by local coordinators taken during the local workshops from left to right: Romania-Moldova,
Vojvodina, Aragon)
regional development, embedded in the local history potential that can be economi-
cally and socially beneficial for the community and offering visitors a unique experi-
ence. Second, through capitalization of cultural tourism as a potentially sustainable
business activity. In all six Pilot Heritage Sites, 148 actions in total were designed and
proposed by the stakeholders (Aragon—6, Basilicata—19, Larnaca—13, Romania/
Moldova—8, Västra Götaland—48, Vojvodina—54). As mentioned in the Action
Plan from Basilicata pilot site, the human-centred approach was “focusing on the
relationship between people and with places, aiming at re-discovering and enhancing
the “Genius loci” of the sites, from forests and astonishing lakes to cities and towns
inhabited since ancient times” (Ćwikła et al., 2022) (p. 283). This ambition, which
additionally refers to the life-centred approach as well as to the departure from
the conventional thought of the Anthropocene (Bonneuil & Fressoz, 2017), is also
reflected in other Action Plans (e.g., Aragon and Västra Götaland). In all six Pilot
Heritage Sites, it was thus crucial to recognize the entanglement between cultural
and natural heritage, temporary visitors and permanent residents (vulnerable social
groups representatives) around identified assets and within the system of stakeholders
(Fig. 4).
Fig. 4 Stakeholders’ categories involved in the co-creation process of the Action Plans
The issue of inclusion was not understood purely as “participation.” The aim was
to tailor the actions to specific needs of different people. As a result of defining the
path towards circular tourism, the benefits are to be felt both by the local commu-
nities and the visitors (e.g. in Romania/Moldova the “Stephen the Great VR route”
action). In addition, the communities designing actions highlighted the importance
of specific groups, including: education (in Romania/Moldova and in Basilicata),
youth and ageing population (in Aragon and in Västra Götaland), women (travelling
alone or gaining new opportunities to run their own business, taking over leadership
roles which is considered not sufficient in Vojvodina and in Aragon), and diverse
communities (in Vojvodina specific actions have been proposed to reflect on the
inclusion and social cohesion).
Accessibility has been reflected in various ways in the actions in terms of marking
the interesting spots in a simple yet communicative way, offering translation in several
languages, including people with disabilities, creating friendly offers for families,
minorities, diverse genders. Inclusion is rooted in European identity and history,
from great ethnical variety (Vojvodina), through traces from the history (Jewish and
Mudejar heritage in Aragon) to relative social homogeneity in a country with high
percentage of foreign-born population (Västra Götaland). Each Pilot Heritage Site has
a unique connection with European culture and contributes to its diverse identity (e.g.
the legacy of Emperor Federico II in Basilicata and Stephen the Great in Romania/
Moldova). In addition, the shift from linear to circular tourism was considered a
financial opportunity to save resources and develop new businesses models enhancing
economic opportunities for individuals and communities. The actions proposed in the
six Pilot Heritage Sites reflected the Be.CULTOUR Innovation Areas and interpret
the emerging trends identified in the project concept are based on unexceptional,
engaging storytelling, authentic yet unusual understanding of heritage, and seek
for place-based and people-based solutions. Those context-specific reflections on
circular tourism aim at turning visitors into temporary residents and residents into
temporary visitors. The stories told to explain ambitions towards circular tourism and
beyond should bring benefits to communities, tourists, industries and businesses, and
the environment.
One clear conclusion from the process across the pilots is that the co-design is
key to unlocking innovation for circular tourism. Its success and influence, partic-
ularly regarding novelty for the tourism sector, lies therein with its governance
structure allowing co-decisions and co-implementation. For further consideration in
replication and upscaling efforts following trends highlighted by the Be.CULTOUR
community of practice it could be inspirational to reflect upon the following aspects:
• Highlighting nature in areas with unique cultural heritage—Pilot Heritage Areas
recognized as
• assets not only the intangible and tangible cultural heritage, but also the
surrounding nature (e.g., the “Innovative Ecosystem Centre” in Aragon; the
“Monticchio lakes paths and natural heritage valorisation in Rionero and
surroundings”in Basilicata; “The Bison’s Land Heritage” in Romania/Moldova;
in Vojvodina the “Monastery product development”).
• Sensorial and experiential stays—(e.g., in Basilicata “Astrotourism projects

linked with ancient heritage sites and remains; in Västra Götaland “new winter
experiences, skiing, skating, ice fishing”; Vojvodina’s. “Development of human-
centred, total wellness tourism”; in Larnaca, spiritual journeys).
• Digital environment—The presence of digital tools, accelerated by the COVID-
19 pandemic, can be seen as opportunities and in the case of the Be.CULTOUR
Pilot Heritage Sites this assumption contributes to fairly novel approaches. For
example, the historic, religious assets in Vojvodina will be linked with sustainable
tourism via digital presence. This idea combines two worlds: the virtual one as
space for promotion of tourist destinations and the physical one as terrain for local
entrepreneurs taking financial advantage of novel approaches to cultural heritage.
In Larnaca the on-line tools have practical function facilitating the organisational
processes while in Vojvodina herbs are to be used not only in culinary products
but also be part of digital archive documenting the heritage of the region.
• Hubs and labs for innovation, business, and entrepreneurship—As stated in the
document from Basilicata “The strategic Action Plan of Vulture—Alto Bradano
for circular cultural tourism aims at re-interpreting in innovative ways the rich
tangible, intangible and natural heritage of this unique area of Basilicata to
make it a driver of new attractiveness and wellbeing for residents and visitors”
(Ćwikła et al., 2022) (p. 284). In Västra Götaland the actions on “Attracting new
inhabitants by interpretation campaign” and in Vojvodina “Business Hub Estab-
lishment in Sremski Karlovci” should create new opportunities for entrepreneurs
and businesswomen (and businessmen). In Larnaca a living lab will be created as
an open, innovative ecosystem enabling further innovations in the areas and their
implementation based on public–private-people partnership.
The key commonalities that have emerged from the Action Plans can be
summarised.
by the following observations: reducing environmental impact, taking care for
both residents and the visitors, striving for balance in exploitation of the assets
and their protection, establishing new opportunities for just transition and resilient
entrepreneurial models based on cultural and natural heritage in circular and human-
centred cultural tourism. All Action Plans put people at the centre of actions, keeping
in mind the crucial relation with nature, balance in developing innovative solutions
and the boundaries needed to be respected. At the same time, all actions are embedded
in the local circumstances which influence their uniqueness in cultural, economic
and social aspects. Thus, some actions are more natural heritage oriented (Aragon),
some are rooted in the historical stories (Basilicata), other in focusing on the needs
of the residents (Västra Götaland), several are based on comprehensive strategies of
development (Vojvodina), other aim at defining new goals and opportunities for the
communities resulting from shift towards circular tourism (Larnaca) and some are
using archetypal figures from the past in shaping the newest European history attrac-
tive for visitors (Romania/Moldova). Furthermore, all Action Plans are contributing
to the existing ambitions aiming at sustainable development in the given regions
(Table 1).
Table 1 Overview of chosen strategic documents Action Plans are contributing to. Source Ćwikła
et al. (2022, p. 56)
Pilot heritage Strategic document Level
site region
Aragon Sustainable Tourism Strategy 2030 Regional
Basilicata Touristic Promotion Plan (2021–2024) Regional
Larnaca Cyprus Action Plan for the transition to a circular economy National
2021–2027,
Romania/ National Sustainable Development Strategy SDD2030 (Romania), National
Moldova various regulations of the Ministry of Culture and the Ministry of
Environment (Moldova)
Västra Regional Development Strategy 2021–2030, Västra Götalands Regional
Götaland Smart Specialization Strategy (3S), Regional Cultural Strategy
2020–2023
Vojvodina National and Provincial Policies and Legislation, EU Framework Various
for Sustainable and Cultural Tourism
3.3 Key Achievements and Future Outlook in Six Pilot

Heritage Sites
The project focused on stakeholder engagement and the integration of circular

economy principles to create a more inclusive, resilient, environmentally friendly
as well as innovative and inspiring cultural tourism models. Key achievements can
be summarized in the following way. The project successfully engaged various stake-
holders, including local communities, tourism businesses, government agencies,
cultural and research organizations. Regular consultations, workshops, and webinar
were organized both at the project level and at the local coordinator level to ensure
active participation and collaboration during co-creation and co-implementation
phases. Stakeholders were involved in decision-making processes, allowing them
to contribute their local knowledge, cultural heritage, and concerns. This partici-
patory approach fostered a sense of ownership of the co-created Action Plans and
cooperation among stakeholders.
The resulting Action Plans promoted the adoption of circular economy princi-
ples within the cultural tourism strategies of remote European destinations. This
involved reducing waste, optimizing natural resources use, enhancing skills and
capacities between tourism operators and stakeholders, adopting green and slow
mobility systems in the areas, and encouraging sustainable practices. Local busi-
nesses were stimulated to co-implement specific measures such as waste recycling,
energy-efficient infrastructure, and sustainable sourcing of goods and services. This
happened while rethinking the potential of the cultural and natural heritage assets.
Last, but not least, Action Plans particularly focused on preserving and enhancing
the less-known cultural and natural heritage of these remote European destinations.
Cultural heritage recovery, regeneration and valorisation involved mapping cultural
and natural assets, identifying intangible cultural practices, and developing sustain-
able tourism and place-branding strategies that aim to respect local traditions and
values, avoiding commodification processes of local cultural heritage, often at the
risk of disappearing due to abandonment and neglect. Plans for allowing cultural
visitors to discover local heritage were developed, including use of digital infras-
tructure to actively engage with local communities, learn about their traditions, and
contribute to their preservation.
Compared to initial context situations, it could be observed as an increase in
knowledge and awareness of stakeholders on circular economy, networking and
collaboration benefits, innovation and strategic planning. New EU funded projects
and local initiatives were starting, such as the Single Market Programme “TRACE”
(SMEs transition towards a European circular tourism ecosystem) running in 4 out
of 6 pilot heritage sites, engaging tourism operators and stakeholders in transitioning
to circular economy updating and enhancing their skills and business model and
accessing environmental certifications. Moreover, a series of cultural initiatives and
festivals were launched under the Action Plans implementation, and new financial
resources were attracted to territories for developing bike-sharing projects and bike
routes, digital supporting tools for enhanced visit to cultural and natural sites, as well
as intangible heritage recognition and valorisation.
Clearly, the launch of several initiatives does not ensure that all objectives and
results will be reached, however it can be foreseen that the enhanced capacity and
knowledge of stakeholders in the target areas will be key for monitoring, adjusting
and implementing sustainability and circularity actions in the longer term, beyond
the EU funded project timespan.
The next session discusses the strengths and barriers encountered during the
co-creation process in the pilot heritage sites of Be.CULTOUR project, proposing
conclusive reflections on next research needs towards a more circular and sustainable
cultural tourism.
4 Discussion and Conclusions
The outcomes of Action Plans can be used as a blueprint for similar initiatives
in other remote European destinations. During the Be.CULTOUR project, replica-
tion and peer-learning was discussed with 16 additional cultural tourism ecosys-
tems and 3 experienced advisor organisations (CreaTour network, Historic Environ-
ment Scotland, Future for Religious Heritage) to co-learn and exchange ideas and
reflections. Further collaboration with tourism authorities and organizations at the
regional, national, and international levels was fostered to facilitate the scaling up and
replication of the project’s achievements and thus ensure longer term sustainability.
Understanding the needs of the stakeholders and embracing emerging technologies
and innovative solutions will be crucial for developing circular cultural tourism in
remote European destinations.
Continuous education and awareness campaigns targeting both tourists and locals
will play a vital role in promoting sustainable tourism practices. In Be.CULTOUR,
this is part of the place-branding strategies tailored at the local level and developed
with the stakeholders. First ideas of tangible-intangible products and services rooted
in natural-cultural heritage are not only results of human-centred approach as busi-
ness strategy (Giacomin, 2014b) but can also go beyond human-centred approach as
creative strategies highlighting phenomena in the living systems (Jones, 2022) that
are to be considered part of the circular cultural tourism. The holistic approach to
these major challenges requires not only what can be provided within a framework
of a project, based on proven methodologies, but needs to trigger actions fuelled
by the cultural values, artefacts and assumptions the heritage is manifestation of.
The already mentioned local knowledge needs further place-based and people-based
sources of information. Thus, in relation to the research literature, the experience of
the six Be.CULTOUR pilot heritage sites could be seen as an example of generating
situated knowledge. Highlighting the better understanding of the local heritage with
intuition and generational expertise in dealing with uncertainty from this point of view
could be an added value of the project, arguing the limits of dualistic approach in
perceiving and tackling climate change with innovative circular solutions in cultural
tourism and beyond.
Throughout the period of work on Action Plans co-creation (Autumn 2021 to
Summer 2022), research actors, local leaders and stakeholders were involved in
the process, defining and implementing the methodology and tools to support the
collaborative work. During the process, the project encountered various barriers and
obstacles (natural in collaborative efforts) that were collectively addressed, taking
into account the external and internal environments of the organizations and groups
involved in the co-creation process. The external environment refers to the broader
perspective encompassing organizations, individuals, and factors that influence stake-
holder networks’ functioning both during the project and beyond. On the other hand,
the internal environment pertains to the relationships among stakeholders directly
engaged in the Action Plans, including interactions during individual meetings and
all three workshops (Fig. 5).
Fig. 5 Stakeholders’
categories involved in the
co-creation process of the
Action Plans
External environment had an influence on the process, from the covid-19 pandemic
to the war in Ukraine, at the border of Romania-Moldova pilot heritage site. The
uncertainty is often discussed at the local levels with the authorities and for example
tour operators or other professionals from the tourism industry.
Despite the Action Plans implementation is currently not concluded, some
considerations on the methodology and results can be made.
First, it should be noted that stakeholder engagement requires time, resources,
and expertise. However, stakeholders, particularly local communities and small busi-
nesses, may have limited resources and capacities to actively participate in the co-
creation process. This issue entails the local innovation ecosystem, which should be
progressively enhanced at the European level shifting the focus from big innovative
cities to small urban areas and remote, rural contexts. Between the pilot areas, diverse
levels of engagement and advancements could be observed in Be.CULTOUR project.
The relationship between the local innovation ecosystem, the capacity of collabora-
tion and level of trust, and the results obtained will be objects of further exploration
to identify the main drivers and barriers of co-creation processes for circular cultural
tourism in remote and rural areas. So far, peer-learning and exchange of best practices
was observed to be very beneficial to enhance the level of knowledge of stakeholders
and small businesses who could have difficulties in becoming more innovative and
entrepreneurial.
Another issue could be related to the lack of continuity in the long term. Sustaining
the participants’ initial level of engagement proved challenging due to the extended
co-working period spanning several months. However, the workshops were designed
to be inclusive, allowing for new participants to join and contribute. Additionally,
in some areas multiple projects can be ongoing involving local stakeholders. Thus,
participants often have to allocate resources to other activities. Private enterprises and
start-ups faced greater difficulties in this regard compared to public organizations. To
accommodate the needs of this group, the workshop dates, times, and formats were
adjusted accordingly, with some exercises conducted online and others in person. The
local coordinators and facilitators made continuous efforts to maintain participants’
involvement, overcome biases, and foster an inclusive environment. For instance,
additional webinars and consultations were organized to demonstrate the project’s
ability to adapt and respond to changing circumstances and requirements.
An important issue during the co-creation process concerned reaching not only
the ‘usual suspects’ but also other stakeholders. For this purpose, a stakeholder
ecosystem mapping was carried out, repeated and deepened during the workshops,
opening the invitation to smaller businesses, minority cultures and diverse social
groups, both individuals or representatives of diverse organisations. The resulting
Action Plans show a mix of small-scale actions conducted by informal groups and
more infrastructural investments fostered by the authorities. The needed synergies to
carry out the actions at all levels are continuously monitored and object of discussion
with the local coordinators, adjusting and integrating the efforts during all phases
of implementation taking into account the needs of diverse community groups. At
the end of the co-creation process, participants could commit to a ‘Local Pact’ as an
expression of interest in further collaboration.
The utilization of co-creation processes in developing strategic Action Plans can

serve as valuable tools to initiate a reflection based on values in cultural tourism
destinations. These processes aim to identify the objectives (what) and the underlying
motivations (why) for achieving them. The initial reflection phase was considered
essential and emerged as the most crucial step prior to devising actions and solu-
tions. It played a significant role in fostering shared values among stakeholders and
establishing a consensus on the desired future development of the cultural tourism
destination. Community engagement and participatory decision-making can enhance
opportunities for collaboration, however it should be also taken into account that the
diverse stakeholders involved may have diverse interests, priorities, and perspec-
tives. Balancing these interests and finding common ground can be challenging.
For example, local communities may prioritize cultural preservation, while tourism
businesses may focus on economic growth. However, apparently conflicting interests
could be put in synergy through creative solutions. Instead of adopting “business as
usual”, creativity and innovation was fostered in all pilot heritage sites to combine
heritage conservation, communities’ needs and economic opportunities. Moreover,
exercises such as ‘future newspaper’ and other visualisation techniques proved to be
a valid support to enhance stakeholders’ capacity to identify common objectives and
pursue them over time, sharing similar visions. Clearly, stakeholders’ engagement
could be not enough to ensure that co-created action plans are implemented in the
long term. Institutional commitment at the local and regional level could greatly
contribute to stimulate mutual trust and cooperation, stimulating further investments
in terms of human resources, capacity building, and financial support.
Also, lack of knowledge and understanding of circular economy, sustainable
cultural tourism, cultural heritage regeneration, collaboration and innovation, could
hinder not only the implementation, but also the effectiveness of the co-creation
processes. Thus, initial knowledge sharing activities involving researchers, public
officers, innovators and diverse community groups would be largely beneficial to
enhance local capacity (human capital) and increase the likelihood of effective and
feasible action plans preparation, enhancing their implementation over the longer
term.
Finally, availability of reliable data and data management and interpretation
capacity at the local level can be key to support action plans choices, monitoring
and review processes, adjusting targets, resources and timing based on evidence of
the impacts and effectiveness of diverse actions, projects and initiatives. In remote
areas, data management can be particularly challenging, as less data are available
compared to large cities or well-known tourism destinations. However, a focused
effort in retrieving and analysing data should be foreseen to allow better management
and understanding of ongoing processes.
The experience of Be.CULTOUR pilot heritage sites in co-creating strategic action
plans for circular and human-centred cultural tourism can be a relevant background
for other less known and remote destinations to co-develop collaborative strategies
for cultural tourism innovation, enhancing cultural heritage regeneration, people
wellbeing, and generating long-lasting local economic wealth grounded on a circular
ecological economy model to benefit people and nature at the same time.
Acknowledgements A.G. developed the overall research concept and co-creation methodology,
introduction and research questions, identification of pilot case studies, coordination of the research,
discussion and conclusions, as well as funding acquisition. M.C. developed the specific tools for co-
creation, coordinated the developing and monitoring of Action Plans in all pilot heritage sites, results
of co-creation process and co-developed conclusive reflections. C.G. co-developed the research
and co-creation methodology, introduction and conclusive reflections. M.B. developed literature
research background, and contributed to monitoring of Action Plans and conclusive reflections.
Funding This research was funded under the framework of Horizon 2020 research project
Be.CULTOUR "Beyond cultural tourism". This project has received funding from the European
Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 101004627.
References
Alexander, J. W., & Morgan, G. (1988). Images of organization. Am. J. Nurs., 88, https://doi.org/
10.2307/3425778.
Angrisano, M., Biancamano, P. F., Bosone, M., Carone, P., Daldanise, G., De Rosa, F., Franciosa,
A., Gravagnuolo, A., Iodice, S., Nocca, F. et al. (2016). Towards operationalizing UNESCO
Recommendations on"Historic Urban Landscape": A position paper. Aestimum, 69. https://doi.
org/10.13128/Aestimum-20454.
Bonneuil, C., & Fressoz, J.-B. (2017). The shock of the anthropocene. Verso.
Bosone, M., & Nocca, F. (2022). Human circular tourism as the tourism of tomorrow: The role of
travellers in achieving a more sustainable and circular tourism. Sustainability, 14, 12218. https://
doi.org/10.3390/su141912218
Bosone, M., Micheletti, S., Gravagnuolo, A., Garzillo, C., & Wildman, A. (2019). Towards a circular
governance for the adaptive reuse of cultural heritage. BDC. Boll. Del Cent. Calza Bini, 19,
279–305. https://doi.org/10.6092/2284-4732/7270
Brandsen, T., Steen, T., & Verschuere, B. (2018). Co-production and co-creation: Engaging citizens
in public services.
CenTour project CEnTOUR—Circular Economy in Tourism.
Chesbrough, H. W. (2003). Open innovation the new imperative for creating and profiting from
technology Xerox PARC the achievements and limits of closed innovation. Press.
Chesbrough, H. W., & Appleyard, M. M. (2007). Open innovation and strategy. Calif. Manage.
Rev., 50.
Cirtoinno project—Destination: A circular tourism economy Cirtoinno project—Destination: A
circular tourism economy.
Clarkson, J., & Coleman, R. (2010). Inclusive design. Journal of Engineering Design, 21, 127–129.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09544821003693689
CLIC project CLIC Pilot Local Action Plans: One Approach, Diverse Outcomes. (2021).
CLIC project—Circular models Leveraging Investments in Cultural heritage adaptive reuse Horizon
2020 project “CLIC project—Circular models Leveraging Investments in Cultural heritage
adaptive reuse.”
Cohan, P.S. Startup Cities; 2018;
Ćwikła, M., Garzillo, C., & Silverton, S. (2022). Action Plans and concept solutions for sustainable
cultural tourism in pilot heritage sites
Ellen MacArthur Foundation Towards the Circular Economy: Economyc and business rationale for
accelerated transition. (2013). J. Ind. Ecol.
Ellen MacArthur Foundation; McKinsey & Company Towards the Circular Economy : Accelerating
the scale-up across global supply chains. (2014). World Econ. Forum.
Ellen MacArthur Foundation Growth within: a circular economy vision for a competitive Europe.
(2015a).
Ellen MacArthur Foundation Towards a Circular Economy: Business Rationale for an Accelerated
Transition. (2015b).
Ellen MacArthur Foundation What is a circular economy?
European Union Transition Pathway for Tourism. (2022).
European Commission The Human-Centred City: Recommendations for research and innovation
actions; Luxembourg (2020a).
European Commission The human-centred city. Opportunities for citizens through research and
innovation. (2020b).
European Commission The European Green Deal. (2019).
European Comission New European Bauhaus. Europa.Eu. (2021a).
European Commission EU taxonomy for sustainable activities. Eur. Comm. (2021b).
Feranita, F., Kotlar, J., & De Massis, A. (2017). Collaborative innovation in family firms: Past
research, current debates and agenda for future research. J. Fam. Bus. Strateg. 8. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jfbs.2017.07.001.
Font, X., & Lynes, J. (2018). Corporate social responsibility in tourism and hospitality. J. Sustain.
Tour. 26.
Fusco Girard, L. (2019). The human-centred city development and the circular regeneration. In
Matera, città del sistema ecologico uomo/società/natura il ruolo della cultura per la rigener-
azione del sistema urbano/territoriale; Fusco Girard, L., Trillo, C., Bosone, M., Eds.; Giannini
Publisher: Naples. ISBN 978-88-6906-120-2.
Fusco Girard, L., & Gravagnuolo, A. (2017). Circular economy and cultural heritage/landscape
regeneration. Circular business, financing and governance models for a competitive Europe.
BDC. Boll. Del Cent. Calza Bini 1/2017, 35–52.
Fusco Girard, L., Nocca, F., & Gravagnuolo, A. (2019). Matera: City of nature, city of culture, city of
regeneration. Towards a landscape-based and culture-based urban circular economy. Aestimum
74, 5–42, https://doi.org/10.13128/aestim-7007.
Fusco Girard, L., & Nocca, F. (2020). Climate change and health impacts in urban areas: Towards
hybrid evaluation tools for new governance. Atmosphere (basel). https://doi.org/10.3390/atm
os11121344
Giacomin, J. (2014). What is human centred design? Des. J. 17. https://doi.org/10.2752/175630
614X14056185480186.
Giacomin, J. (2014b). What is human centred design? The Design Journal, 17, 606–623.
Gravagnuolo, A., & Varotto, M. (2021). Terraced landscapes regeneration in the perspective of the
circular economy. Sustain, 13, https://doi.org/10.3390/SU13084347.
Gravagnuolo, A., Micheletti, S., & Bosone, M. (2021a). A participatory approach for “Circular”
adaptive reuse of cultural heritage. Building a heritage community in Salerno, Italy. Sustain. 13,
4812. https://doi.org/10.3390/SU13094812.
Gravagnuolo, A., Marasco, A., Fasciglione, M., Xydia, S., Matei, A., Garzillo, C., & D’Auria,
I. (2021b). Protocol / methodology for human-centred innovation in sustainable and circular
cultural tourism (v1).
Gupta, J., Hurley, F., Grobicki, A., Keating, T., Stoett, P., Baker, E., Guhl, A., Davies, J., & Ekins,
P. (2019). Communicating the health of the planet and its links to human health. Lancet Planet
Heal, 3, e204–e206.
Hanza, R. (2018). Contributions regarding the research of the sustainable development in agro-
tourism from a circular economy perspective, Universitatea „Lucian Blaga" din Sibiu.
Horizon 2020 project “Be.CULTOUR—Beyond CULtural TOURism: heritage innovation networks
as drivers of Europeanisation towards a human-centred and circular tourism economy.”
ILUCIDARE project Evaluation Report on Focus Groups and Co-Creation Ateliers. (2020).
IPCC Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to
the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (2014). ISBN
9789291691432.
IPCC Global warming of 1.5°C. (2018). ISBN 9789291691531.

IPCC Special Report: Global Warming of 1.5 C. (2019).
Jones, H. (2022). Beyond human-centred design. Mapping Empathy in Living Systems. In
Metadesigning Designing in the Anthropocene; Wood, J., Ed.; Routledge: New York, pp. 1–14.
Ketchen, D. J., Ireland, R. D., & Snow, C. C. (2007). Strategic entrepreneurship, collaborative
innovation, and wealth creation. Strateg. Entrep. J. 1. https://doi.org/10.1002/sej.20.
Krippendorff, K. (2004). Intrinsic motivation and human-centred design. Theor. Issues Ergon. Sci.
5. https://doi.org/10.1080/1463922031000086717.
Manniche, J., Larsen, K. T., Broegaard, R. B., & Holland, E. (2017). Destination: A circular tourism
economy
Marasco, A., De Martino, M., Magnotti, F., & Morvillo, A. (2018). Collaborative innovation
in tourism and hospitality: A systematic review of the literature. International Journal of
Contemporary Hospitality Management, 30, 2364–2395. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-01-
2018-0043
McKim, R. H. (1980). Thinking visually: A strategy manual for problem solving. Dale Seymour
Publications.
Misuraca, G.; Pasi, G.; Abadie, F. Innovating EU Social Protection Systems through ICTs. JRC
Insights—Soc. Policy Innov. Ser. 2017.
Munhoz, D. R. M., Fadel, L. M., Spinillo, C. G., Oliveira, A. E. F. de, Assis, K. M. M. de., Júnior,
D. J. L. R. (2020). A human centred-design approach to a serious game in health training for the
open university of the unified health system (UNA-SUS/UFMA) in Brazil. Eur. J. Teach. Educ.
2, 24–34. https://doi.org/10.33422/ejte.v2i3.493.
Naydenov, K. (2018). Circular tourism as a key for eco-innovations in circular economy based on
sustainable development. Int. Multidiscip. Sci. GeoConference Surv. Geol. Min. Ecol. Manag.
SGEM 18, 135–142. https://doi.org/10.5593/sgem2018/5.3/S28.017.
Nocca, F., Bosone, M., De Toro, P., & Fusco Girard, L. (1845). Towards the human circular
tourism: Recommendations, actions, and multidimensional indicators for the tourist category.
Sustainability, 2023, 15. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15031845
Norman, D. (2002). Emotion & design: attractive things work better. Interactions, 9.
Open Heritage project Organizing, Promoting and Enabling Heritage Reuse through Inclusion,
Technology, Ac-cess, Governance and Empowerment. (2019).
Patti, S., & Messina, A. (2019). From linear to circular tourism: Environmental challenge for
tourism. Adv. Integr. Approaches to Environ. Econ. Policy Emerg. Res. Oppor. 120–139. https://
doi.org/10.4018/978-1-5225-9562-5.ch007.
The European Parliament New Circular Economy Action Plan. Integr. Secur. Wester Eur. (2021).
ROCK project Integrated Management Plans (IMPs). (2021).
Sorin, F., & Einarsson, S. (2020). Circular Economy in Travel and Tourism: A conceptual framework
for a sustainable, resilient and future proof industry transition.
UNEP Decoupling Natural Resource Use and Environmental Impacts from Economic Growth.
(2011). ISBN 9789280731675.
Watts, N., Amann, M., Arnell, N., Ayeb-Karlsson, S., Belesova, K., Berry, H., Bouley, T., Boykoff,
M., Byass, P., Cai, W., et al. (2018). The 2018 report of the Lancet Countdown on health and
climate change: Shaping the health of nations for centuries to come. Lancet, 392, 2479–2514.
Cultural Tourism in the Cyclades Before
and After the Pandemic: A Stakeholders’
Perspective
Theano S. Terkenli and Vasilki Georgoula
Abstract The paper engages in a critical assessment of the changes in cultural

tourism largely due to the COVID-19 pandemic, from the period before to the period
after the pandemic, as regards both the supply and the demand sides of tourism,
through the eyes of local/regional/national stakeholders, in the case of the Cyclades,
Greece. Methodologically, the study relies on a series of stakeholders’ interviews,
a round-table discussion and a short questionnaire, undertaken in the context of
the H2020 EU project SPOT, during the years 2020–2022. This material is then
combined, using a SWOT analysis, in the context of a discussion and assessment of
the problems, pitfalls and potential ensuing from the pandemic in Cyclades cultural
tourism, towards a resilient, sustainable, or transformative future for the islands’
tourism and cultural sectors. The paper begins with an overview of relevant scientific
literature, it continues with the presentation of the study’s research questions and
data collection, and then proceeds to the analysis and discussion of the stakeholders’
opinions, perspectives, visions and recommendations on the changing relationship
culture-tourism and the SWOT analysis. A general conclusion is that current and
emerging trends and patterns seem to reinforce the reciprocal relationship culture-
tourism, but also to reconfigure it, in line with new and evolving trends and patterns
of cultural tourism.
Keywords Cultural tourism · Tourism sustainability · Local sustainability · Post

pandemic · Cyclades · Greece
T. S. Terkenli (B)
Department of Geography, University of the Aegean, University Hill, Mytilene, Greece
e-mail: terkenli@aegean.gr
V. Georgoula
Department of Tourism Economic and Management, University of the Aegean, Michalon 8,
Chios, Greece
e-mail: v.georgoula@aegean.gr

70 T. S. Terkenli and V. Georgoula
1 Introduction
The COVID-19 pandemic (2020–2022), currently at its end, instigated a long series
of serious impacts on tourism and related sectors and activities. Some of its reper-
cussions seem destined to alter or at least modify 21st mobility patterns and travel
cultures, while others seem to have dissipated into a return to ‘business as usual’.
Greek tourism strongly reflects these trends, with the Cyclades, reaching record
highs, at the tail-end of the pandemic.1 In 2022, the country welcomed over 31
million airport arrivals, whereas the overall number of inbound visitors in Greece had
peaked at roughly 34 million in 2019 (INSETE, 2020; The National Herald, 2023).
Specifically, Greek islands, and particularly the Cyclades marked a 39.8 percent
increase in tourist arrivals to 1.1 million in the January-August 2022 period or up by
an additional 313,000, compared to the same period in record year 20192 . This article
tackles the lessons, insights, and prospects that the pandemic imparted on Cyclades
cultural tourism, which must, nevertheless be placed in their broader context of a
series of hatching and incumbent crises of global scope, in all sectors of life, including
tourism, towards a resilient or transformative and sustainable future for the islands’
tourism and cultural sectors.
The role, position, and potential of ‘culture’ in/ for tourism during this volatile
and transformative period was and continues to be less straightforward than that
of ‘nature’, where a turn towards ‘greener’ and more sustainable tourism, at more
remote and ‘safe’/ protected, less crowded destinations, has gained ground. Not
only does ‘culture’ defy prescriptive and reductionist approaches to its study and
understanding, but it is also always under flux and regeneration. Furthermore, culture
represents an often-unstated motive for travel and tourism, that spans an endless
gamut of attractions, which elude statistical recording and proper scientific analysis,
rendering continuous research into culture-motivated tourism (‘cultural tourism’) an
important scientific objective on a permanent basis (Jacobsen et al., 2021; UNWTO,
2020).
This paper explores cultural tourism trends, insights, and prospects as they have
emerged from the period of the pandemic, in a comparative study of pre- and post-
pandemic stakeholders’ opinions, perspectives, visions and recommendations on
the changing relationship culture-tourism, in the Cyclades, Greece. It engages in a
critical assessment and SWOT analysis of the changes in cultural tourism largely due
to the COVID-19 pandemic, from the period before to the period after the pandemic,
as regards both the supply and the demand sides of tourism. It achieves this goal
through the eyes of local/regional/national stakeholders, with the aid of qualitative
data collection undertaken in the context of the H2020 EU project SPOT3 during the
years 2020–2022. The approach is a case-study analysis, purporting to contribute
to theory and empirical knowledge on current change in the tourism sector, and
1 https://www.schengenvisainfo.com/news/greece-aegean-islands-register-record-tourist-arrivals.
2 https://news.gtp.gr/2022/10/03/greek-islands-win-share-8-month-tourism-arrivals.
3 http://www.spotprojecth2020.eu/.
Cultural Tourism in the Cyclades Before and After the Pandemic … 71
specifically in heavily tourism-dependent economies/ societies, such as the Greek

islands.
Tourism studies and practices have increasingly tended to engage with or consider
culture, as a pivotal factor contributing to or affected by processes of production of
tourism spaces/ places/ landscapes, movement, sustainability, development, identity,
etc. Even though culture is a complex concept and constantly in flux and redefinition
(Richards, 2018), it lies at the crux of the tourism phenomenon. Broadly defined as the
highest-level, most deeply-ingrained, comprehensive and stable system of reference
in human life (Throsby, 2008; Williams, 1958), culture represents all tangible and
intangible manifestations of human life and creativity, which, in turn, may generate
recreational/ tourism mobilities, termed ‘cultural tourism’ (Mandic & Kennell, 2021;
Pandora, 2009; Richards, 2018).
For the purposes of our study, we adopt the definition of cultural tourism as
the compound set of activities of tourism planning, effectuating, and experiencing
a destination, with the—broadly defined—motive of culture (Mandic & Kennell,
2021). Furthermore, for our study purposes, we establish that we embrace culture
in its broader sense, as encompassing all relevant tourist motives and typologies
(Kaufman & Scantlebury, 2007; McKercher & Cros, 2003; Sayeh, 2022; Weaver
et al., 2001), with special attention not to delimit it to ‘high culture’ or ‘heritage’ appli-
cations to tourism, as is often cultural tourism in Greece misleadingly confounded
with.
The last few decades have witnessed significant research advances in cultural
tourism (Chen & Huang, 2017; McKercher, 2002) through various perspectives, with
a special emphasis on its complex and variegated motivational aspects of cultural
tourism (Kay, 2009; McKercher & Cros, 2003; Weaver et al., 2001). According
to Richards (2021) (Richards, 2021), the clear challenge posed in defining cultural
tourism seems to be the conceptualization both of cultural products offered for tourist
consumption and of the cultural processes which generate the motivation to partic-
ipate in cultural tourism. Cultural tourists, thus, are not homogeneous; they may
respond to a series of different aspects of attractions/ products that may relate to any
number of distinctive material, intellectual, spiritual, and emotional features offered
by a destination (UNWTO, 2017). Relevant research inroads, however, seem to have
been seriously compounded by the COVID-19 pandemic (Jacobsen et al., 2021;
Knezevic et al., 2021), which, nonetheless, presented new grounds for furthering the
study of cultural tourism, by developing pertinent knowledge in times of great fluidity
and future uncertainty. Our study is placed in the latter context and perspective.
Despite the major upheaval that the COVID-19 pandemic wrought into the
tourism sector, up until 2020, tourism arrivals and expenditure had continued to grow
(UNWTO, 2020), a trend that also reflects tourism trends at the top Greek destina-
tions (INSETE, 2020, 2021). The Cycladic Islands, among the most world-renowned
tourism destinations in Greece, belong to the Southern Aegean archipelago, and

represent a highly competitive top global destination (Berg & Edelheim, 2012;
INSETE, 2020). All in all, the Southern Aegean islands (Cyclades and Dodecanese)
tend to attract 1 out of 4 tourists visiting Greece (Bank of Greece, 2023; INSETE,
2020; Statista, 2021). Cultural tourists do not all travel with the same motivations or
engage similarly in cultural activities at their destination; rather some of them may
be characterized as casual, incidental, or serendipitous cultural tourists (McKercher,
2002), with reference to their declared or underlying motives. Accordingly, although
an unstated fact, the Cyclades’ cultural heritage and assets tend to be their most
significant comparative advantages distinguishing and upholding them as tourism
destinations, vis-à-vis their competitors. The broad spectrum of these cultural assets
elicits variable cultural tourism, a form of tourism that has been significantly affected
by the pandemic and its global and local repercussions (Iaquinto, 2022; Jacobsen
et al., 2021; Knezevic et al., 2021).
Moreover, the Cycladic islands have always been extremely dependent on tourism
for their economic survival (INSETE, 2020). What makes this island archipelago
especially dependent on tourism, is the fact that the growth and development of all
other sectors of local/ regional economy in the Cyclades (such as primary-sector
activities, services, culture, gastronomy etc.) tend to follow those of tourism, which
constitutes the main—and rather fragile and vulnerable–source of income for the
whole region. Despite the fact that a lot of recent research has been focusing on the
impacts of the pandemic on tourism, such research is obviously not definitive on the
matter. More research is called for to assess such impacts on such destinations (i.e.,
small tourism-dependent Mediterranean islands), considering the issues brought up
by the pandemic, in their broader past and future perspective (Ferretti, 2021).
3 The Research Design
The Cyclades were selected as our study area, as a significant global tourism desti-
nation, but also based on their especially rich present and past cultural heritage. The
Cycladic islands generally feature small- and medium-scale tourism, as opposed to
‘industrial tourism’, since they are not as heavily reliant on mass/ package tourism
(with the exception, perhaps, of Mykonos and Santorini), a trend also reflected
in the locally supplied types of accommodation (Sarantakou & Terkenli, 2019;
Sarantakou & Tsartas, 2015).
The study’s research questions were as follows:
1. What were the distinctive characteristics of cultural tourism in the Cyclades,
before the pandemic?
2. How were these affected by the pandemic?
3. What is the outlook for cultural tourism in the Cyclades, after the pandemic?
To achieve the study’s objective, the following methodological steps were
undertaken in the context of the H2020 EU project SPOT during the years 2020–2022:
Table 1 The methodology of data collection and stakeholder types, in three stages (2020–2022)
(a) a series of stakeholders’ interviews, September 2020

(b) a round-table discussion, July 2021
(c) a small, targeted questionnaire, November 2022
The motivation for choosing three different methods in the three subsequent years
of our study duration lay in capturing the progress of the pandemic impact on cultural
tourism in the Cyclades. The research was conducted by the authors themselves and
included the following types of stakeholders in culture, tourism, and cultural tourism,
both locally, as well as at the regional and national levels (Table 1). They were drawn
from the total pool of our case study’s stakeholders; those that ended up participating
in the different stages of our research were those that responded positively to our
invitation. Nonetheless, the resulting sample ended up being quite representative of
both sectors (culture, tourism) and the three levels of governance. Each research step
built on and supplemented the previous one: the stakeholders’ interviews were of
more general content and scope, rather exploratory in character, aiming to cover all
aspects of the study’s subject matter, at the beginning of the pandemic; the round-table
discussion was our core research tool, encompassing a series of targeted, in-depth
questions4 on same aspects of culture, tourism and cultural tourism at the three
governmental levels, at the mid-point of the pandemic; and the end questionnaire
included only three open-ended questions that purported to assess the stakeholders’
perceptions of the changes brought about by the pandemic on issues and aspects of
cultural tourism in the Cyclades and Greece, at its tail end.
The material collected through this research was then combined using a SWOT
analysis, in order to discuss and assess the problems, pitfalls and potential of the
changes ensuing from the pandemic in Cyclades cultural tourism, towards a resilient
or transformative and sustainable future for the islands’ tourism and cultural sectors.
4 Research Findings: Analysis and Discussion
Research Question 1. findings on the distinctive characteristics of pre-pandemic

Cyclades cultural tourism
4 The roundtable discussion focused on questions regarding the definition of cultural tourism; policy
formulation promoting the development of cultural tourism, its implementation, monitoring, and
evaluation; relevant infrastructures; local engagement/ benefits from cultural tourism; sustainable
local development and the ‘Green Agenda’; innovation and shared future visions; and finally, the
impact of COVID-19 pandemic on cultural tourism, at all levels.
As world-wise tourism scientific and grey literature attests to, the Cyclades, and espe-
cially the islands of Mykonos and Santorini, are among the most world-renowned and
highly competitive global-tourism destinations in Greece (INSETE, 2020; WTTC,
2020), with significant implications for these islands’ economic survival and devel-
opment (Coccossis, 2001; DiaNeosis, 2015). Indicatively, international tourist air
arrivals in the Cycladic islands in 2019 reached 994,000 according to official statis-
tical data (INSETE, 2020). Besides their strong 3Ss (sea-sand-sun) allure, the
Cyclades also boast striking natural/ environmental assets, great landscape diver-
sity, and rich cultural traditions and heritage, dating back to the antiquities (Berg &
Edelheim, 2012; Prokopiou et al., 2018). As already mentioned, cultural tourism
differs from island to island, and it does not represent a conscious tourism motive
for most Cyclades visitors; however, broadly defined, culture remains the factor that
underlies tourists’ decision to visit these islands.
Cycladic culture encompasses both tangible and intangible, folk, historical/ arche-
ological and contemporary sites, monuments, practices, and landscapes, i.e., distinc-
tive traditional Aegean architecture and townscapes, gastronomy and music, art and
crafts, feasts, and festivals, etc. On the negative side, incoming tourists may not
only enjoy the assets, but also suffer the limitations, of their fragile insular char-
acter (smaller-scale destinations, insularity-induced resource limitations etc.), often
resulting in traffic congestion, infrastructure overload, and problems in environmental
quality and service satisfaction (Tsartas et al., 2020). On the positive side, however,
local Cycladic communities seem to be more close-knit and tightly linked with their
cultural traditions than other parts of Greece or other island groups (Dianeosis, 2015;
Stewart, 2016). Consequently, it is their cultural attractions, taken all together, that
render them a most significant pole of both local and international tourism attraction.
Our study stakeholders implied and underlined these facts, but focused more on the
situation at the time, as regards tourism, culture, and the ways they come together
in cultural tourism. According to all our study participants, although tourism had
generally been thriving in most Cycladic destinations before the pandemic, cultural
tourism suffered from an overconcentration in specific sites/ attractions, a lack of
organizational coordination, inadequate infrastructures, and circumstantial clien-
tele. Although there seemed to be tourist satisfaction with locally provided cultural
tourism aspects/ attractions and apparent interest in all types and forms of cultural
tourism, admittedly several aspects of existing current Cycladic cultural tourism
leave much to be desired (number, diversity, pricing, and quality of offered cultural
activities). As the Vice Mayor of Syros asserted in his interview, cultural tourism
for “our” islands has, so far, been tourism “complementary to the main sea-sand-sun
type of tourism” they attract. Indicatively, out of the 3 million tourists in Santorini in
2019, only 450,000 visited its most significant cultural attraction, the archeological
site of Akrotiri. The understandings of all sides involved in our research matched the
state and challenges of cultural tourism in the Cyclades, eliciting the desire for more
and more diverse and geographically dispersed attractions/site/events in this area.
The role and significance of culture in Cyclades tourism was highly advocated
and extolled by all our stakeholders and other surveyed sides (residents, tourists,
entrepreneurs) at all stages, throughout our study, even though culture was viewed as
the realm most susceptible to adverse tourism impacts. A propos, the representative
of the Cyclades Chamber of Commerce highlighted the importance of preserving
local/ regional culture, heritage, and traditions as a living part of island life and the
present way of living, and not stage them only for external consumption, that is for
sale to tourists: “you either make it your reality or you lose it”. He further discussed
this issue with the aid of the example of fishing boats: “there can be no cultural
tourism if we wipe out traditional ship-making and local shipyards—which the State
has steadily elicited for many years now, either purposefully or inadvertently. This
is very serious for the islands, where boats and other traditional sea-vessels are of
utmost importance for island life—indeed, a crucial part of island traditional life”.
One of the structural problems in Greece vis-à-vis culture is that it tends to be
confounded with ‘high culture’, a tendency that was obvious throughout, as well
as in the more quantitative survey findings of our case study work in the context
of the SPOT project.5 Cultural tourism, as conventionally promoted by the Greek
State and other top-down institutions, refers mostly to archeological sites, museums,
galleries, and theaters, and certainly reinforces those heritage aspects of the islands’
place identity, tourism growth and local sustainable development. However, as it is
based on relics of the past and high culture, such cultural tourism does not elicit
further growth, creativity, and diversification in matters of culture and/ or tourism
development/ enrichment. This understanding of ‘culture’ was succinctly echoed
by the Cyclades Ephor of Antiquities input to the roundtable discussion and highly
representative of the predominant national (Ministry of Culture) position and attitude
towards culture, more generally (top-down perspective). This shortcoming has over-
arching repercussions on the development, management/ protection, and promotion
of all (other) cultural artifacts, sites, events, and other assets for the Cyclades and
for Greece. As pointed out by most local actors/ tourism-related parties (bottom-up
perspective), the remediation of this problem will have the additional beneficial effect
of attracting and/ or creating a far broader market spectrum for Cyclades domestic
and international cultural tourism.
As pointed out by all our stakeholders, tourism in the Cyclades had been contin-
uously growing in the pre-pandemic decades. Furthermore, cultural tourism had
helped enhance and promote tourism flows in the region; it had directly and indirectly
contributed to economic growth, to population retention, to an increase in employ-
ment opportunities, to variable (infrastructural and other) investments, and to overall
local and regional development, including cultural development, thus sustaining a
beneficent cycle of further cultural tourism development. However, it did so, despite
the absence of the State. The general opinion of our stakeholders here was that
“there is no central planning for cultural tourism in the Cyclades. Many factors
come into play as regards the development of cultural tourism here, but no pertinent
tourism policy exists” (Ephor of Antiquities), coupled with a lack of cooperation
among all interested and involved parties, regarding cultural tourism. The regional
representative of the National Tourism Organization of Greece (EOT) recounted that:
5 http://www.spotprojecth2020.eu/reportsandoutcomes.
As regards the role of local communities in the development of cultural tourism here, after
the 1970s, many stakeholders from many sides started to mobilize and get involved in the
cultural tourism sector; this trend flourished in the 1980s; and, in many cases, it went on:
these parties continued to do what they had been doing, now in an official local government
framework. This tradition has gone on for a long time already, has come full-circle and cannot
deliver anything new in this regard. We have seen new schemata emerge since then, of people
(individual citizens, groups of various sorts, cultural clubs, official organizations, NGOs etc.)
who are interested in and determined to offer new, innovative, digital etc. approaches and
initiatives to matters of culture and cultural tourism, with successful results in some cases—
and not in other cases, due to the aforementioned hostile general environment, in which they
are called to operate.
According to the same stakeholder, “this is an area of tourism growth necessitating

more integrated and participatory planning, both from the side of the public sector and
local authorities and from the side of the civil society. The latter must commit to joint
actions in planning and synthesizing these actions in common goals…towards (a)
tourism promotion/ marketing and (b) tourism product organization/ enhancement/
maturation”. A propos, the Chamber of Commerce representative pointed out that
they:
Have not yet managed to activate local interest and participation in such events/ undertak-
ings: a cultural deficit, indicating a vacuum for the islands …Because there are no organized
cultural institutions in Greece, which could assume this task; it is all unchartered territory,
to be handled… by those genuinely interested in doing so. Normally and habitually, these
efforts are ‘officially’ undertaken under the protective and regulatory guidance mainly of
the Municipalities…but there is so much that a Municipality can do… without any central
planning, which means that each island has its own cultural production/ consumption char-
acteristics and identity/ profile …As regards progress in these matters, in the past few years,
and the espousing of new technologies, innovation, green development etc., there has been
rather balanced growth and development in all Cycladic islands, although each island has
its own character and place in such progress.
Research Question 2. findings on how culture and cultural tourism were affected by
the pandemic.
The onset of the pandemic certainly ushered a change in mindsets as regards tourism
and many other sectors of social life, both in Greece and beyond. The pandemic
brought new ways of looking at existing issues, situations, issues, problems etc.
and a turn away from mass tourism towards more sustainable forms of tourism
mobilities (INSETE, 2021; Jacobsen et al., 2021; Knezevic et al., 2021). During the
summer of 2020, the pandemic altered local priorities in Cyclades (cultural) tourism,
shifting them towards more realistic goals of survival, at least from the supply side.
From the demand side of Cyclades cultural tourism, market priorities shifted more
towards individualized and ‘protected’ modes of travel, to domestic but often remote
and non-urban destinations; domestic tourism took over and predominated in 2020.
Furthermore, the pandemic revealed and exposed a series of structural and functional
inefficiencies and longstanding problems in the Greek tourism industry, while it
brought to the fore relevant exigencies and urgencies. All the progress that had
been achieved in the years prior to the crises, in terms of more sustainable/ ‘green’,
innovative/ creative, and technologically upgraded cultural (tourism) development,

was put on hold by the grave socio-economic crisis (2008–2015) and the pandemic,
with unpredictable future repercussions.
Data collected in the context of the SPOT project during the early pandemic
times (summer 2020) indicated high tourist interest in the Cyclades for gastronomic
events or sites, folklore-related activities, and other local cultural events and festivals.
However, these activities were served a serious blow, despite the fact that Greece was
considered to be a relatively safe national and international tourism destination at
the time, due to successful measures taken by the Greek government at the time
(Constantoglou & Klothaki, 2021; National Geographic, 2020). Tourism mobilities
were significantly curtailed, in terms of type of tourism, ratio of domestic vs. foreign
tourism, frequency of traveling, length of stay at destination, type of transport used,
preferred type of destination, behavioral patterns during traveling, cultural activi-
ties at destination, etc. However, the very high percentage of repeat-travelers to the
Cyclades, even in times of the pandemic, indicated a degree of customer loyalty to
the destination (http://www.spotprojecth2020.eu).
At the outset of the pandemic (summer 2020), the supply side of Cyclades tourism,
culture, and cultural tourism expressed great concern with regard to addressing and
overcoming the challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic in these sectors (SPOT find-
ings6 ). Local tourism entrepreneurs expressed a fatigue in having to assume the brunt
of efforts to sustain the islands’ tourism sector on their own, without the State’s help,
called to operate in a ‘hostile environment’ (Terkenli & Georgoula, 2021). Our round-
table discussants referred to the State’s misguided actions in combatting the pandemic
and its repercussions, leading to an even more pronounced and grave loss of cultural
traditions/ heritage, jobs, and opportunities for a sustainable future in local culture
and island life. New parameters were reportedly brought to cultural tourism by the
pandemic, such as the opportunity for post-pandemic regeneration, “but with several
collateral losses, e.g., many people employed in the sector of culture have already
changed profession” and several businesses closed permanently.
Culture has habitually been considered as the realm most susceptible to adverse
tourism impacts and repercussions. A great number of cultural activities ingrained
in local ways of life were banned or did not take place at all during 2020, especially
those conducive to large concentrations of participants/ spectators, such as religious
feasts and all sorts of cultural festivals. The Chamber of Commerce representative
asserted that the gravest impact of the pandemic was on culture, while the EOT
representative explained:
All parts of the cultural sector have been gravely affected, as regards all aspects of these
sectors, so much so that people in the sector did not believe that it would be possible for them
to return to their professions and creative activities/ occupations, after all these crises are over.
But also we, as spectators, are held back by both the pandemic and the concomitant State
measures (both psychologically and institutionally) in enjoying culture as we did before. If
you cannot dance at a local feast, it is no longer such a feast. The sense of letting loose, of
co-existing/ communicating with other people in the realm of culture has been all but lost,
6 http://www.spotprojecth2020.eu/reportsandoutcomes.
even though it has been facilitated by new technologies and the digitalization of culture and
cultural activities—but that cannot substitute the actual experiences in their actual contexts.
On the other hand, the tourists who visited the Cyclades in the summer of
2020 imbibed in more expenses and/ or spent more money at the destination
(Kathimerini Newspaper, 2021); as pointed out by one of our interviewees, “they
sought to invest in the crisis”. Furthermore, the Vice Mayor of Santorini for Culture
pointed out that the respite from rampant tourism growth and activity on Santorini
that the pandemic brought about allowed for a period of recollection and re-evaluation
of shortcomings in the sectors of culture and cultural tourism, towards more sustain-
able future solutions, as well as to the turn towards these sectors’ digitalization. For
instance, the so called ‘overtourism’ problems (i.e., traffic congestion in Santorini
and Syros) reportedly abated during the summer of 2020. Although tourist satisfac-
tion during the pandemic was generally lower than that before the pandemic, there
was a significant number of tourists who reported a similar or better experience now
(in pandemic times) as compared to the past. Such findings of our case study work
in the context of SPOT highlight the durable and sustained popularity of (cultural)
tourism in the Cyclades and indicate the capacity of Cycladic tourism to cater to the
needs and demands of a loyal and growing clientele, responding to tourism changes
brought about by the COVID-19 pandemic.
Research Question 3. Findings regarding the post pandemic outlook for cultural
tourism in the Cyclades
Our stakeholders overwhelmingly considered the COVID-19 pandemic as an oppor-
tunity to address old impediments to future tourism growth and development. They
stated that emphasis on ‘green’, sustainable, and milder forms of tourism had been
evolving in the Cyclades even before the pandemic and were cut short by it; they
postulated that these developments would become more and more important in the
future. The SETE Director additionally emphasized the significant outlook for the
digitalization of (cultural) tourism in the post pandemic era, with the aid of new
ICTs (i.e., augmented, and virtual reality), but also the opportunity to take a better
look into and remedy the ills and deficiencies of (cultural) tourism that the pandemic
exposed. He pointed out the dynamic potential of cultural tourism development in
the Cyclades, to restitute the two major problems of the islands’ tourism sector:
seasonality and predominance of ‘mass’/ organized tourism. Both he and the Deputy
Mayor of Syros for Tourism advocated the great internal cultural variability/ diver-
sity in the Cycladic Archipelago as a valuable basis and promising competitive edge
for the future development and diversification of Cyclades cultural tourism. Future
visions and goals, as described by the Ephor of Antiquities for the Cyclades, point to
“a different type of tourism that does not destroy the landscape (either built or not)
and the tourism product itself (e.g. turn islands into ‘tourism paradises’), but rather
protects and promotes the intangible heritage of the islands, ways of life and activi-
ties in rural areas and in the sea: these are clearly deteriorating and in the process of
being irrevocably lost”.
A general realization was that there was not a lack of visions vis-à-vis culture and
(cultural) tourism in the Cyclades, but rather a lack of planning, of synergies, of infras-
tructures and of mechanisms to materialize these visions and produce tangible results
towards their future sustainable development. In accordance with other stakeholders’
opinions, the EOT representative stated that she believed that,
After the end of the pandemic, people will crave for more culture and return enthusiastically
to it, as will the organizers of such activities/events …but also new forms of culture and
cultural expression will emerge/develop. These developments may lead to forms of cultural
tourism that are more remote (spatially) and engage smaller numbers of people/ participants,
more abstract types of experiences, more authentic experiences, more controlled and hybrid
big-event activities, simultaneously digitalized: these developments will also favor those
parts of the society with moving disabilities and other particularities, who were formerly
unable to attend to/participate in these activities/events.
A result of successive and unfolding recent crises, our stakeholders deemed that
the future of the Cyclades ought to be grounded on the principles of sustainability,
as regards both cultural tourism and life, in general. All our stakeholders expressed
the need to coordinate and regulate tourist inflows better, to realize such alternative
types of tourism, acknowledging the importance of culture for tourism, and cultural
tourism itself as “the future of the islands”. The Cyclades Chamber of Commerce
representative especially rallied for the preservation or re-instatement and further
development of the islands’ culture, as a tangible fact of everyday life. The EOT
representative brought up the post-pandemic fact that the Cyclades risk becoming
an unaffordable destination for domestic tourism, due to the rising cost of the whole
tourism product, caused by the various ongoing crises in Greek society. For these
and all other previously mentioned inefficiencies and shortcomings in the cultural
tourism sector, our stakeholders proposed a series of amendments and measures
addressed to all levels of government in culture, tourism, and cultural tourism.
There was a call for integrated planning and management of, on the one hand,
cultural traditions, and production and, on the other hand, of tourism activity, in
collaboration with the local societies, in terms of environmental, social, and economic
sustainability. The establishment and development of synergies and partnerships in
all sectors of economy and society were deemed essential for any sustainable future
growth and development of (cultural) tourism, towards local/ regional (tourism)
development and societal well-being. These need to involve all relevant parties
(tourism-related businesses, the authorities, and the cultural sector) and to be initi-
ated both from the top-down and from bottom-up, with the role of the State being
crucial and key to all such development.
The qualitative thematic analysis of the random sample of 150 reviews identified
relevant codes from frequent words and sentences, related to visitor experience to the
historic city centre of Ghent. The analysis revealed several relevant categories—each
with a unique set of keywords. Most analysed reviews included multiple categories
across themes, for example.
Table 2 SWOT analysis of Cyclades cultural tourism
5 Swot Analysis and Conclusions
Conclusively, a valuable asset for the Cyclades sustainable future (tourism) develop-
ment, cultural tourism, was significantly affected by the COVID-19 pandemic and its
global and local repercussions. The significance of culture for tourism and concern
about the cultural impacts of tourism were explicitly expressed by various sides.
The culture–tourism relationship was generally viewed as holding great potential for
all sides involved and for local cultural and overall sustainability, despite the broad
acknowledgement that the great potential for cultural tourism in the study area is,
to date, far from met. Nonetheless, current, and emerging trends and patterns seem
to reinforce the reciprocal relationship culture-tourism, but also to reconfigure it, in
line with new and evolving trends and patterns of cultural tourism.7 Strengths, weak-
nesses, opportunities, and threats pertaining to cultural tourism in the Cyclades, in
its fluid and changeable current context, are presented in Table 2.
In the current turbulent and transitional times for tourism, issues of sustainability
and changing market demands, become especially poignant, pressing, and pivotal for
tourism and destinations in general, calling for change and adaptation to emerging
trends, attitudes, needs, challenges and prospects, despite an attempted return back
to business-as-usual and a post-pandemic recovery led by private business interests.
Nonetheless, in the aftermath of the pandemic and in light of the heightened aware-
ness and re-prioritization of sustainable development and economic self-sufficiency,
the value and significance of protecting the islands’ physical environment, local
character, cultural heritage and cultural production were highly advocated, through a
series of proposed measures addressing longstanding deficiencies and/or future risks
7 Examples of post-pandemic actions prioritizing sustainable tourism practices in the Cyclades:

(a) strategic actions at the national level https://insete.gr/wp-content/uploads/pdf/proorismoi/exe
cutive-summary-kuklades.pdf; (b) the ‘Hotel Footprinting Action’ by the Center for Sustainable
and Circular Bioeconomy and (c) HERMeS NGO.
(i.e. imposing more restrictions on hotel constructions and other tourism infrastruc-
ture, as well as on mass/ package tourism). In this regard, the importance of further
advertising and communicating the natural and cultural beauties of the Cyclades
was raised, in conjunction also with the urgency of regulating tourism flows (‘over-
tourism’ in Santorini) in the islands. Further, ‘greener’, sustainable and ‘alternative’
(special interest/ purpose) tourism development, supported by new ICTs, seemed
to be highly favored by our stakeholders throughout the study. Funding and infras-
tructure provision were deemed essential, as well as tourism vocational training;
information provision to tourists; the digitalization of the tourism sector; and safe-
guarding local culture from tourism commodification. Finally, there was general
agreement that all sectors and levels of government ought to be involved in the
islands’ cultural tourism development and governance, in collaboration with all rele-
vant local/ regional parties (tourism-related businesses, the cultural sector, NGOs
and civil societies).
Acknowledgements This research is part of the EU SPOT project, funded by the European Union’s
Horizon 2020 program for research and innovation under grant agreement no. 870644.
References
Bank of Greece. (2023). Statistics, external sector, balance of payments, travel services. Retrieved
26 March, 2023, from https://www.bankofgreece.gr/en/statistics/external-sector/balance-of-pay
ments/travel-services.
Berg, I., & Edelheim, J. (2012). The attraction of islands: Travellers and tourists in the Cyclades
(Greece) in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries. Journal of Tourism and Cultural Change,
10(1), 84–98. https://doi.org/10.1080/14766825.2012.660946
Chen, G., & Huang, S. S. (2017). Understanding Chinese cultural tourists: Typology and profile.
Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 35(2), 162–177.
Coccossis, H. (2001). Sustainable development and tourism in small islands: Some lessons from
Greece. Anatolia Int. J. Tour. Hosp. Res., 2001(12), 53–58.
Constantoglou, M., & Klothaki, T. (2021). Journal of Tourism and Hospitality Management, 9(5),
288–313. https://doi.org/10.17265/2328-2169/2021.05.004.
DiaNeosis. (2015). Numbers: Greece in wef’s tourism competitiveness report. Retrieved 6 April,
2019, from https://www.Dianeosis.Org/2015/07/poso-antagonistiki-einai-iellada-ston-pagkos
mio-tourismo.
Ferretti, G. M. M. (2021). The travel shock. Hutchins Center on Fiscal and Monetary Policy Working
Paper #74, August 2021. The Brookings Institution.
Iaquinto, B. L. (2022). Locating pro-environmental vernacular practices of tourism. Geography
Compass, pp. 1–12.
INSETE. (2020). Key figures of incoming tourism in Greece (in Greek). Retrieved 4 November,
2021, from https://insete.gr/statistika-eiserxomenou-tourismou.
INSETE. (2021). Megatrends. Greek Tourism: Action Plans 2030 (Greek Tourism. Action Plan
2030) (In Greek). Athens: SETE Institute.
Jacobsen, J. K. S., Farstad, E., Higham, J., Hopkins, D. & Landa-Mata, I. (2021). Travel discon-
tinuities, enforced holidaying-at-home and alternative leisure travel futures after COVID-19,
Tourism Geographies.
Kathimerini Newspaper. (2021). Tourists come with a bigger wallet this year. Economy section,
Sunday 28/11/2021: 5.
Kaufman, T. J., & Scantlebury, M. (2007). Cultural tourism and the vacation ownership industry.
Journal of Retail & Leisure Property 6 (Aug), 213–220.
Kay, P. L. (2009). Cultural experience tourist motives dimensionality: A cross-cultural study. Journal
of Hospitality Marketing & Management, 18(4), 329–371.
Knezevic, C. L., Antonucci, B., Cutrufo, N., Marongiu, L., Rodrigues, M., & Teoh, T. (2021).
Research for TRAN committee – Relaunching transport and tourism in the EU after COVID-19.
Tourism sector, European Parliament, Policy Department for Structural and Cohesion Policies.
Mandic, A., & Kennell, J. (2021). Smart governance for heritage tourism destinations: Contex-
tual factors and destination management organization perspectives. Tourism Management
Perspectives, 39, 1–14.
McKercher, B. (2002). Towards a classification of cultural tourists. International Journal of Tourism
Research, 4(1), 29–38.
McKercher, B., & Du Cros, H. (2003). Testing a cultural tourism typology. International Journal
of Tourism Research, 5(1), 45–58.
National Geographic. (2020). How Greece is rethinking its once bustling tourism industry.
Retrieved from https://www.nationalgeographic.com/travel/article/how-greece-is-coping-wit
hout-tourism-due-to-covid.
Pandora, L. K. (2009). Cultural experience tourist motives dimensionality: A cross-cultural study.
Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, 18(4), 329–371.
Prokopiou, D. G., Mavridoglou, G., Manologlou, S., & Tselentis, B. S. (2018). Tourism development
of the Cyclades islands: Economic, social and carrying capacity assessment and consequences,
WIT transactions on ecology and the environment, 217: 09–521. WIT Press.
Richards, G. (2018). Cultural tourism: a review of recent research and trends. Journal of Hospitality
and Tourism Management 36(Sep), 12–21.
Richards, G. (2021). Rethinking cultural tourism. Edward Elgar Publishing.
Sarantakou, E., & Terkenli, T. S. (2019). Non-institutionalized forms of tourism accommodation and
overtourism impacts on the landscape: The case of Santorini. Tourism Planning & Development,
16(4), 411–433.
Sarantakou, E., & Tsartas, P. (2015). A critical approach to the new framework for creating tourism
investment during the current period of economic crisis 2010–2014. Greek Econ. Outlook, 26,
46–55.
Sayeh, S. (2022). Tourists’ segmentation based on culture as their primary motivation. Athens
Journal of Tourism, 9(3), 183–193.
Sheller, M., & Urry, J. (2006). The new mobilities paradigm. Environment and Planning A, 38(2),
207–226.
Statista. (2021). Number of international air arrivals on the Greek island of Santorini from 2010
to 2020. Retrieved 30 December, 2021, from https://www.statista.com/statistics/880883/santor
ini-international-air-arrivals.
Stewart, C. (2016). Demons and the devil: Moral imagination in the modern Greek culture. Princeton
University Press.
Terkenli, T. S., & Georgoula, V.: Tourism and cultural sustainability: Views and prospects from
cyclades, Greece. Sustainability, 14(1), 307. MDPI AG., https://doi.org/10.3390/su14010307.
The National Herald. (2023). In 2022, Greece Saw Record 31 million Tourists Arrive at Airports.
Retrieved 27 March, 2023, from https://www.thenationalherald.com/in-2022-greece-saw-rec
ord-31-million-tourists-arrive-at-airports.
Throsby, D. (2008). Linking ecological and cultural sustainability. Int. J. Divers. Organ. Commu-
nities Nations, 8, 15–20.
Tsartas, P., Zagotsi, S., & Kyriakaki, A. (2020). Toυρίστες, Tαξίδια, Tóπoι. Koινωνιoλoγικšς
ρoσεγγίσεις στoν Toυρισμó (Tourists, Travels, Places, Sociological Perspectives to Tourism)
(in Greek) Athens: Kritiki Publications.
UNWTO. (2017). Tourism and culture, definition of cultural tourism. Retrieved 14 May, 2022, from
https://www.unwto.org/fr/tourism-andculture.
UNWTO. (2020). United Nations World Tourism Organization statistics. International Tourism
Highlights, 2020 Edition.
Weaver, P., Kaufman, T. J., & Yoon, Y. A. (2001). Market segmentation study based on benefits
sought by visitors at heritage sites. Tourism Analysis, 6(3–4), 213–222.
Williams, R. (1958). Culture and society 1780–1950. Chatto & Windus.
WTTC. (2020). Travel and tourism-global economic impact & trends 2020. London: WTTC.
Responsible, Circular,
and Human-Centred Regional
Development Potential
A Framework for Responsible Tourism
in Scotland’s Historic Environment:
Experiences from Transforming Tourism
at a Film-Induced Heritage Visitor
Attraction
Vanessa Glindmeier and Gary Treacy
Abstract Global recognition of the importance of responsible tourism and its bene-
fits, which can be enjoyed by all, both now and in the future, without detriment
to communities and the environment, is growing. While tourism is a major compo-
nent of the Scottish economy, it also contributes to climate change through associated
greenhouse gas emissions. Heritage and cultural tourism contributes to making better
places for people to live in, and better places for people to visit, whilst contributing
significantly to Scotland’s green recovery from the pandemic and its transition to
net zero and a climate-resilient society, when responsible tourism principles are
at the heart of decision making. Historic Environment Scotland (HES), Scotland’s
lead public body for the historic environment and largest operator of paid-for visitor
attractions published its HES Responsible Tourism Framework in March 2023, deter-
mining how the organisation will adopt responsible tourism principles to transform
its approach to tourism operations, equally respecting the needs of local communities,
visitors, the environment, and of the cultural heritage itself. In 2019, HES obtained
funding to deliver a pilot project at Doune Castle, alongside which the Framework
has been developed. The castle was chosen as a case study as it, and the village it is
located in, has experienced pressure through increased footfall following its appear-
ance on the hit TV series ‘Outlander’. This paper presents how the HES Responsible
Tourism Framework has been applied at Doune Castle, supporting the transformation
of heritage and cultural tourism to the site to a more responsible model.
Keywords Responsible heritage tourism · Climate change · Local communities
V. Glindmeier (B) · G. Treacy

Historic Environment Scotland, Edinburgh, Scotland
e-mail: vanessa.glindmeier@hes.scot
G. Treacy
e-mail: gary.treacy@hes.scot

88 V. Glindmeier and G. Treacy
1 Introduction
Historic Environment Scotland (HES) is the lead public body established to inves-
tigate, care for, and promote Scotland’s historic environment. Responsible for 336
properties of national importance, such as buildings and monuments including Edin-
burgh Castle, Skara Brae, and Fort George, HES is the largest operator of paid-for
visitor attractions in Scotland, drawing more than 5 million visitors to staffed sites
in 2018.
Both a rise in visitor numbers and the changing climate have put pressure on
Scotland’s built and natural heritage assets. In addition, the sector has been immensely
affected by the global coronavirus pandemic, which has brought international travel
and tourism to a standstill for intermittent periods from early 2020 to as far as early
2023 in some parts of the world. An opportunity to move away from previous, less
sustainable approaches to tourism has been identified, to ensure that built and natural
heritage can be enjoyed by future generations. The threats to our cultural assets
from climate change are increasingly understood, for example through exemplary
work identifying Coastal Resilience and Adaptation Options for the Bay of Skaill
(Rennie et al., 2021) and the Guide to Climate Change Impacts on Scotland’s Historic
Environment (2019), but perhaps less well articulated is the significant contribution
that the historic environment sector, including its connection to tourism, can make to
transition to a low carbon economy. Responsible heritage and cultural tourism can
contribute to making better places for people to live in and better places for people
to visit, by supporting a green recovery from the pandemic and Scotland’s transition
to net zero and a climate resilient society (Historic Environment Scotland, 2022).
Heritage and cultural tourism can support low-carbon activities by using sustain-
able supply chains, reducing energy use and waste generation on sites, and devel-
oping lower-carbon and regional itineraries. It can work for the local area when good
quality, local jobs are created and sustained, and local businesses and communities
are included in decision-making.
HES has been identified as a ‘Major Player’ under the Climate Change (Scotland)
Act 2009, which puts a duty on the organisation to act as an exemplar and contribute
to climate change mitigation and adaptation, and to act sustainably (Climate Change
(Scotland) Act, 2009; The Scottish Government, 2011).
This paper presents the newly developed HES Responsible Tourism Framework,
which aims to transform tourism in Scotland’s historic environment to ensure it can
be enjoyed by all, now, and in the future. The paper provides an example of the
Framework’s application at a film-induced heritage visitor attraction in HES’s care,
Doune Castle.
A Framework for Responsible Tourism in Scotland’s Historic … 89
2 Tourism in Scotland
Tourism is a major component of the Scottish economy, with £3.20 bn spent by

domestic visitors, and £2.54 bn spent by international visitors, in 2019 (VisitScotland
Insights Department, 2019). According to the ‘Scotland Visitor Survey 2015 & 2016’,
51% of European survey respondees, and 52% of international survey respondees
indicated that their trip to Scotland was motivated by history and culture, and 60%
of overall visitors to Scotland have engaged with the historic environment at least
once during their trip by visiting historic houses or stately homes. 12% of survey
respondees from Europe or a long-haul market such as Australia, were prompted to
visit by one or more TV shows featuring Scotland, most notably Outlander. The 1995
movie Braveheart was quoted most where a film featuring Scotland has prompted a
visit, mainly with 16% by French, German, and Spanish respondees (VisitScotland,
2017).
3 Heritage and Cultural Tourism and Climate Change
While tourism can deliver benefits for communities and foster understanding and
respect, contributing to community wealth building, it also impacts the natural envi-
ronment. Increased footfall to an area can lead to soil erosion, the loss of natural
habitats of both flora and fauna, and increased pollution, including littering. Tourism
contributes to global climate change through associated greenhouse gas (GHG) emis-
sions, such as those generated through the production and consumption of products
and services which account for 80% of Scotland’s carbon footprint (Zero Waste
Scotland, 2021), as well as transport, including international and domestic aviation,
accounting for 25.9% of net GHG emissions in Scotland (Transport Scotland, 2023).
The industry has been identified by the Scottish Government as a key sector in
the green economic recovery and just transition to net zero by 2045 (The Scottish
Government, 2018).
Scotland’s national tourism strategy ‘Scotland Outlook 2030—Responsible
Tourism for a Sustainable Future’, developed by the Scottish Tourism Alliance with
HES represented on the Strategy Steering Group, sets out the vision for Scotland
to become a leader in twenty-first century tourism. It addresses climate change and
supporting the inclusive economic recovery of the Scottish tourism sector at its
core (The Scottish Tourism Alliance et al., 2020). Subsequently, Scotland’s National
Tourist Organisation (NTO) VisitScotland became part of the Drafting Committee
of the Glasgow Declaration (One Planet Network, 2021), and the first NTO to
declare a Climate Emergency, and has developed a Responsible Tourism Promise
(VisitScotland, 2021).
4 The HES Responsible Tourism Framework
In response to the growing recognition of responsible tourism and its benefits, which
can be enjoyed by all without detriment to communities and the environment, HES
has developed a new Responsible Tourism Framework (Historic Environment Scot-
land, 2023). The Framework outlines the way in which the organisation adopts
responsible tourism principles to transform its tourism operations. The approach
reflects HES’s role in caring for Scotland’s historic environment, managing historic
sites to tell Scotland’s story in an inclusive and respectful way, with regard to the
needs of the environment, local communities, visitors, and of the cultural heritage
sites themselves.
The Framework highlights the opportunities of adopting a responsible tourism
model for HES, including increased resilience and independence from carbon
and resource-intensive operational models. Further, it responds to changing visitor
behaviour and numbers, as well as growing visitor expectations for ethical, low-
carbon tourism experiences. It is a driver for innovation in new ways to welcome
visitors. In order to empower everyone to participate in decision-making, HES plans
to work in partnerships across the tourism sector, community groups, and beyond,
with the aim of maximising local economic and wellbeing benefits and increasing
cultural awareness, identity and inclusion, by unlocking local knowledge.
4.1 The Principles
The HES Responsible Tourism approach is guided by five interlinking principles,

which have been adapted from those laid out in the Cape Town Declaration on
Responsible Tourism of 2002 (Responsible Tourism Partnership, 2008). The five
principles adopted by HES link back to pertinent Scottish policies (see Fig. 1).
4.2 Priority Areas and Outcomes
The Framework proposes actions across three priority areas, with each priority area
containing outcomes around which HES will develop the potential of its operational
activities.
Our Responsibility for the Historic Environment. The priority area concerned
with the historic environment includes efforts to decarbonise HES’s tourism opera-
tions and maximise the positive impact on the environment through the integration
of circular business models and sustainable procurement, as well as enabling and
educating visitors to be responsible consumers through providing low-carbon visitor
experiences.
Fig. 1 HES responsible tourism principles and guiding national policies. © Historic Environment
Scotland
Our Responsibility for People. Our Responsibility for people covers activities
related to HES’s visitors and members of local communities within which their
historic sites are situated. Outcomes in this priority area are co-creating experiences
that enhance the well-being of both communities and visitors while fostering respect
between visitors and residents, and improving access to heritage tourism experiences
for all, all year round and across Scotland.
Our Responsibility for Capacity Building. Our responsibilities for capacity
building priority area proposes activities which support local economic benefit
generation from tourism, strengthen skills development opportunities in responsible
heritage tourism, as well as quality career pathways in the sector, through collabora-
tion with learning institutions and supporting others in adopting responsible tourism
principles into their business models.
4.3 Exemplar for Responsible Tourism in the Historic

Environment
To ensure user-friendliness, application quality, and its practicability, the HES

Responsible Tourism Framework has been developed alongside pilot projects and
initiatives. One such pilot project is the Doune Sustainable Tourism project.
The Doune Sustainable Tourism project aims to raise awareness and community
involvement with Doune Castle, focusing on the reduction of the carbon footprint
of tourism operations, encouraging social and cultural diversity and maximising the
benefits of tourism for communities, such as increasing dwell time and spend in the
village and locale, all of which contribute to sustainable development of the site and
its surrounding areas.
The project focuses on new approaches through familiar tourism functions, which
are: Sustainable Travel, Commercial Operations, Visitor Experience, Access, Land-
scape & Biodiversity, Infrastructure, and Community Engagement. In addition, the
project goes beyond the boundaries of Doune Castle, taking a regional destination
approach by working with local organisations, the local authority, and national agen-
cies such as VisitScotland. This supports our holistic approach to the project and its
stakeholders.
A visualisation of how project activity maps across to the HES Responsible
Tourism Framework is included in the Appendix.
Doune Castle. Doune Castle (see Fig. 2) is located on the banks of the River
Teith in the rural village of Doune, to the north-east of Stirling in central Scotland.
Most of the curtain-walled castle can be dated back to the fourteenth century, with
some of the fabric dating back to the thirteenth century. In 1361, Robert Stewart, the
1st Duke of Albany and Governor of Scotland, also known as ‘Scotland’s uncrowned
king’, acquired the castle and his rich tastes can be seen clearly in the architecture
of the medieval courtyard castle (Historic Environment Scotland, 2017).
Doune Castle was used by the Jacobites as a prison for government troops during
the 1745/6 Jacobite Rising. Following the Rising, the castle fell into disuse, resulting
in a semi-ruinous state. George Philip Stuart, 14th Earl of Moray, restored parts
of Doune Castle to its current state during the 1880s, including re-roofing parts,
Fig. 2 Aerial photograph of Doune Castle. © Historic Environment Scotland

partly furnishing the castle and restoring interiors. Based on its cultural signifi-
cance, including national importance, the castle, including its defences and earth-
works, has been designated a Scheduled Monument and put into State care (Historic
Environment Scotland, 2011).
Today, Doune Castle is popular with visitors from all over the world and forms a
fundamental part of the identity of the village. While tourism to the village presents
economic opportunities, it also puts pressure on its infrastructure. Doune Castle also
has a long-standing collaboration with the local primary school, where its pupils guide
visitors around the castle as part of the Junior Guides scheme (Historic Environment
Scotland, 2017).
As Fig. 3 illustrates, HES’s care covers the castle itself, Doune Roman Fort, and
the surrounding area covering around 16.2 hectares, including the promontory and
point where the River Teith and Ardoch Burn meet. Within the Property in Care (PIC)
boundary lie several buildings part of the Moray Estate, including a former steading
and cottage that today functions as a workshop for HES’s Monument Conservation
Unit, the ruin of a mill, and an icehouse (Historic Environment Scotland, 2017).
A car park with a capacity for about 25 cars is located close to the castle. An
adjacent cottage serves as an office for HES staff, as well as housing visitor welfare
facilities. Visitors can enjoy an audio guide narrated by Monty Python’s Terry Jones
and Sam Heughan of Outlander, and graphic interpretation covering the history of
the castle, and its role in popular culture as a filming location. The current visitor
offer also includes a small shop, boasting a selection of TV and movie memorabilia
alongside historic souvenirs (Historic Environment Scotland, 2017).
Fig. 3 Map of Property in Care (PIC) boundaries at Doune © Historic Environment Scotland
Fig. 4 Winterfell sign at Doune Castle. © Julie Howden
Doune Castle is a popular filming location and has been featured in Monty Python
and the Holy Grail, Game of Thrones and Outlander (see Figs. 4 and 5), attracting
around 147k visitors to the site in 2019/2020. A proportion of today’s visitors are
heavily motivated to visit the castle by its position in popular culture, and the interface
of reality and fiction forms an important part of their visitor experience. It is this
connection, however, which also poses a risk of negative impacts on key historical
features of the castle and the visitor experience of those not associating the castle with
TV and film, highlighting the importance of best practices in visitor management
and responsible tourism by HES. (Historic Environment Scotland, 2017).
Challenges and Opportunities at Doune Castle. The Doune Sustainable
Tourism Project has been developed in response to local challenges identified,
predominantly around increased visitation to the site due to its inclusion in the notable
TV series Outlander. What is now coined the ‘Outlander Effect’ has driven visitor
numbers from around 49.5k in 2024/15, the year that Outlander first aired, to around
147k in 2019/2020, when tourism at Doune was at its height.
This increase in visitor numbers has contributed to several challenges at and
around Doune Castle. It has had a detrimental effect on the natural and built historic
environment, with archaeology in the grounds surrounding the castle starting to be
exposed through the increased footfall. The state of pre-project infrastructure was
susceptible to congestion and unable to support the increased number of visitors to
the village, especially when they arrived as part of a coach trip, which reduced the
overall economic benefit to the village.
Fig. 5 Behind the scenes of Outlander. © 2014 Sony Pictures Television Inc. All Rights Reserved
A major barrier to addressing these challenges and realising opportunities is a lack

of key infrastructure. Prior to the project, there had been no obvious routes between
Doune Castle and Doune Village and therefore, the majority of visitors to Doune
Castle were not exposed to the other attractions in Doune and the surrounding area
including the River Teith, Ardoch Burn, Doune Ponds Nature Reserve, and a village
centre with quality retail and food & drink offering (see Fig. 6).
As Fig. 6 shows, there are numerous established visitor attractions in the vicinity
of Doune complementing the heritage-based visitor offer at Doune Castle to provide
a more complete visitor experience. This includes support to the local economy at
the Deanston Distillery, promoting and engaging with local biodiversity through
the community-managed Doune Ponds Nature Reserve and Argaty Red Kites along
with sharing resources with other nationally recognised visitor attractions, such as
the Blair Drummond Safari Park.
In addition to established visitor attractions, there are opportunities to align with
other initiatives within the region, such as the extension of the national cycle route,
National Route 765, from Doune to Callander, which should provide opportunities
for low-carbon and active travel to the village and castle, whilst tapping into a whole
new connection of visitors from the Loch Lomond and The Trossachs National Park.
Activity. Supported by the VisitScotland Rural Tourism Infrastructure Fund
(RTIF), which supports projects delivered in collaboration to improve visitor expe-
riences in rural parts of Scotland that have seen increased pressures on infrastructure
and communities caused by rising visitor numbers, HES was able to deliver a series
of individual projects to initiate the ‘Doune Sustainable Tourism Project’. These
Fig. 6 Map of wider Doune visitor offer opportunities. © Historic Environment Scotland
projects have been developed and carried out in collaboration with Stirling Council
and representatives of the local community including the Kilmadock Community
Development Trust and Kilmadock Community Council. They focus on sustainable
infrastructure to subsequently maximise benefits to local businesses from tourism
and minimise the negative environmental and social impacts of tourism in the Doune
area.
Since receiving funding in June 2019, HES has been fortunate to be able to deliver
the projects as intended, despite the challenges brought by the COVID-19 pandemic.
The first RTIF project was completed in early 2021. This created a new physical
link from the Castle towards Doune Village, using a new stepped ramp and path (see
Fig. 7), which goes past the site of the Roman Fort leading to and from the Castle.
This was followed by the most significant RTIF project: a new pedestrian bridge
(see Fig. 8) crossing the Ardoch Burn by the Mill of Doune. Setting an example
for future projects, the bridge was built applying sustainable practices, for example
using homegrown Scottish Larch sourced from the woods of the Moray Estate, the
large estate where Doune Castle is located, felling and cutting the timber within
the local area. Locally sourced stone was used to clad the foundations of the bridge
with HES’s apprentice team learning and applying traditional skills to cut and lay
it. By using locally sourced materials and working with local businesses, HES was
able to cut supply chain-associated carbon emissions significantly, demonstrating the
application of sustainable resource use.
Completed in January 2022, this new route leading from Doune Castle to Castle
Farm reconnects the surrounding landscape to the castle and the local community,
Fig. 7 New stepped ramp leading from Doune Castle past the Roman Fort. © Historic Environment
Scotland
Fig. 8 A new pedestrian bridge linking Doune’s heritage assets with its natural environment and
the local village. © Rob McDougall
increasing access along the Ardoch Burn. Following the principle of environmental
stewardship, this enhances the visitor experience and well-being, enabling visitors,
staff, and the local community to enjoy and engage with the impressive natural
environment and other cultural assets that form the setting for Doune Castle. Visitor
Enjoyment scores have risen significantly from 2020 to 2022—from 7.61 to 9.22 out
of 10.
In March 2021, in collaboration with Artlink Central, a local community organ-
isation, HES carried out a mapping exercise that identified current local priorities
for learning, engagement, and visitor experience, and potential partners. Delivering
on the principle of community involvement, various community workshops and
interviews were held online, and links to local community groups were strengthened.
Subsequently, work began on the installation of a new Signage & Interpretation
route, including information signage at Doune Castle on attractions and services in
the village, maps and wayfinding signage to promote a circular walking route through
the village, and interpretation panels of key places of historical interest (see Fig. 9).
By highlighting local businesses in this way, HES hopes to encourage longer dwell
time and spend in the local and wider area, to maximise local economic benefits from
tourism. The HES team on site engage with visitors to direct them on the walking
route and to local businesses.
An in-person engagement event ‘Doune Together’ was held with partners in April
2022 to review achievements and consider future plans, which include trialling a
Fig. 9 Doune historic village panel © Historic Environment Scotland
discount flier for local businesses handed out to castle visitors and supporting the
community with the revitalisation of a business network.
As the new pedestrian bridge is now connecting the village, Doune Castle, and
auxiliary buildings such as the Mill of Doune and Castle Farm, this work has become
a springboard for future activity. Already, delivery of the HES Climate Action Plan
objectives has started through several projects. The Castle Farm Cottage is currently
undergoing traditional building retrofitting targeting Passivhaus standards. A mate-
rial pilot study into Scottish mass timber is taking place at The Mill of Doune, and
following circular economy principles, the Castle Keeper’s Cottage visitor facili-
ties are being upgraded. Finally, options are under consideration to decarbonise the
operation of Doune Castle and generate energy for the site from renewable sources.
This activity is also aligned to and supporting initiatives in the wider community
including the completion of a new visitor Park & Stride transport hub within the
village, including EV charging and active travel infrastructure, a pilot scheme to
develop the public transport connections to Doune attractions and Dunblane train
station, and the development of the wider Local Place Plan by the Kilmadock
Development Trust.
5 Conclusion
Following the success of the ‘Doune Sustainable Tourism Project’ pilot and the launch
of the HES Responsible Tourism Framework in March 2023, HES is expanding the
application of responsible tourism principles into projects and initiatives across its
estate. For example, the Framework, and other relevant HES policies, have informed
the development of a ‘Strategic Tourism Infrastructure Development Plan’ for Black-
ness, a village which is also experiencing challenges due to a steep increase in visitor
numbers to Blackness Castle, cared for by HES, following its appearance in the TV
show Outlander. Funded by VisitScotland’s RTIF and working with Falkirk Council,
HES aims to transform tourism at Blackness Castle by applying responsible tourism
principles to address challenges, similar to those in Doune, including congestion
during the peak season.
The HES Responsible Tourism Framework proposes an alternative approach to
pre-pandemic tourism models and forms a new lens through which the organisation
will consider future investment planning and prioritisation. It supports resolving the
challenges heritage and cultural tourism face by encouraging responsible visitation
while transforming business models to be more circular. This could be an inspiration
for others, who may see challenges only resolved by reducing numbers and actively
using disincentives to dissuade visitors. Instead, responsible tourism principles lie at
the heart of decision-making to ensure the short- and long-term benefits of tourism
are spread to communities, local businesses, local amenities, and both the historic
and natural environment, as well as enjoyed by the tourists themselves.
The project highlights how the holistic approach provided by the Responsible
Tourism Framework can be applied. The individual initiatives within the project
tie back to all three priority areas, from integrating circular economy principles
into tourism operations, the use of locally sourced material for construction, and
enabling visitors to engage responsibly with the biodiversity and landscape in and
around Doune Castle, to working in close partnership with others, especially local
community groups and businesses to better share economic benefits from tourism.
It demonstrates the importance of ensuring that solutions meet the needs of the
community and local businesses, and the environment, as well as tourists.
The Framework’s implementation is not without its challenges. The development
of the Framework has been informed by a wide-reaching internal cross-organisational
consultation, and a formal public consultation carried out through an online survey.
The survey was shared through the required statutory structure of public consulta-
tions in Scotland, which can prove to be rigid and a challenge to engage with all.
Therefore, care has been taken to maximise the reach of consultation through avail-
able traditional and social media platforms. Further work needs to be carried out to
optimise inclusive and meaningful community engagement around the development
of responsible tourism at HES sites, including training staff and exploring innovative
engagement methods.
Furthermore, the tourism sector is currently facing competing demands in its
recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic. The Framework provides the basis on
which activities on site can be transformed, to reflect that responsible tourism can
contribute to the green recovery and a move to a well-being economy, without adverse
effects on the environment and communities. More physical exemplars will showcase
responsible tourism’s benefits and support the wider adoption of this approach.
Lastly, HES is conscious that the application of responsible tourism principles
will look different from site to site, location to location, based on local circum-
stances, knowledge, and capacities. The Framework allows for such flexibilities, but
future applications, such as at Blackness Castle, will be valuable in gaining further
understanding of its resilience.
Appendix
See Table 1 (Historic Environment Scotland, 2023).
Table 1 Depicts how activity within the Doune Sustainable Tourism Project maps across the
outcomes of the HES Responsible Tourism Framework
HES responsible tourism framework outcomes Doune sustainable tourism project
Our responsibility for the historic environment
✓ Embeds resource efficiency and prioritises
reused or remanufactured goods over new
✓ Builds strong and fair partnerships with
suppliers
✓ Targets high-performance retrofit standards,
such as PassivHaus EnerPHit, to explore the
limitations within a sensitive cultural context
✓ Promotes and implements best practices,

avoiding or minimising the negative impacts of
tourism activities on the environment through
enhanced active travel infrastructure and
signage
(continued)
Table 1 (continued)
✓ Embeds sustainable and active travel as a
core consideration in the development of
strategies
✓ Adopts a shared destination approach with
partners to develop low-carbon travel routes
between attractions
Our responsibility for people

✓ Leads proactive dialogue with communities
to explore opportunities within social carrying
capacity thresholds
✓ Supports the development of a baseline to
understand and recognise differing levels of
community engagement
✓ Supports the development of long-term
relationships supporting groups who would
otherwise struggle to engage actively with
heritage and the historic environment
✓ Enhances accessibility and connection of the
site with the surrounding environment and
community, through improved infrastructure
and wayfinding
✓ Enhances the visitor offer, influencing

visitors to spend more time in the area
(continued)
Table 1 (continued)
Our responsibility for capacity building
✓ Increases HES awareness of regional
tourism strategies to identify areas for effective
support and collaboration
✓ Contributes to the development of a

knowledge base and best practice catalogue, to
ensure consistency across the organisation
✓ Contributes to positively influencing

behaviour and inspiring others within the
heritage tourism sector towards taking
responsibility for net zero activities
References
Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009. Retrieved 15 June, 2023, from https://www.legislation.gov.
uk/asp/2009/12/contents
Historic Environment Scotland. (2011). Designations—Doune castle. Retrieved 14 June, 2023, from
http://portal.historicenvironment.scot/designation/SM12765
Historic Environment Scotland. (2017). Statement of significance Doune castle. Retrieved from
https://www.historicenvironment.scot/archives-and-research/publications/publication/?public
ationId=7546c7d2-2a7f-477f-a26c-a57000c9b439
Historic Environment Scotland. (2019). A guide to climate change impacts on Scotland’s historic
environment. Retrieved from https://www.historicenvironment.scot/archives-and-research/pub
lications/publication/?publicationId=843d0c97-d3f4-4510-acd3-aadf0118bf82
Historic Environment Scotland. (2022). Green recovery statement For Scotland’s historic envi-
ronment. Retrieved from https://www.historicenvironment.scot/archives-and-research/publicati
ons/publication/?publicationId=8a0b75d5-0776-4587-8dd5-ae8201362dd4
Historic Environment Scotland. (2023). Responsible tourism framework—transforming heritage

tourism. Retrieved from https://www.historicenvironment.scot/archives-and-research/publicati
ons/publication/?publicationid=30eaf2e3-9e8a-47c3-b9c9-afcb00eca788
One Planet Network. (2021). Tourism climate action—Glasgow declaration. Retrieved 14 June,
2023, from https://www.oneplanetnetwork.org/programmes/sustainable-tourism/glasgow-dec
laration
Rennie, A. F., Hansom, J. D., Hurst, M. D., Muir, F. M. E., Naylor, L. A., Dunkley, R. A., &
MacDonell, C. J. (2021). Dynamic coast: Adaptation and resilience options at the Bay of Skaill.
Scotland’s Centre of Expertise for Waters (CREW). Retrieved from https://www.dynamiccoast.
com/files/dc2/_DC2_WS4_BayOfSkaill_FINAL.pdf
Responsible Tourism Partnership. (2008). Cape Town declaration on responsible tourism. Retrieved
14 June, 2023, from https://responsibletourismpartnership.org/cape-town-declaration-on-res
ponsible-tourism/
Transport Scotland. (2023). Chapter 13—environment. In Scottish transport statistics 2022.
Retrieved 14 June, 2023, from https://www.transport.gov.scot/publication/scottish-transport-sta
tistics-2022/chapter-13-environment/
The Scottish Government. (2011). Public bodies climate change duties: Putting them into practice.
Retrieved from https://www.gov.scot/binaries/content/documents/govscot/publications/adv
ice-and-guidance/2011/02/public-bodies-climate-change-duties-putting-practice-guidance-req
uired-part/documents/0113071-pdf/0113071-pdf/govscot%3Adocument/0113071.pdf
The Scottish Government. (2018). Update to the climate change plan 2018—2032: Securing a green
recovery on a path to net zero. Retrieved from https://www.gov.scot/binaries/content/docume
nts/govscot/publications/strategy-plan/2020/12/securing-green-recovery-path-net-zero-upd
ate-climate-change-plan-20182032/documents/update-climate-change-plan-2018-2032-sec
uring-green-recovery-path-net-zero/update-climate-change-plan-2018-2032-securing-green-
recovery-path-net-zero/govscot%3Adocument/update-climate-change-plan-2018-2032-sec
uring-green-recovery-path-net-zero.pdf
The Scottish Tourism Alliance et al. (2020). Scotland outlook 2030—responsible tourism for
a sustainable future. Retrieved from https://scottishtourismalliance.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/
2020/03/Scotland-Outlook-2030.pdf
VisitScotland. (2017). Scotland visitor survey 2015 and 2016—full version. Retrieved from https://
www.visitscotland.org/binaries/content/assets/dot-org/pdf/research-insights/scotland-visitor-
survey-2015-2016.pdf
VisitScotland. (2021). Scotland’s responsible tourism promise. Retrieved 14 June, 2023, from
https://www.visitscotland.com/travel-planning/responsible-tourism/responsible-promise#:~:
text=I%20promise%20to%20care%20for%20Scotland’s%20communities.&text=Respect%
20the%20locals%20and%20their,that%20are%20found%20throughout%20Scotland
VisitScotland Insights Department. (2019). Key facts on tourism in Scotland. Retrieved 14 June,
2023, from https://www.visitscotland.org/research-insights/about-our-industry/statistics
Zero Waste Scotland. (2021). Carbon cost. Retrieved 8 June, 2023, from https://www.zerowastesco
tland.org.uk/resources/carbon-cost
Heritage and Territory: Tangible
and Intangible Cultural Resources
as Drivers of Regional Development
in Croatia
Zvonimir Kuliš and Blanka Šimundić
Abstract This paper investigates the relationship between cultural heritage, tourism
demand, and regional development in Croatia using a spatial econometrics approach.
A composite Cultural Heritage Index was created based on UNESCO and national
material and immaterial cultural assets within the framework of the Horizon 2020
SmartCulTour project. The spatial autoregressive (SAR) model was employed to
analyze the impact of cultural heritage and tourism demand on regional development
across Croatian NUTS 3 regions while accounting for control variables such as gross
value added and trade openness. The findings reveal that cultural heritage has a
positive and statistically significant effect on regional development, both directly
and indirectly. Tourism demand also plays a vital role in regional development, with
the potential for enhancing positive spillover effects. These results contribute to the
literature by quantitatively demonstrating the link between cultural heritage, tourism,
and regional development in the Croatian context, providing valuable insights for
policymakers to foster sustainable cultural tourism activities.
Keywords Cultural heritage · Tourism demand · Regional development · Spatial

regression · Croatian NUTS 3 regions
1 Introduction
Within the context of a span covering six decades, the tourism industry has evidenced
extraordinary escalation on an international scope, a trend that is also mirrored within
the confines of the European Union (Šimundić, 2017). Nonetheless, the unprece-
dented advent of the COVID-19 pandemic has instigated a severe dislocation in
Z. Kuliš (B) · B. Šimundić

Faculty of Economics, Business and Tourism, University of Split, Cvite Fiskovića 5, 21 000 Split,
Split, Croatia
e-mail: zkulis@efst.hr
B. Šimundić
e-mail: blans@efst.hr

108 Z. Kuliš and B. Šimundić
the global tourism landscape. This disturbance owes its severity to a myriad of
factors, including the enforcement of social distancing regulations, the curtailment
of international transport services, as well as the implementation of governmental
decrees such as quarantines and travel prohibitions (Gunter et al., 2022). As such,
academics and industry professionals alike have increasingly recognized the COVID-
19 crisis as an opportunity for an introspective reevaluation of the prevailing tourism
paradigm. There is growing advocacy for a transformative redirection towards a more
sustainable future in tourism (Yang et al., 2021).
The special form of tourism that can enable and drive regional development, as
well as contribute to the sustainability and resilience of destinations within the EU,
is cultural tourism (Directorate-General for Education, 2019; Directorate-General
for Internal Market, 2022; Lykogianni et al., 2019; Neuts, 2022; Neuts et al., 2021;
Petrić et al., 2020, 2021; Russo & Borg, 2006; Stoica et al., 2022). Cultural heritage
holds immense significance in Europe, which serves as a prominent cultural tourism
destination due to its unparalleled and abundant cultural assets, thereby positioning it
as the foremost global tourist macroregion with a dominant share of tourism demand
(Cultural Heritage). In an analysis by ESPON (Lykogianni et al., 2019), cultural
heritage has been acknowledged not merely as a reservoir of knowledge, facilitator
of social welfare, a conduit for a sense of community identity, and a promoter of
societal cohesion, but also as a critical element of Europe’s socio-economic asset
base. Despite being an inheritance from previous generations, cultural heritage main-
tains a contemporary relevance as a “living” cultural asset, spurring an array of
economic pursuits and permeating the wider economic landscape. Further, the posi-
tive societal impact of cultural heritage is evident in its contributions to employment
rates and gross domestic product growth. This report also underscores that in the
past decade, there has been a rising cognizance among policymakers regarding the
strategic importance of cultural heritage for fostering sustainable territorial devel-
opment and bolstering economic expansion, a fact evidenced in numerous policy
manuscripts within the European context. Additionally, it highlights the advocacy
for a more comprehensive and interdisciplinary methodology in relation to cultural
heritage, a notion that is manifested across multiple European policy domains, such
as the cohesion policy, research and innovation, environmental stewardship, as well
as neighborhood and foreign policy.
Naramski et al. (2022), drawing on an OECD report, estimated that approximately
40% of tourist trips in the twenty-first century involve cultural components, with this
proportion rising to 50% in European and American tourism. Jelinčić and Senkić
(2017) noted that, prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, the global market for cultural
tourism was estimated to be valued between 800 billion and 1.1 trillion USD. Croatia,
experiencing the second-highest annual growth in tourism overnights in the EU
during the second decade of the twenty-first century (Kovačević, 2020; Šimundić
et al., 2022), has emerged as a significant international tourist destination highly
regarded for its rich cultural heritage among foreign tourists (Kordej-De Villa et al.,
2021). In fact, according to a study on the attitudes of respondents from outbound
markets, 54% of surveyed tourists from these markets selected cultural heritage
as a key motivator for their visit to Croatia (2019; Ministry of Tourism & Sport,
Heritage and Territory: Tangible and Intangible Cultural Resources … 109
2022). Demonja (2013) highlights that the abundance of both tangible and intangible
Croatian cultural heritage serves as a foundation for the development of various
forms of cultural tourism, including heritage tourism, UNESCO sites, museums,
archaeological sites, and rural and eco-ethno tourism. Indeed, Croatia possesses an
abundance of cultural assets, garnering recognition on international and national
levels. Šimundić et al. (2022) note that Croatia is included among the 16 European
Union member states that boast ten or more sites listed by UNESCO. At present, a
total of 31 cultural heritage assets from Croatia, 10 tangible and 21 intangible, are
acknowledged in the UNESCO Lists (Ministry of Culture & Media). Additionally, as
documented in the Register of Cultural Property of the Republic of Croatia, managed
by the Ministry of Culture and Media (Ministry of Culture & Media), over 6,400
properties, inclusive of more than 200 intangible assets, are cataloged in The List of
Cultural Goods.
Thus, it is not surprising that, as highlighted by Tomljenović (2021), since the
adoption of Croatia’s first national cultural tourism strategy in 2004, cultural heritage
tourism has become vital for dispersing tourists and fostering regional development.
As the same author explains, the tourism industry acknowledges the potential of
cultural heritage and activities to attract tourists via supply-driven strategies, particu-
larly in Croatia’s continental regions, while also mitigating seasonality and appealing
to higher-spending tourists. The cultural and heritage sectors recognize their role in
promoting tourism and economic development. The 2011–2015 Strategy of Conser-
vation, Protection, and Sustainable Economic Use of Croatian Cultural Heritage
aimed to bolster the economic utilization of culture and heritage, promote cultural
entrepreneurship, and support regional and economic development through cultural
tourism. However, a recent study by Šimundić et al. (2022) contends that the inte-
gration of cultural heritage into the tourism supply remains inadequate, despite the
considerable potential and accessibility of such heritage resources. This conclusion
is also echoed in the recently adopted Sustainable Tourism Development Strategy
until 2030 (Ministry of Tourism & Sport, 2022), which acknowledges that, although
certain destinations within Croatia have effectively promoted and emphasized their
cultural-historical heritage, a considerable portion of this heritage remains unutilized
for tourism purposes (e.g., castles, fortresses, small historic towns, etc.), in spite of
its unmistakable potential. The document underscores the significance of cultural
heritage in shaping the country’s new tourism vision and identifies cultural tourism
as one of the most important tourist products, as well as a key driver for future tourism
development.
Hence, Croatia, characterized by its extensive and diverse cultural resources,
which have not yet been fully exploited, and building upon the recent method-
ological frameworks established in the Horizon2020 SmartCulTour project (Neuts,
2022; Neuts et al., 2021; Petrić et al., 2020, 2021), provides an exceptional context
for examining the potential of cultural resources as a form of territorial capital that
can be utilized for regional development. This paper seeks to investigate the role
of tangible and intangible cultural heritage in catalyzing regional development in
Croatia through cultural tourism. By shedding light on the interplay between cultural
heritage, tourism, and regional development, the paper aims to contribute to the
ongoing discourse on cultural tourism and its role in fostering economic growth,
sustainability, and resilience. In the subsequent sections, this paper will provide
a comprehensive review of the pertinent literature regarding the role of cultural
heritage and tourism in regional development, present the data and the spatial regres-
sion model, and delve into a discussion on research methodology and results. Addi-
tionally, the paper will address the findings and opportunities in capitalizing on
cultural resources for regional development. Ultimately, the paper will put forth
policy recommendations and suggestions for future research.
Panzera (2022) posits that cultural heritage can indeed serve as a catalyst for develop-
ment in a unique and distinctive manner due to its diverse and multifaceted values. She
explains, when viewed as an economic resource, cultural heritage can have a consider-
able influence on local economies due to its economic value (e.g. tourist consumption,
associated investments, and sales). Neuts et al. (2021) outline some of the primary
benefits of cultural heritage, including: (i) enhancing the appeal of regions, cities,
towns, and rural areas; (ii) offering investment opportunities in cultural tourism;
(iii) acting as a catalyst for innovation and creativity; (iv) promoting sustainable
heritage-driven revitalization; and (v) enhancing the overall quality of life.
The most salient and observable connection between cultural heritage and
economic development can be found in tourism. Beginning in the 1970s and
expanding more extensively in the 1980s, heritage tourism emerged as a growing
phenomenon. Local cultural resources, including cultural heritage, have begun to be
viewed as factors contributing to territorial attractiveness, distinction, and compet-
itiveness, and the link between cultural heritage and tourism was increasingly seen
as inseparable (Panzera, 2022). Richards (2018) emphasizes that while the relation-
ship between culture and tourism has always been inherently connected, it is only in
recent decades that their association has been explicitly identified as a unique form
of consumption, termed cultural tourism. Škrabić Perić et al. (2021) expound that
culture holds potential in cultivating destination distinctiveness within the tourism
sector, while tourism simultaneously offers prospects for bolstering cultural produc-
tion and enhancing the economic performance of the cultural sector. The symbiotic
relationship between culture and tourism is also acknowledged by UNWTO (2018).
In a survey conducted among UNWTO Member States, participants were prompted
to identify the various elements of culture and heritage incorporated into their clas-
sification of “cultural tourism.” The majority of participants indicated their inclu-
sion of both tangible and intangible elements of cultural heritage. Tangible aspects
consisted of both global and national monuments, historical edifices, locations,
and cultural pathways. Intangible elements, on the other hand, incorporated tradi-
tions, gastronomy, craftsmanship, festivals, and similar elements. Timothy (2021)
delineates that the phrases “cultural tourism” and “heritage tourism” are habitu-
ally referenced in professional sectors and academic literature as separate, albeit
related or overlapping, phenomena. He further encapsulates that cultural heritage

tourism is inclusive of built heritage, enduring cultural practices, ancient artifacts,
as well as contemporary art and culture. Furthermore, he underscores that although
some scholars prefer to discern cultural tourism from heritage tourism, contingent
on individual motivations or the nature of the resources involved, any extant distinc-
tions are typically slight, thereby allowing the two terms to be used interchangeably.
More recently, Matteucci and Von Zumbusch (2020) propose a re-conceptualization
of cultural tourism. According to their definition, cultural tourism is a distinct
variety of tourism in which tourists interact with heritage, local cultural and creative
endeavors, and the daily cultural routines of host communities. This engagement
aims to facilitate the exchange of experiences characterized by their educational,
aesthetic, creative, emotional, or recreational qualities.
Cultural heritage stands as one of the most prominent resources utilized by tourism
(Csapo, 2012) and serves as a crucial factor in crafting a destination’s distinctive-
ness while providing a foundation for authentic and differentiated tourism experi-
ences (Romão, 2018). Timothy (2021) posits that a majority of contemporary tourist
attractions and destinations are based on cultural heritage elements. This notion is
corroborated by Gómez-Vega et al. (2021), who conducted a DEA-MCDM approach
using the Travel and Tourism Competitiveness (T&TC) report as the primary data
source for a sample of 136 tourist destinations. Their analysis revealed that, among
the 14 pillars of T&TC, cultural resources were of the utmost importance. Panzera
(2022) elucidates that despite considerable efforts in scientific literature, a defini-
tive consensus regarding a quantifiable link between cultural heritage endowment
and tourism attractiveness remains elusive. Generally, when examining the role of
cultural heritage in stimulating tourism demand, UNESCO World Heritage Sites are
the most commonly employed proxy for tangible forms of cultural heritage. Never-
theless, the findings in the existing body of literature are inconclusive (Cellini &
Cuccia, 2016). For instance, in a study analyzing the impact of cultural indicators on
tourism performance at the national level within EU countries, Škrabić Perić et al.
(2021) discovered that the number of UNESCO Heritage Sites had no significant
influence on the number of tourism overnights but positively affected international
tourism receipts and tourism employment. In the regional context of European NUTS
2 regions, several papers have identified a positive correlation between regional
endowment in cultural resources and the volume of tourism demand (Panzera et al.,
2021; Romão, 2015; Romão & Neuts, 2017; Romão et al., 2017).
Panzera (2022) presents empirical findings that reinforce the significance
attributed to tourism within the realm of economic literature. This is primarily due
to the role of tourism attractiveness as a key conduit for the influence of tangible
cultural heritage on the economic growth of European regions. Using a structural
equation model that includes two specific indicators—UNESCO World Heritage
Sites and regional monument counts, Panzera validates the mediating function of
tourism in this context. Nonetheless, Camagni et al. (2020) emphasize that, despite
its undeniable importance, cultural tourism is not the exclusive mechanism through
which tangible cultural heritage can impact local performance, as more abstract and
complex processes may be involved. They introduce the idea that cultural heritage
forms one component of "territorial capital"—an ensemble of territorial resources

that foster endogenous development. Their empirical findings suggest that the impact
of cultural heritage on local development is a product of its interaction with other
elements of territorial capital, specifically the intangible territorial components such
as creativity, identity, and governance quality. Moreover, Panzera (2022) presents a
novel pathway related to the influence of cultural heritage in shaping or strength-
ening territorial identities and their consequent economic ramifications. Furthermore,
Cerisola (2019) advances the debate by conceptually and empirically broadening the
idea that creativity, manifested in various forms, can function as a mediating factor,
clarifying the local ability to capitalize on cultural heritage for economic objectives.
Investigating the Italian provinces at the NUTS 3 level, she determined that cultural
heritage indirectly affects economic performance via its impact on artistic and scien-
tific creativity. The empirical analysis reveals that this relationship is particularly
evident in affluent, well-educated, and urban settings. Cerisola and Panzera (2022)
conducted an analysis to explore the relationship between urban cultural engagement
and regional output in cities rich in culture and creativity. Their research revealed a
positive association between local cultural participation and economic productivity.
Besides, Tubadji (2012) offers an insightful delineation of the culture-based devel-
opment (CBD) concept, identifying culture as an encompassing socio-economic
determinant. The CBD concept advances by delineating living culture and cultural
heritage as the two components of cultural capital, which are interconnected in a
path-dependent manner. Substantial positive results supporting the CBD concept,
signifying that cultural capital positively influences economic development, have
been demonstrated at the regional level for the European Union (Tubadji & Nijkamp,
2015a) and the United States (Tubadji et al., 2015), as well as for Germany (Tubadji,
2012) and Greece (Tubadji & Nijkamp, 2015b) specifically. Similarly, Kostakis
et al. (2016) discerned a positive correlation between cultural heritage and regional
growth, corroborating the hypothesis of culture-led growth within the context of
the Greek economy. Backman and Nilsson (2018) discovered that the local provi-
sion of built heritage and cultural environments contributes significantly to human
capital growth in Sweden, suggesting that such cultural heritage assets are vital place-
based resources with the potential to enhance regional attractiveness and promote
growth. Correa-Quezada et al. (1649) conducted an investigation to evaluate the
impact of employment within the creative industries on regional economic expansion
in Ecuador. Their empirical findings substantiated a significant correlation between
creative employment and regional productivity and development. In contrast, Romão
and Nijkamp (2018) analyzed economic progress, tourism, and territorial capital in
European regions, concluding that cultural resources do not have a significant impact
on economic growth.
In recent years, apart from examining the role of cultural heritage and tourism
in economic development, scholars have begun to explore their contributions to
achieving regional economic resilience. Within the framework of the SmartCulTour
project, the connection between cultural tourism and economic resilience has been
thoroughly established (Petrić et al., 2021) and empirically demonstrated using a
sample of 35 European local administrative units. The primary conclusion drawn
from this research is that cultural tourism bolsters regional resilience, with tourism
dynamics playing a crucial role in the process. Furthermore, the study confirmed
that an abundance of cultural resources and cultural enterprises enhances a region’s
capacity to withstand and recover from external economic shocks. More recently,
Muštra et al. (2023) investigated the impact of tourism demand and cultural UNESCO
sites on regional economic resilience among European Union countries, with their
conclusions underscoring the significance of cultural heritage in maintaining regional
economic resilience.
In the context of Croatia, Demonja (2013) notes that while cultural tourism is not
a new concept in the country, there is limited publishing activity within the Croatian
scientific and professional community concerning its effects, which remain inad-
equately evaluated. As same before mentioned authors explain, Croatian cultural
tourism is seldom examined in academic terms, evaluations of Croatian culture
and tourism resources are rare, and numerous problems persist within the realm
of cultural tourism. The primary reasons include insufficient intersectoral coop-
eration between tourism and culture, a lack of research results and post-measure
evaluations, and the general difficulty in obtaining limited official data from govern-
ment institutions. Mikulić and Petrić (2014) explored the interplay between culture
and tourism in the urban regeneration of Croatian cities. They found direct positive
associations between strategies that encourage the establishment of cultural districts
and related projects integrated into broader city and tourism development plans,
predominantly reliant on small and medium-sized enterprises. Zadel and Bogdan
(2013) examined the economic impacts of cultural tourism in Croatia and found its
economic contribution to be relatively low. Demonja and Gredičak (2015) carried out
a concise examination and critical evaluation of the impact of tourism and culture
on Croatia’s economic development. They concluded that the tourist valorization
of cultural heritage constitutes a selective form of tourism, which could offer the
Croatian economy a sustainable competitive edge. Lovrentjev (2015) introduced
the concept of multiple effects on sustainable tourism development resulting from
the incorporation of intangible cultural heritage into a destination’s tourist offerings.
The study concluded that benefits could be experienced by both tourists and the local
community. Kordej-De Villa and Šulc (2021) conducted a detailed scrutiny of the
management practices at cultural heritage sites in Croatia, specifically those acknowl-
edged on the UNESCO World Heritage List. These sites face mounting complications
due to the phenomenon of overtourism. The chosen case studies in Croatia under-
scored that the most common mode of heritage valorization is situated within the
realm of tourism, wherein heritage is frequently associated with sustainable tourism.
Further, Šimundić et al. (2022) carried out a thorough examination of seven strategies
for urban agglomeration development to identify the prevailing discourses on cultural
heritage within public documents formulated to procure EU funds in Croatia. The
first notable discourse pertains to the insufficient incorporation of cultural heritage
into the tourism provision, despite its inherent potential and accessibility. The second
dominant discourse pertains to various socio-economic challenges in Croatia, which
include limited entrepreneurial engagement, suboptimal public consciousness and
interest towards cultural heritage, an inadequate understanding of the significance of
heritage conservation and its contribution to national identity, and a deficient level of
knowledge among the local populace and tourist coordinators pertaining to cultural
management.
Despite the expanding literature on cultural heritage, tourism, and economic devel-
opment, Maldonado-Erazo et al. (2022) observe that the scholarly mapping acquired
in their study reveals a limited body of literature addressing the relationship between
the utilization of cultural resources by tourism and regional development of a terri-
tory, encompassing both economic and social perspectives. Panzera (2022) draws
a similar conclusion, emphasizing that although the interactions between cultural
heritage, tourism, and economic development, are strongly advocated and widely
acknowledged in public discourse, quantitatively validating and substantiating these
links proves challenging, especially for intangible forms of cultural heritage. Indeed,
as Dalle Nogare and Devesa (2023) underscore, the evidence from quantitative anal-
ysis is less definitive, which calls for novel methodologies to unravel the puzzle;
one suggested approach, for instance, is spatial econometrics. This research seeks to
bridge the gap in the existing literature by employing a spatial regression approach
to explore the connections between the utilization of cultural resources and regional
development. By focusing on both tangible and intangible cultural resources within
Croatia, this study strives to deliver a holistic analysis, enhancing our understanding
of the various factors that influence regional development in the country. Addition-
ally, this research will significantly enrich the academic discourse by illuminating
the distinct challenges and opportunities present in the Croatian context, an area that
has been comparatively underrepresented in existing literature.
3 Research Methodology, Results, and Discussion
As outlined earlier, this paper examines the role of cultural tourism in the regional
development of Croatian NUTS 3 regions. Consequently, it is essential to define
regional development. The variable employed for this purpose is the regional devel-
opment index provided by the Ministry of Regional Development and EU Funding
(Ministry of Regional Development & EU Funding). The Development Index (DI)
is a composite metric derived from the mean of multiple socio-economic indicators.
Conceived to facilitate a consolidated method for gauging the progress of local and
regional self-government units at the NUTS 3 level, the DI encompasses a variety
of indicators: (i) unemployment rate, (ii) per capita income, (iii) income per capita
from local/regional budgets, (iv) population fluctuation, (v) educational attainment
rate, and (vi) aging index. The new model for calculating the DI is based on the
expert basis (Denona Bogović et al., 2017). As articulated by Golob et al. (2018), the
DI is a critical instrument for assessing the socioeconomic development levels and
evaluating the advancement of local and regional self-government units while also
categorizing assisted areas. Thus, it is evident that it is a key component in the regional
policy framework of the Republic of Croatia The latest available DI, published in
2018 (Ministry of Regional Development & EU Funding, 2018), utilized the values
of single indicators for the period of 2014–2016. The average value of the DI is 100,
representing the national average; thus, units with an index above 100 are considered
higher-developed regions.
The primary focus of this study centers on the variables of cultural heritage and
tourism demand. In the majority of scholarly papers, this variable has been proxied
using UNESCO material heritage (Muštra et al., 2023) due to the lack of comparable
data for a diverse range of resources, encompassing material assets such as monu-
ments and buildings, as well as intangible aspects like local traditions and knowl-
edge (Romão & Nijkamp, 2018). Within the Horizon2020 SmartCulTour project,
Petrić et al. (2020) proposed employing spatial indicators of cultural resources as
relevant determinants of cultural heritage, acting as catalysts for cultural tourism
development. These resources encompass: (i) the number of national monuments
(MON), (ii) the number of World Heritage Sites (WHS), (iii) the number of intan-
gible cultural heritage items on national lists (ICH), and (iv) the number of elements
inscribed on UNESCO’s Intangible Cultural Heritage Lists (ICHL). Furthermore,
a composite Cultural Heritage Index (CHI) was computed using the Satty method,
based on the methodology provided by Petrić et al. (Petrić et al., 2020, 2021) within
the context of the aforementioned project. This process entailed the normalization,
weighting, and aggregation of the previously mentioned indicators in accordance
with their proposed methodology. A composite indicator can prove advantageous in
this context, as it aggregates multiple dimensions of cultural heritage to assess its
multidimensionality (Montalto et al., 2019; Neuts, 2022) and its role in economic
development (Petrić et al., 2021). Consequently, the CHI serves as the primary indi-
cator used in the subsequent analysis within the baseline model. Tourism plays a vital
role in Croatia’s economy. For example, the country recorded the highest proportion
of tourism in GDP among EU member states at 24.8% in 2019 (2021). Additionally,
tourism accounted for 23.2% of total employment, and international visitor expen-
ditures constituted 37.7% of the nation’s overall exports (Travel Tourism Economic
Impact). The Tourism-Led Growth Hypothesis (TLGH), which posits that tourism
drives overall economic growth (Kuliš et al., 2018; Šimundić & Kuliš, 2016), was
confirmed at the regional NUTS 3 level for Croatia by Trinajstić et al. (2018). The
tourism demand indicator (TOUR) used in this study is tourism density, defined as
the total number of nights spent over a year in a tourist destination (region) per
square kilometer of the destination’s land area. Moreover, two control variables are
incorporated into the model. One of them is gross value added (GVA) as a proxy for
economic activity (Mikulić et al., 2016), defined as output (at basic prices) minus
intermediate consumption (at purchaser prices). In this paper, the indicator utilized
is GVA per capita at constant prices, ref. 2015. An additional control variable is trade
openness (TRADE), defined as the share of exports plus imports over total regional
GDP. International openness could positively contribute to regional economic devel-
opment (Mikulić & Galić Nagyszombaty, 2015). For the following variables: tourism
demand, GVA, and trade openness, the values used in the analysis are average values
between 2014 and 2016, as the dependent variable, DI, utilized the values of single
indicators for the period of 2014–2016. Single indicators of cultural heritage used
to form the CHI are collected based on the inventory of the current state as of April
2023. However, this should not pose a problem for the analysis, as Panzera (2022)
notes that due to the time-invariant nature of cultural heritage, it can be reason-
ably assumed that the number does not change significantly over the years. Table 1
summarizes all variables, associated labels, defined proxies, and corresponding data
sources (ARDECO, 2023; CBS, 2023; Ministry of Culture & Media).
Consequently, a simple note of relation between dependent and independent vari-
ables can be written in the form of a non-spatial, cross-sectional linear regression
model (OLS) as follows:
DI = β1 CHI + β2 TOUR + X γ + ε (1)
where DI represents a vector of the regional development index for the 21 Croatian
NUTS-3 regions; CHI denotes a vector of the cultural heritage index; β1 refers to the
coefficient of CHI; TOUR signifies a vector of tourism density; β2 is the coefficient
of TOUR; X is a matrix of the control variables (GVA and TRADE), and γ is a vector
of coefficients for the control variables, including the constant term; ε is a vector of
error terms.
In this paper, a spatial econometrics approach is employed to address the literature
gaps identified by Panzera (2022) and Dalle Nogare and Devesa (2023). The concept
of spatial spillovers holds a unique place within regional science as it provides a plat-
form for empirical scrutiny of magnitude and significance, a feature not available in
conventional econometric models that presume spillovers to be non-existent (Halleck
Vega & Elhorst, 2015). Furthermore, spatial analysis enriches our comprehension of
the intrinsic traits of various phenomena by including geographical elements, which
Table 1 Variables’ definition, indicator, and sources

Variable Label Indicator Source
Regional DI Regional development index Ministry of Regional
development Development and EU
Funding
Cultural MON Number of monuments in national lists Ministry of Culture and
heritage WHS Number of World Heritage Sites Media
ICH Number of intangible cultural heritage
in national lists
ICHL Number of elements inscribed in the
UNESCO Intangible Cultural Heritage
Lists
CHI Cultural Heritage Index
Tourism TOUR Tourism density (total number of CBS
demand nights spent per square kilometer)
Economic GVA GVA per capita at constant prices, ref. ARDECO
activity 2015
Trade openness TRADE Sum of exports and imports as a share CBS
of GDP
can uncover obscured patterns and offer insights into spatial dependency and the inter-
play between variables across diverse locations (Kopczewska, 2020). Rüttenauer’s
(2022) research gives a thorough explanation of several spatial models designed to
tackle spatial dependence issues. The Spatial Autoregressive (SAR) model employs
a spatial weights matrix W and integrates a spatially lagged dependent variable. The
Spatial Error Model (SEM) accommodates spatial dependence within error terms,
while the Spatial Lag of X (SLX) model incorporates spatial lags of exogenous covari-
ates. Advanced models, such as the Spatial Autoregressive Combined (SAC) model,
Spatial Durbin Model (SDM), and Spatial Durbin Error Model (SDEM), provide
more intricate analyses, and the General Nesting Spatial (GNS) model encapsulates
all three spatial elements for a comprehensive analysis (Rüttenauer, 2022). This
study employs general-to-specific approach (Elhorst, 2010; Mur & Angulo, 2009),
beginning with the most complex model and later using the likelihood-ratio (LR) test
to successively drop non-significant variables (Gallo et al., 2021; Herrera-Gómez,
2022). As highlighted by Burkey (2018), LeSage (2014) recommends running SDM
for a global specification, and for a local structure, firstly running SDEM. Rodríguez-
Pose and Muštra (2022) have noted that both methodologies present discernible
empirical strengths and weaknesses. SDM model has the advantage of embracing
global spillovers. This model’s spillover effects are adaptable, enabling the SDM to
identify both direct impacts (originating from the region under consideration) and
indirect influences (stemming from spillovers in other regions), as elaborated by Le
Sage (2014). Moreover, spatial autocorrelation for the dependent variable was tested
using the Global Moran I’s test in GeoDa (Anselin et al., 2010), which confirmed the
significant presence of spatial autocorrelation in DI. Consequently, this study starts
with the SDM and then tests possible nested models, namely SAR, SLX, SEM, and
OLS (Burkey, 2018). Spatial models are estimated using a maximum likelihood esti-
mator. The weight matrix employed is an inverse-distance contiguity matrix, which
contains inverse distance for neighbors and 0 otherwise (StataCorp, 2017). Results
are presented in Table 2.
As previously explained, the SDM model serves as the starting point. To select
the appropriate model, LR tests are employed. As noted by Burkey (2018), many
spatial econometricians favor the LR approach because any model can be tested to
determine if a simpler, nested model may be more appropriate. The Likelihood Ratio
(LR) test begins with a null hypothesis asserting that the restricted model is true. As
presented in Table 2, the first step involves evaluating whether the SDM should be
confined to one of the following models: SAR, SLX, or SEM. For both the SLX and
SEM models, the null hypothesis is dismissed, leading to the preference of the SDM.
However, a comparison between the SDM and SAR indicates the legitimacy of the
imposed restrictions, thereby suggesting SAR as the fitting model. Subsequently, to
choose between SAR and OLS, another LR test is administered, which corroborates
SAR as the more suitable model specification. This deduction is further reinforced by
the Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) assessment, where the SAR model registers
the minimum AIC score among the tested models. Consequently, the chosen SAR
model can be written as follows:
Table 2 Regression estimates for SDM, SAR, SLX, SEM, and OLS
Variable SDM SAR SLX SEM OLS
CHI 10.44*** 11.42*** 11.52*** 11.51*** 11.33***
(2.945) (3.021) (3.202) (3.007) (3.571)
TOUR 0.000994* 0.000997** 0.00127** -0.0000371 0.000453
(0.000562) (0.000480) (0.000604) (0.000468) (0.000522)
GVA 0.00153*** 0.00145*** 0.00119** 0.00233*** 0.00177***
(0.000489) (0.000298) (0.000511) (0.000316) (0.000328)
TRADE 0.00536 0.0449* 0.0142 0.0694*** 0.0763***
(0.0298) (0.0230) (0.0325) (0.0199) (0.0239)
const 83.15*** 79.67*** 82.69*** 75.94*** 79.04***
(3.251) (2.042) (3.580) (1.883) (2.400)
W*CHI 18.12 -2.650
(23.34) (23.36)
W*TOUR -0.00723* -0.000490
(0.00436) (0.00328)
W*GVA 0.00267 -0.0000574
(0.00166) (0.00115)
W*TRADE 0.0943 0.112
(0.116) (0.127)
ρ -0.228** 0.0553***
(0.108) (0.0191)
λ -0.759***
(0.253)
N 21 21 21 21 21
R2 0.9275 0.9022 0.9149 0.8521 0.8627
LogLik -42.810059 -46.319431 -44.815759 -48.296736 -49.832518
LR test (SDM) 7.02 4.01** 10.97**
LR test (SAR) 7.03***
AIC 107.6201 106.6389 109.6315 110.5935 109.665
VIF 2.13
Standard errors in parentheses, * p < 0.1, ** p < 0.05, *** p < 0.01
DI = ρWDI + β1 CHI + β2 TOUR + X γ + ε (2)
where ρ signifies the spatial autoregressive parameter, W represents an (n x n) spatial

weight matrix containing non-negative elements that demonstrate the spatial connec-
tions between a region and its adjacent areas. Furthermore, WDI is a vector corre-
sponding to the spatially lagged dependent variable. To ascertain the absence of multi-
collinearity issues, the Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) was computed based on the
Table 3 SAR direct, indirect,

Variable Direct effects Indirect effects Total effects
and total effects of
independent variables CHI 11.42345*** 0.309433** 11.73288***
(3.022023) (0.137814) (3.107051)
TOUR 0.000998** 0.000027 0.001025**
(0.000481) (0.000019) (0.000498)
GVA 0.001452*** 0.0000393*** 0.001492***
(0.000298) (0.0000133) (0.000301)
TRADE 0.044936* 0.001217** 0.046153**
(0.022984) (0.000566) (0.023405)
Standard errors in parentheses, * p < 0.1, ** p < 0.05, *** p <
0.01
OLS results. The analysis indicated no multicollinearity problems, with an average

score of 2.13 and the highest score of 3.06 for the TOUR variable, both well below the
desired threshold of 5. To further ensure there were no issues with heteroskedasticity,
the SAR model was estimated using robust standard errors. Although not reported
here, these results were consistent with the initial findings, confirming the absence
of heteroskedasticity concerns.
Kopczewska (2020) highlights, following LeSage and Pace (2009), that models
incorporating spatial lag of the dependent variable (Wy) encounter issues related
to simultaneity, which constrain both the predictive capability and interpretation
of coefficients in these models. In such models, the dependent variable y in loca-
tion j influences y in location i (for i = j), and the reverse relationship holds true
simultaneously. Consequently, in the final model, the focus shifts from interpreting β
coefficients to examining direct and indirect impacts. Accordingly, Table 3 displays
these effects for the preferred SAR model.
As observed from Table 3, there is a positive and statistically significant effect of
cultural heritage endowment on regional development, encompassing direct (within
the region), indirect (other, neighboring regions), and total effects (across Croatia).
This corroborates the assertion by Camagni et al. (2020) that cultural heritage consti-
tutes one of the multiple elements of "territorial capital," playing a crucial role in
local (regional) development. Besides, this conclusion is congruent with and vali-
dated by findings at both the European Union level (Panzera, 2022) and the regional
level for various specific country instances, such as Germany (Tubadji, 2012), Greece
(Tubadji & Nijkamp, 2015b), and Italy (Cerisola, 2019). Moreover, tourism demand
is another important variable explaining the regional development of Croatian NUTS
3 regions (Jurun & Pivac, 2011). Positive and statistically significant direct and total
effects are produced. Although positive, the indirect effects of tourism demand are
not statistically significant, indicating a lack of positive spillover effects of tourism
on regional development. This may be attributed to Croatia’s relatively smaller share
of direct value added in internal tourism expenditures compared to most EU coun-
tries. Ivandić and Šutalo (2019) suggest that this situation indicates a potential for
significant augmentation in the gross domestic value of tourism without an increase
in physical tourism activities. Such a transformation could be achieved via alter-

ations to the economic structure and the inter-relations of activities associated with
tourism. The other two control variables, GVA and trade openness, exhibit statisti-
cally significant and positive effects, implying that higher levels of economic activity
and international openness enhance the development capacities of Croatian NUTS
3 regions (Đokić et al., 2016).
4 Conclusion
This study aimed to address the research gap concerning the role of tangible and
intangible cultural resources in regional development in Croatia using a quanti-
tative, spatial econometrics approach. In line with the framework established by
the Horizon 2020 SmartCulTour project, a composite Cultural Heritage Index was
created, encompassing UNESCO and national material and immaterial cultural
assets. Utilizing the spatial autoregressive model, it was confirmed that cultural
heritage constitutes a significant aspect of territorial capital, generating positive direct
and indirect (spillover) effects on regional development in Croatian NUTS 3 regions.
Moreover, the results verified the importance of tourism in regional development,
with the highlight on the opportunities for enhancing positive spillover effects. This
paper contributes to the literature by quantitatively demonstrating, through spatial
econometric analysis, the connection between cultural heritage, tourism demand,
and regional development in the context of Croatia. These findings provide valuable
insights for policymakers seeking to foster sustainable cultural tourism activities in
Croatia, potentially leading to a more regionally balanced tourism sector between
the Adriatic and continental regions and reducing regional disparities. The impli-
cations of these findings become particularly salient in the recovery stages of the
COVID-19 pandemic. Efficient leveraging of cultural heritage, achieved through
policies built on the foundation of local tangible and intangible assets, can catalyze
local economic development (Camagni et al., 2020). This viewpoint is reinforced by
the UNWTO, which acknowledges culture and tourism as crucial elements of post-
pandemic recovery strategies. Opportunities presented by these sectors can stimu-
late the creation of new partnerships, encourage diversification of tourism offerings,
attract fresh audiences, and foster the development of novel skills. Collectively, these
changes can facilitate a smoother global transition towards the new societal norms
emerging post-pandemic (UNWTO). However, this research has certain limitations.
It is based on a cross-sectional analysis, utilizing the latest available development
index calculations, which were derived from averages for the period 2014–2016,
without incorporating time series data. Future research could replicate this study by
employing spatial panel data analysis. Alternative regional development proxy vari-
ables could also be employed when new regional index calculations become available.
Other potential directions for investigation may include exploring different cultural
tourism variables, such as cultural infrastructure (e.g., museums), cultural business
and employment, or investment in culture and government expenditure on culture.
Finally, this research could be expanded to other countries or extended to all EU

NUTS 3 regions.
Acknowledgements The work of doctoral student Zvonimir Kuliš has been supported by the
"Young Researchers’ Career Development Project—Training of Doctoral Students" of the Croatian
Science Foundation. Additionally, this work was supported by the European Union Horizon 2020
Research and Innovation Programme—SmartCulTour project, grant agreement number 870708.
The author alone bears responsibility for the information, terminology, and opinions presented in
this paper, and these may not necessarily align with the views of the funding organization.
References
Šimundić, B. (2017). The socio-economic determinants of tourism demand: The case of Push
factors in an Emiive Region. In: Book of Proceedings, pp. 291–300. Varazdin Development and
Entrepreneurship Agency, Melbourne.
Gunter, U., Smeral, E., & Zekan, B. (2022). Forecasting tourism in the EU after the COVID-19
Crisis. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research. 10963480221125130. https://doi.org/10.
1177/10963480221125130.
Yang, Y., Zhang, C. X., & Rickly, J. M. (2021). A review of early COVID-19 research in tourism:
Launching the annals of tourism research’s curated collection on coronavirus and tourism1.
Annals of Tourism Research, 91, 103313. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2021.103313
Directorate-General for Education, Y. (2019). Sustainable cultural tourism. Publications Office of
the European Union, LU.
Directorate-General for Internal Market, I. (2022). Transition pathway for tourism. Publications
Office of the European Union, LU.
Lykogianni, E., Mobilio, L., Procee, R., Airaghi, E., Kern, P., Le Gall, A., Krohn, C., & Vanhoutte,
C.: Material cultural heritage as a strategic territorial development resource: Mapping impacts
through a set of common European socio-economic indicators. ESPON EGTC, Luxembourg.
Neuts, B. (2022). Second policy report. Zenodo.
Neuts, B., Matteucci, X., Von Zumbusch, J., Calvi, L., & Moretti, S. (2021). First policy report.
Petrić, L., Mandić, A., Pivčević, S., Škrabić Perić, B., Hell, M., Šimundić, B., Muštra, V., Mikulić,
D., & Grgić, J. (2020). Report on the most appropriate indicators related to the basic concepts
Petrić, L., Škrabić Perić, B., Hell, M., Kuliš, Z., Mandić, A., Pivčević, S., Šimundić, B., Muštra,
V., Grgić, J., & Mikulić, D. (2021). Report outlining the SRT framework.
Russo, A., & Borg, J. V. D. (2006). European cultural resources and regional development: Pressure
and opportunities from the European enlargement. ERSA conference papers.
Stoica, G. D., Andreiana, V.-A., Duica, M. C., Stefan, M.-C., Susanu, I. O., Coman, M. D., & Iancu,
D. (2022). Perspectives for the development of sustainable cultural tourism. Sustainability., 14,
5678. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14095678
Cultural heritage in regional policy | Culture and Creativity. https://culture.ec.europa.eu/node/222.
Naramski, M., Szromek, A.R., Herman, K., & Polok, G. (2022). Assessment of the activities of
European cultural heritage tourism sites during the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Open
Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity, 8, 55. https://doi.org/10.3390/joitmc8010055.
Jelinčić, D. A., & Senkić, M. (2017). Creating a heritage tourism experience. The Power of the
Senses. Etnološka tribina.
Kovačević, D. (2020). Economic impact of COVID-19 on the European tourism sector with special
view on Croatian tourism. ME, 11, 1652–1670. https://doi.org/10.4236/me.2020.1110115
Šimundić, B., Škokić, V., & Čaušević, S. (2022). Cultural Heritage tourism in EU policy discourse.
Tourism Planning and Development in Eastern Europe, 100–116. https://doi.org/10.1079/978
1800620353.0007.
Kordej-De Villa, Ž, & Šulc, I. (2021). Cultural Heritage cultural heritage, tourism and the UN
sustainable development goals UN sustainable development goals (SDGs): The case of Croatia.
In M. B. Andreucci, A. Marvuglia, M. Baltov, & P. Hansen (Eds.), Rethinking sustainability
towards a regenerative economy (pp. 341–358). Springer International Publishing.
Fakultet za menadžment u turizmu i ugostiteljstvu, Blue Rock Consulting: Istraživanje stavova
ispitanika s emitivnih tržišta. Fakultet za menadžment u turizmu i ugostiteljstvu & Blue Rock
Consulting (2021).
Ministry of Tourism and Sport. (2022). Strategija razvoja održivog turizma do 2030. Godine. https://
mint.gov.hr/strategija-razvoja-odrzivog-turizma-do-2030-godine/11411.
Demonja, D. (2013). Cultural tourism in Croatia after the implementation of the strategy of
development of cultural tourism. Turizam, 17, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.5937/Turizam1301001D
Ministry of Culture and Media: Kulturna baština na UNESCO-ovim popisima. https://min-kulture.
gov.hr/izdvojeno/kulturna-bastina/kulturna-bastina-na-unesco-ovim-popisima/17251.
Ministry of Culture and Media: Register of Cultural Property. https://min-kulture.gov.hr/register-
of-cultural-property/16777.
Tomljenović, R. (2021). Regional action plan of Croatia - from Heritage preservation to its
sustainable use. Institute for Tourism, Croatia.
Panzera, E. (2022). Cultural heritage and territorial identity: synergies and development impact on
European regions. Springer International Publishing.
and Tourism Management., 36, 12–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhtm.2018.03.005
Škrabić Perić, B., Šimundić, B., Muštra, V., & Vugdelija, M. (2021). The role of UNESCO cultural
heritage and cultural sector in tourism development: The case of EU countries. Sustainability.,
13, 5473. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13105473
UNWTO. (2018). Tourism and Culture Synergies. , Madrid
Timothy, D. J. (2021). Cultural Heritage and tourism. Channel View Publications.
Matteucci, X., & Von Zumbusch, J. (2020). Theoretical framework for cultural tourism in urban
and regional destinations.
Csapo, J. (2012). The role and importance of cultural tourism in modern tourism industry. In:
Kasimoglu, M. (ed.) Strategies for Tourism Industry - Micro and Macro Perspectives. InTech.
Romão, J. (2018). Tourism, territory and sustainable development. Springer, Singapore.
Gómez-Vega, M., Martín, J. C., & Picazo-Tadeo, A. J. (2021). Ranking world tourism competitive-
ness: A comparison of two composite indicators. In S. Suzuki, K. Kourtit, & P. Nijkamp (Eds.),
Tourism and regional science: New roads (pp. 15–35). Springer.
Cellini, R., & Cuccia, T. (2016). UNESCO sites as public goods: Comparative experiences in Italy.
Rev. Econ. Contemp., 20, 553–569. https://doi.org/10.1590/198055272037
Panzera, E., de Graaff, T., & de Groot, H. L. F. (2021). European cultural heritage and tourism
flows: The magnetic role of superstar World Heritage Sites. Papers in Regional Science, 100,
101–122. https://doi.org/10.1111/pirs.12562
Romão, J. (2015). Culture or nature: A space-time analysis on the determinants of tourism demand
in European regions. Spatial and Organizational Dynamics Discussion Papers.
Romão, J., Guerreiro, J. P. S. M., & Rodrigues, P. M. M. (2017). Territory and sustainable tourism
development: A space-time analysis on European regions. REGION. 4, 1–17. https://doi.org/
10.18335/region.v4i3.142.
Romão, J., & Neuts, B. (2017). Territorial capital, smart tourism specialization and sustainable
regional development: Experiences from Europe. Habitat International., 68, 64–74. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2017.04.006
Camagni, R., Capello, R., Cerisola, S., & Panzera, E.: The cultural heritage - Territorial capital
nexus: theory and empirics / Il nesso tra Patrimonio Culturale e Capitale Territoriale: teoria ed
evidenza empirica. IL CAPITALE CULTURALE. Studies on the Value of Cultural Heritage,

pp. 33–59. https://doi.org/10.13138/2039-2362/2547.
Cerisola, S. (2019). A new perspective on the cultural heritage–development nexus: The role
of creativity. Journal of Cultural Economics, 43, 21–56. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10824-018-
9328-2
Cerisola, S., & Panzera, E. (2022). Cultural participation in cultural and creative cities: Positive
regional outcomes and potential congestion concerns. Papers in Regional Science, 101, 1245–
1261. https://doi.org/10.1111/pirs.12709
Tubadji, A. (2012). Culture-based development: Empirical evidence for Germany. International
Journal of Social Economics, 39, 690–703. https://doi.org/10.1108/03068291211245718
Tubadji, A., & Nijkamp, P. (2015a). Cultural gravity effects among migrants: a comparative analysis
of the EU15. Economic Geography, 91, 343–380. https://doi.org/10.1111/ecge.12088
Tubadji, A., Osoba, B. J., & Nijkamp, P. (2015). Culture-based development in the USA: Culture
as a factor for economic welfare and social well-being at a county level. Journal of Cultural
Economics, 39, 277–303. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10824-014-9232-3
Tubadji, A., & Nijkamp, P. (2015b). Cultural impact on regional development: Application of a
PLS-PM model to Greece. The Annals of Regional Science, 54, 687–720. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s00168-015-0672-2
Kostakis, I., Lolos, S., & Doulgeraki, C. 1998–2016 (2016). Cultural Heritage led Growth: Regional
evidence from Greece. https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/98443/.
Backman, M., & Nilsson, P. (2018). The role of cultural heritage in attracting skilled individuals.
Journal of Cultural Economics, 42, 111–138. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10824-016-9289-2
Correa-Quezada, R., Álvarez-García, J., Del Río-Rama, M.D. la C., & Maldonado-Erazo, C. P.
(2018). Role of creative industries as a regional growth factor. Sustainability, 10, 1649. https://
doi.org/10.3390/su10051649.
Romão, J., & Nijkamp, P. (2018). Spatial impacts assessment of tourism and territorial capital: A
modelling study on regional development in Europe. International Journal of Tourism Research,
20, 819–829. https://doi.org/10.1002/jtr.2234
Muštra, V., Perić, B. Š, & Pivčević, S. (2023). Cultural heritage sites, tourism and regional economic
resilience. Papers in Regional Science n/a. https://doi.org/10.1111/pirs.12731
Mikulić, D., & Petrić, L. (2014). Can culture and tourism be the foothold of urban regeneration? A
Croatian case study. Tourism: An International Interdisciplinary Journal, 62, 377–395.
Zadel, Z., & Bogdan, S. (2013). Economic impact of cultural tourism. UTMS Journal of Economics.,
4, 355–366.
Demonja, D., & Gredičak, T. (2015). Tourism and culture in the function of local economic
development. Podravina : časopis za geografska i povijesna multidisciplinarna istraživanja. 14,
0–0.
Lovrentjev, S. (2015). Intangible cultural heritage and tourism: comparing Croatia and the Czech
republic. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 6, 522.
Maldonado-Erazo, C. P., del Río-Rama, M. de la C., Álvarez-García, J., & Flores-Mancheno, A. C.
(2022). Use of natural and cultural resources by tourism as a strategy for regional development:
bibliometric analysis. Land, 11, 1162. https://doi.org/10.3390/land11081162.
Dalle Nogare, C., & Devesa, M. (2023). Heritage, tourism and local development. https://journals.
sagepub.com/pb-assets/Icons/TE-SF-Heritage%20tourism%20local%20development-167637
1690723.pdf.
Ministry of Regional Development and EU Funding: Indeks razvijenosti. https://razvoj.gov.hr/o-
ministarstvu/djelokrug-1939/regionalni-razvoj/indeks-razvijenosti/112.
Denona Bogović, N., Drezgić, S., & Čegar, S.: Evaluacija postojećeg i prijedlog novog modela za
izračun indeksa te izračun novog indeksa razvijenosti jedinica lokalne i područne samouprave
u Republici Hrvatskoj.
Golob, M., Golob, M., & Doretić, J. (2018). Croatian development index and regional disparities in
spatial distribution of EU funds for rural development. Zbornik radova Ekonomskog fakulteta
Sveučilišta u Mostaru, pp. 40–58. https://doi.org/10.46458/27121097.2018.SI.40.
Ministry of Regional Development and EU Funding. (2018). Vrijednosti indeksa razvijenosti

i pokazatelja za izračun indeksa razvijenosti. https://razvoj.gov.hr/o-ministarstvu/djelokrug-
1939/regionalni-razvoj/indeks-razvijenosti/vrijednosti-indeksa-razvijenosti-i-pokazatelja-za-
izracun-indeksa-razvijenosti-2018/3740.
Montalto, V., Tacao Moura, C. J., Langedijk, S., & Saisana, M. (2019). Culture counts: An empirical
approach to measure the cultural and creative vitality of European cities. Cities, 89, 167–185.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2019.01.014
Travel and tourism GDP share by country EU 2021. https://www.statista.com/statistics/1228395/
travel-and-tourism-share-of-gdp-in-the-eu-by-country/.
Travel & Tourism Economic Impact | World Travel & Tourism Council (WTTC) – Croatia. https://
wttc.org/DesktopModules/MVC/FactSheets/pdf/704/96_20220613155343_Croatia2022_.pdf.
Kuliš, Z., Šimundić, B., & Pivčević, S. (2018). The analysis of tourism and economic growth
relationship in central and eastern European countries. In A. Karasavvoglou, S. Goić, P. Poly-
chronidou, & P. Delias (Eds.), Economy, finance and business in southeastern and central Europe
(pp. 537–551). Springer International Publishing.
Šimundić, B., & Kuliš, Z. (2016). Tourism and economic growth in Mediterranean region: Dynamic
panel data approach. Acta Economica Et Turistica., 1, 177–196.
Trinajstić, M., Baresa, S., & Bogdan, S. (2018). Regional economic growth and tourism: A panel
data approach. Journal of Economics, 9, 145–155.
Mikulić, D., Bakarić, I. R., & Slijepčević, S. (2016). The economic impact of energy saving retrofits
of residential and public buildings in Croatia. Energy Policy, 96, 630–644. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.enpol.2016.06.040
Mikulić, D., & Galić Nagyszombaty, A. (2015). Does international trade cause regional growth
differentials in Croatia? Zbornik Radova Ekonomskog Fakulteta u Rijeci : Časopis Za Ekonomsku
Teoriju i Praksu., 33, 81–102.
ARDECO. (2023). ARDECO database | Knowledge for policy. https://knowledge4policy.ec.eur
opa.eu/territorial/ardeco-database_en#database.
CBS. (2023). Statistics in line. https://podaci.dzs.hr/en/statistics-in-line/.
Halleck Vega, S., & Elhorst, J. P. (2015). The SLX model. Journal of Regional Science, 55, 339–363.
https://doi.org/10.1111/jors.12188
Kopczewska, K. (2020). Applied spatial statistics and econometrics: data analysis in R. Routledge.
Rüttenauer, T. (2022). Spatial regression models: a systematic comparison of different model spec-
ifications using Monte Carlo experiments. Sociological Methods & Research, 51, 728–759.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124119882467
Elhorst, J. P. (2010). Applied spatial econometrics: Raising the bar. Spatial Economic Analysis., 5,
9–28. https://doi.org/10.1080/17421770903541772
Mur, J., & Angulo, A. (2009). Model selection strategies in a spatial setting: Some additional results.
Regional Science and Urban Economics., 39, 200–213. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.regsciurbeco.
2008.05.018
Herrera-Gómez, M. (2022). Spatial econometrics with Stata: Exploratory Spatial Data Analysis
(ESDA), Spatial Models for Cross-Sectional Data, Spatial Models for Panel Data.
Le Gallo, J. (2021). Cross-section spatial regression models. In M. M. Fischer & P. Nijkamp (Eds.),
Handbook of regional science (pp. 2117–2139). Springer.
Burkey, M. L. (2018). Spatial econometrics and GIS YouTube playlist. REGION. 5, R13–R18.
https://doi.org/10.18335/region.v5i3.254.
LeSage, J. P. (2014). What regional scientists need to know about spatial econometrics. The Review
of Regional Studies, 44, 13–32.
Rodríguez-Pose, A., & Muštra, V. (2022). The economic returns of decentralisation: Government
quality and the role of space. Environment and Planning A, 54, 1604–1622. https://doi.org/10.
1177/0308518X221118913
Anselin, L., Syabri, I., & Kho, Y. (2010). GeoDa: An introduction to spatial data analysis. In M. M.
Fischer & A. Getis (Eds.), Handbook of applied spatial analysis: software tools, methods and
applications (pp. 73–89). Springer.
StataCorp, L. L. C. (2017). Stata spatial autoregressive models reference manual. Stata press College
Station.
LeSage, J., & Pace, R. K. (2009). Introduction to spatial econometrics. Taylor & Francis Group.
Jurun, E., & Pivac, S. (2011). Comparative regional GDP analysis: Case study of Croatia. Cent Eur
J Oper Res., 19, 319–335. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10100-010-0163-6
Ivandić, N., & Šutalo, I. (2019). An integrated TSA and IO model for the estimation of the overall
contribution of tourism: The example of Croatia. Tourism: An International Interdisciplinary
Journal. 67, 389–404.
Đokić, I., Fröhlich, Z., & Rašić Bakarić, I. (2016). The impact of the economic crisis on regional
disparities in Croatia. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 9, 179–195. https://
doi.org/10.1093/cjres/rsv030
UNWTO: Cultural tourism & COVID19 | UNWTO. https://www.unwto.org/cultural-tourism-cov
id-19.
Towards a Circular Cultural Tourism
Impact Assessment Framework
for Decision Support in Less-Known
and Remote Destinations
Ludovica La Rocca, Francesca Buglione, Eugenio Muccio, Martina Bosone,

Maria Cerreta, Pasquale De Toro, and Antonia Gravagnuolo
Abstract Recent environmental, climate and sustainability challenges are leading

several sectors, including cultural tourism, to rethink their development model in a
more sustainable and circular perspective, preserving fragile resources—including
cultural resources—and regenerating natural capital. The assessment of the multi-
dimensional impacts of cultural tourism strategies becomes an essential tool for
designing specific positive impacts linked to the conservation, regeneration and
valorisation of tangible and intangible cultural resources, together with natural
resources, human and social capital. The Horizon 2020 Be.CULTOUR project devel-
oped a methodological and operational approach, based on a set of impact criteria
and indicators, to guide the evaluation and monitoring process of cultural tourism
strategies in less-known and remote cultural tourism destinations. The Be.CULTOUR
multidimensional impact assessment framework was deemed to support the devel-
opment and monitoring of strategic Action Plans for circular and human-centred
cultural tourism, experimented in six European pilot heritage sites. The tool recon-
siders the linearity of the Theory of Change, a collaborative and multistakeholder
approach that is well suited to the conceptual framework of circular and human-
centred cultural tourism, in order to move towards circular production and consump-
tion models in the tourism sector, opening the way for the redesign of traditional
decision-making processes. Thus, the proposed tool stimulates the construction of a
dynamic and iterative evaluation process that falls within the framework of “circular”
co-assessment.
Keywords Circular tourism · Sustainable impact design · Theory of Change ·

Multidimensional indicators
L. La Rocca · F. Buglione · E. Muccio · M. Cerreta · P. De Toro

University of Naples Federico II, Naples, Italy
M. Bosone · A. Gravagnuolo (B)
National Research Council, Rome, Italy
e-mail: antonia.gravagnuolo@cnr.it

128 L. La Rocca et al.
1 Introduction
In recent decades, it became necessary to address unprecedented environmental,

climate and sustainability challenges such as biodiversity loss, climate change,
natural resource use and pollution, which are reflected also in the cultural tourism
sector. According to the definition adopted by the UNWTO General Assembly,
(UNDP, 2017), cultural tourism can be defined as “a type of tourism activity in
which the visitor’s essential motivation is to learn, discover, experience and consume
the tangible and intangible cultural attractions/products of a tourist destination”.
These attractions/products refer to a set of distinctive material, intellectual, spiri-
tual and emotional characteristics of a society including the arts and architecture,
historical and cultural heritage, culinary heritage, literature, music, creative indus-
tries and living cultures with their lifestyles, value systems, beliefs and traditions.
In order to achieve more sustainable cultural tourism models, approaches and tools
emerged to promote the development of tourist destinations (WTO, 2004) and to
assess the generation of positive impacts by integrating circular economy approaches
in the tourism sector. The circular economy aims to transform the traditional “lin-
ear” economy based on a “take-make-dispose” process to become regenerative by
minimising resource use and avoiding all kinds of waste (Dişli & Ankaralıgil, 2022).
The basic principles of the circular economy (systemic thinking, optimisation, effi-
ciency, collaboration, transparency, accountability, inclusiveness) can also be applied
in the tourism sector, as diverse projects and initiatives are shown in the last few years.
The promotion of circular economy principles in heritage rehabilitation and conser-
vation initiatives is crucial for the sustainable continuity of this sector (Rodríguez,
Florido & Jacob, 2020). Due to its complexity, cultural tourism can have a signifi-
cant impact on society, the environment and the economy. Indeed, the tourism sector
is not only an economic activity that represents a fundamental driver of develop-
ment, but a combination of culture, nature and historical heritage, which contributes
to make each destination unique in terms of offer, distinctiveness, recognisability
and competitive potential (Abouelmagd, 2023) In some cases, without the necessary
balance and attention to each of these aspects, tourism can even damage or compro-
mise the quality of life of local communities and can be a source of additional
pressure on cultural and natural resources. For this reason, it is necessary to design
new cultural tourism models, capable of generating well-being and contributing to
the quality of ecosystems and human health, both locally and globally.
Circular tourism can be defined as a model capable of creating a virtuous
production-consumption circle for achieving sustainability goals and providing
services without wasting the planet’s non-renewable resources, such as raw materials,
water and energy (Girard & Nocca, 2017). Furthermore, circular tourism proposes a
model in which each actor involved adopts an eco-friendly approach (Sgambati et al.,
2021). By applying the principles of the circular economy, tourism and hospitality
operators can accelerate the growth of their businesses and advance conceptually
and practically to provide a more sustainable experience for all parties involved in
these sectors (Van Rheede, 2012). Circular tourism refers to its ability to trigger and
Towards a Circular Cultural Tourism Impact Assessment Framework … 129
stimulate circular flows, with the aim of reconciling the tourism sector and sustain-
able resource management (Neves & Marques, 2022). It is not only “green” tourism,
aimed at limiting the consumption and waste of non-renewable energy sources, but
is concerned with recovery, reuse, redevelopment, valorisation and regeneration of
cultural and natural resources.
At the European level, several projects and frameworks have been set up to
encourage the production of impact-based tourism strategies, following the prin-
ciples of sustainability, which provide the necessary dimensions, criteria and indi-
cators to describe the phenomenon of sustainable tourism. In October 2022, the EU
Tourism Dashboard (European Commission, 2022) was launched to improve access
to statistics and indicators relevant to tourism policies at EU level and to help destina-
tions and public authorities monitor their progress in the green and digital transition
of the tourism sector. For this purpose, indicators were developed at national and
regional level organised in four areas: (1) environmental impacts; (2) digitalisation;
(3) socio-economic vulnerability; (4) basic tourism attributes. The Interreg MED
“INCIRCLE” project (INCIRCLE, 2020), on the other hand, is particularly dedicated
to the dissemination of circular economy principles in sustainable tourism planning.
It aims to reduce pollution caused by tourism by introducing innovative technologies
and processes, to preserve the quality and availability of natural resources, and to
improve the quality of life of residents and tourists. It is structured around 4 core
areas: mobility, energy, water and waste. The project defines guidelines to support
decision-makers in the transition towards a more responsible and circular tourism.
The ETIS (European Commission, 2017) is a management, information and moni-
toring tool specifically designed for tourism destinations. It is conceived as a process
of data collection and analysis at the local level with the overall objective of assessing
the impact of tourism on a destination. The specific objective of the ETIS is to help
improve the sustainable management of destinations. It aims to help destinations and
stakeholders measure their sustainability management processes, enabling them to
monitor their performance and progress over time. It contains 43 core indicators and
a number of supplementary indicators. They allow for comparison over time and
benchmarking between destinations. They refer to four main sections: Destination
Management, Economic Value, Social and Cultural Impact, Environmental Impact.
In the wake of these reflections, the research presents a framework for the
design and assessment of the impacts of sustainable, cultural, circular and respon-
sible tourism initiatives, within the Horizon 2020 Be.CULTOUR project: “Beyond
CULtural TOURism: heritage innovation networks as drivers of Europeanisa-
tion towards a human-centred and circular tourism economy”. In particular, the
Be.CULTOUR project expresses the objective of going beyond tourism through
a long-term human-centred development perspective, enhancing cultural heritage
and landscape. The proposed circular cultural tourism impact assessment frame-
work can be a tool but also, and more importantly, a process to support destination
managers and planners in orienting their strategies in the direction of sustainability
and circularity, adopting a human-centred approach based on needs’ assessment and
identification of stakeholders’ priorities, desires, aspirations.
This contribution presents in Sect. 2, the theoretical base of the Theory of Change
as a useful tool for the assessment and co-design of circular cultural tourism strate-
gies; in Sect. 3, the results of the definition of the assessment framework based on the
Theory of Change and interaction with local stakeholders, with the proposed frame-
work for the assessment of circular cultural tourism coherent strategies supported by
a related set of suggested criteria as base for identifying suitable indicators; in Sect. 4,
the discussion of the results achieved and the next steps of the ongoing research.
2 Materials and Methods
The Horizon 2020 project Be.CULTOUR: Beyond Cultural Tourism defined a

methodological approach to assess the impacts of sustainable and circular cultural
tourism through multidimensional quantitative and qualitative indicators.
The impact assessment framework was developed first on a theoretical base
according to scientific literature, previous experiences and discussion with cultural
tourism policy and practice stakeholders in six European pilot heritage sites: the
Cultural Park of the Rio Martin in Aragon region, Teruel province in Spain; the
historic small cities and natural areas in the Vulture-Alto Bradano area in Basili-
cata region in Italy; the rural cultural landscape of Larnaca in Cyprus; two historic
industrial and rural villages in Västra Götaland region in Sweden; three historic rural
villages in the region of Vojvodina in Serbia,; and finally a series of twenty heritage
sites including religious buildings, fortresses, and civic buildings historically linked
by the personality of Stephan the Great, which form a cultural route at the cross-
border of North-East Romania and Moldova. These six pilot heritage sites have been
selected to represent diverse European settings, less-known and remote destinations
which are particularly rich in tangible and intangible heritage, as well as natural
heritage sites, often located nearby more consolidated destinations, such as Matera
in Basilicata and Novi Sad in Serbia, both European Capitals of Culture, but also
the beaches of Cyprus, the pilgrimage route of Santiago crossing Aragon region in
Spain, etc. The rationale behind the choice of the six pilot heritage sites was thus
to represent less-known, remote rural and natural areas with a high potential for
sustainable cultural tourism but currently less attractive and accessible to visitors.
To identify relevant and complete criteria and indicators which can support
decision-making and monitoring of results in the pilot areas of the project, a series
of non-structured interviews and focus groups were conducted with local represen-
tatives of the sites, exploring their priorities and preferences with regard to diverse
circularity dimensions and criteria. The framework here proposed results from both
theoretical studies and reflections, and interaction with pilots.
The impact assessment tool developed in Be.CULTOUR project has a twofold
aim: it represents an orientation tool for decision-making in less known destinations,
enabling understanding of circularity and sustainability objectives by stakeholders
and decision-makers; on the other hand, multidimensional criteria and indicators
can be used for monitoring progress and assessing impacts in more advanced stages
and already well-established experiences. For this reason, the tool was discussed
also with additional destination managers out of the six pilot areas, to assess the
usability and adaptability to specific impact assessment needs. This paper presents
the theoretical and methodological process that led to the definition of the impact
assessment framework, while the testing phase is currently ongoing and will be
presented at a later stage.
2.1 Defining a Theory of Change for Circular Cultural

Tourism Destinations
Among the impact methods that are able to capture social, cultural and environ-
mental returns over time, the Be.CULTOUR project adopted the Theory of Change
(ToC). ToC is an impact assessment tool that belongs to the family of process-based
approaches, which is focused on the analysis of the value production process. The
application of the ToC allows one to reflect qualitatively on the different steps that
lead to the impact objective that the organisation aims to help achieve through the
specific action or project (Bengo et al., 2016). Defining a ToC supports ensuring that
inputs and activities lead to tangible results that contribute to the required change
(Venturi, 2022).
ToC can be considered both a theory and a practice, a process and a product and
can be both a planning and problem-framing tool and a monitoring and evaluation
tool (Vogel, 2012). ToC is a participatory process in which different stakeholders
articulate their long-term objectives in the course of a planning process and identify
the conditions they believe must be unfolded for these objectives to be achieved
(Mackenzie & Blamey, 2007). These conditions are schematised into the changes they
want to achieve and are organised graphically in a hierarchical structure which reads
from left to right. Developing a ToC allows to understand what long-term change
needs to be achieved and what are the best short- and medium-term pre-conditions
to achieve it (Allen et al., 2017). The Theory of Change is based on a fluid dialogue
and communication between stakeholders, that is, those interested in the change
that the programme intends to trigger. Active participation covers all the different
phases of the project cycle: from the analysis of the context, to the identification
of the desired long-term change, as well as the formulation of hypotheses on how
this change might be achieved and the definition of the sequence of events that
would make it happen, the identification of available resources, the choice of the
most appropriate activities and methodologies, the definition and measurement of
indicators, the implementation, monitoring and evaluation of the change and of the
project itself. The participatory process can be constructed through one or more
participatory workshops, the details of which vary depending on the context and its
complexity, the organisational competencies, and the impact to be generated (Stein &
Valters, 2012a, b).
Research applies ToC to the tourism sector in order to understand how change
is achieved following the implementation of tourism strategies in such a way
that development programmes can better exploit the territory’s potential, reducing
risks (Twining-Ward et al., 2018) and more effectively orienting strategies towards
achieving sustainability goals. In addition, this tool encourages the construction of a
dynamic, collaborative and iterative evaluation process, which belongs to the frame-
work of the “circular” co-assessment (Gravagnuolo et al., 2021a, b) according to
which change processes are no longer seen as linear, but as patterns characterised
by iterative feedback loops that need to be understood to support monitoring, evalu-
ation and mutual learning (Limata, 2017). Based on these assumptions, the research
redefined the ordinary structure of the social impact value chain by confronting the
need for impact evaluation of the Be.CULTOUR project’s strategic Action Plans
in the pilot areas of experimentation. The intention was to define a methodological
approach and, at the same time, an operational tool that provides a reinterpretation
of the impact value chain by assimilating the resources and flows within a circular
urban/territorial metabolism and the logical structure and attributes of the theory of
change.
3 Results
In order to obtain the operational and methodological framework for the assess-
ment of the impacts of circular cultural tourism strategies of strategic Action Plans
within the Be.CULTOUR project, the ToC approach was adapted by designing an
operational framework and a dashboard of functional criteria and indicators for the
assessment of impacts. The tool works as a support system for decision-makers for
the design and monitoring of sustainable, responsible and circular cultural tourism
impact strategies (Be.CULTOUR impact assessment framework, Fig. 1). The assess-
ment framework proposed does not necessarily foresee a digital application for its
use, being developed as a co-creation and co-evaluation tool which can be employed
using specific canvases within workshops and focus groups.
The assessment process is based on a set of relevant dimensions, criteria and
indicators and consists of three main phases arranged in the following sequential
order:
1. Impact design, which is based on the analysis of current urban metabolism context
and identification of specific challenges to be addressed;
2. Impact simulation, which represents an intermediate stage between the impact
design part and the impact assessment;
3. Impact measurement and evaluation, starting from input and activating strategies
to address the specific challenges identified.
Phase 1. Impact design: Following the sequence of the impact value chain (from
right to left), the first phase is divided into several procedural steps. The first step
consists of defining the impact objectives (Outcomes) that are the changes in the long
Fig. 1 Be.CULTOUR impact assessment framework based on the theory of change
term to be achieved through the activation of strategies related to the tourism sector.
They can be direct (as a direct consequence of the activated product or service) or
indirect (indirect effects on the life of the beneficiary and other persons), as well as
expected or not expected, thus not initially foreseen by the intervention. Outcomes
represent a part of change attributed exclusively to the activities implemented by the
organisation, as a measure of outcomes net of unavoidable changes, those that would
have occurred even without the project.
The second step concerns the definition of Outputs, that are, the results to be
achieved in the short term necessary to trigger the change objectives. Outputs repre-
sent the immediate and controllable results of activities. They are measured through
indicators that estimate the performance, quantity or quality of the goods and services
of the tourism strategy to generate social change.
For the third step, the model drives and stimulates the planner’s creativity in
defining the activities necessary to achieve the objectives (Strategies), suggesting
factors that guarantee the construction of sustainable tourism strategies, also in
light of the most recent European guidelines. Strategies are actions, processes and
programmes to be activated to generate improvements and changes in the benefi-
ciaries’ lives and territorial transformations. In this sense, the research identifies in
activities those enabling factors, deriving from processes and strategies, that consti-
tute the driving force of change. Planned actions impact positively or negatively on
the context of reference, the environment, the society, and the economy, and there-
fore require careful reflection and design from a human-centred and sustainability
perspective. For this reason, the Be.CULTOUR project suggests some areas of inno-
vation and enabling factors for circularity. They are useful to guide and facilitate
stakeholders and decision-makers participating in the ToC process to design changes
in the direction of circularity-defining tourism destination strategies.
The innovation areas defined by the Be.CULTOUR project are understood as
potential impact areas in which to place tourism strategies in relation to the objectives.
The innovation areas include both the specific tourism aspects emerging from the
pilot areas and a set of emerging trends that will be explored as potentially impact
sectors for cultural tourism. The innovation areas are promoted by the six-pilot case
and are linked to the specificities of the territories to be enhanced by drafting Action
Plans. They are the following:
– Rural co-living promotes authentic rural experiences in traditional cultural land-
scapes through homestay and hospitality in rural villages, stimulating relation-
ships between citizens and visitors through their participation in traditional
activities such as agricultural and landscape maintenance.
– Sensorial heritage experience encourages immersive experiences of places
through didactic and educational activities aimed at all age groups to come
into deeper contact with local culture and traditions through the expressions of
intangible heritage using the five senses.
– Contemporary meanings of heritage, through artistic creation, the aim is to
generate emotional experiences for citizens and visitors by developing new forms
of heritage use such as gamification and virtual travel experience, creative story-
telling and augmented ways of enjoying cultural heritage such as augmented
reality and hybrid digital-physical immersive experience.
– Spiritual travel experience includes pilgrimage routes, spiritual retreats and other
different ways to regenerate and preserve religious heritage sites, promoting the
value of religious heritage.
– Nature as heritage includes nature as cultural heritage by exploring the meanings
and values of natural areas, their “genius loci” through ecotourism experiences,
trekking, sports, active tourism and the promotion of local biodiversity, such as
native species of flora and fauna.
– Industrial heritage experience promotes innovative ways to create an audience for
industrial heritage sites through adaptive reuse.
The emerging trends are: Transformative travel, which focuses on learning
and educational experiences, self-reflection, self-discovery and integrating the
visitor’s travel experiences; Remote working destinations, based on the possibility
of working from home; Proximity travel, that is a practice of travelling close to
one’s everyday environment. Citizens rediscover nearby cultural and natural sites,
becoming “tourists at home”; Post-cultural tourism, exploring different forms of
alternative travel that aim to discover authentic places that are not included in
conventional cultural tourist itineraries.
The enabling factors of circularity, on the other hand, are understood as the main
drivers of change capable of influencing the impact strategy and are subdivided
into circular tourism (circular economy and environmental regeneration), cultural
tourism experience (cultural tourism as a driver of Europeanisation), responsible
tourism (human-centred approach and socio-economic sustainability).
The fourth step is the analysis of the resources needed to trigger change. The
suggested resource stocks were identified from an expanded declination of the dimen-
sions of sustainability (Forte et al., 2019) compared to that of the canonical dimen-
sions of sustainability, due to the need to catalogue a considerable amount of multidi-
mensional information by identifying the following categories: ecological infrastruc-
ture (environmental capital), financial node (economic capital), civic/social infras-
tructure (human and social capital), cultural education (cultural capital), transport
system and housing (anthropic capital), local institutions (institutional capital).
Phase 2. Impact simulation. The second phase is dedicated to the simulation of
the designed impact through the construction of the context scenario in a Geographic
Information System or spatial modelling. This simulation is useful to visualise the
designed impacts in three-dimensional space, which can facilitate a better under-
standing of the impacts by means of the digital model, in order to value the effects
of the designed strategies and choose the preferred scenarios.
Phase 3. Impact measurement and evaluation. The third step produces the evalu-
ation of expected impacts, for which the model suggests performance measurement
techniques and impact assessment methods, encouraging decision-makers to use
collaborative and multistakeholder techniques, supporting a circular and human-
centred approach. To assess the impacts of sustainable tourism, the Be.CULTOUR
project proposes a set of 35 criteria and 147 indicators retrieved from existing liter-
ature sources and adapted to the circular cultural tourism framework (Table 1). The
main criteria for assessing the performance of circular cultural tourism are identified
in relation to the four main dimensions of capital: cultural capital, environmental
capital, social and human capital, and economic capital. The outcomes indicators
measure change and, therefore, the effectiveness of the intervention in terms of the
change generated in the communities and territories concerned. They are quanti-
tative and qualitative and constitute a base monitoring indicator set from which to
draw when identifying the specific indicators useful for a specific territory, according
to the strategic actions identified by stakeholders through the ToC process. In this
sense, a flexible, adaptive and adaptable indicators dashboard is intended, which can
be integrated and used through collaborative processes aimed at implementing and
redefining the indicator set over time.
Table 1 Circular cultural tourism key dimensions and criteria

Dimension Criteria
Cultural capital Preservation of cultural heritage resources authenticity and integrity
Sense of ownership and community care of cultural heritage
Appreciation of cultural heritage
Underused heritage regeneration
Cultural vibrancy
Landscape beauty enhancement
Environmental capital Energy self-sufficiency
Freshwater efficiency
Wastes reduction
GHG emissions reduction
Climate change mitigation
Soil regeneration
Air quality enhancement
Natural sites enhancement
Social and Human capital Community well-being
Community empowerment
Inclusion and human rights
Network density
Youths engagement
Quality of life
Safety
Skills enhancement
Visitors satisfaction
Transformative travel experience
Economic capital Jobs creation
Entrepreneurship
Innovation ecosystem enhancement
Local economy enhancement
Destination development
Sustainable destination management
Digitalisation
Tourism seasonality
Overcrowding
Gentrification effects
4 Discussion and Conclusions
The methodological proposal for the impact assessment of tourism strategies, in the
experimental framework of the Horizon 2020 Be.CULTOUR project, represented
a useful design and monitoring tool for circular tourism destinations, for decision-
makers, managers and stakeholders involved in the design of impact strategies and
the monitoring of changes achieved, adopting the Theory of Change approach.
Be.CULTOUR intended to develop an evaluation framework capable of including
cultural resources and cultural tourism flows as an integral part of the urban/territorial
metabolism of cities and regions, applicable to heritage sites. It intends to reconsider
the linearity of the Theory of Change in favour of a circular orientation, based on
dynamic and evolutionary evaluation theories (Gravagnuolo et al., 2021a, b). This
keystone in the development of theory moves away from traditional value chains and
towards circular production and consumption models, paving the way for the redef-
inition of traditional decision-making processes in the tourism sector through more
circular approaches and the adoption of theoretical and practical circularity-oriented
models by all actors involved.
The impact assessment framework can support stakeholders in the applica-
tion of place-based and human-centred tourism strategies that are truly sustain-
able and capable of limiting potential negative impacts of tourism. While many
decision-support tools are based on a “black-box” software approach, the approach
adopted in Be.CULTOUR privileges interaction and discussion between stake-
holders, exploiting the opportunity of co-designing cultural tourism strategies for
developing enhanced collaboration capacity, trust, shared vision and mutual under-
standing, enabling shared reflection, discussion and co-evaluation taking into account
diverse points of view, motivations and objectives. To operationalise the proposed
framework enabling participatory co-evaluation processes in which non-experts can
easily understand and visualise possible impacts of diverse strategies, it can be partic-
ularly useful to experiment with the simulation of the designed strategy which could
be supported by a digital simulation environment, such as a digital twin, modelled
starting from the analysis of context data and indicators that give back the status quo
and possible future changes as a result of the expected impacts. In this way, a digital
twin could effectively support decision-making processes allowing the simulation
and visualisation of impacts, enabling more effective co-assessment and co-design
processes leading to the choice of preferred scenarios. The dashboard of criteria
and indicators proposed represents a possible support framework for destination
managers and stakeholders to stimulate and guide the design of sustainable and
circular cultural tourism strategies and at the same time to facilitate the process of
selecting key indicators for monitoring and evaluating their strategic action plans.
Next research efforts should be focused on the implementation, testing and vali-
dation of criteria and indicators to support ex-ante, in itinere and ex-post evalua-
tions. The pilot heritage sites of the Be.CULTOUR project represent a test bed for
the assessment framework proposed, which will support the co-evaluation of local
strategies for circular cultural tourism and stakeholders’ engagement in the definition
of shared directions/objectives and eventual adjustments over time, in a circular co-
evaluation process—in line with previously experimented approaches in the Horizon
2020 CLIC project. Moreover, the additional “mirror” heritage sites included in the
Be.CULTOUR community will be engaged as more advanced practices towards
sustainable and circular cultural tourism, well-established destinations which are
currently struggling for identifying a longer-term model of innovative, creative and
sustainable cultural tourism that can benefit local communities and stakeholders, as
well as providing authentic and culturally rich experiences to visitors. The orienta-
tion criteria and indicators included in the Be.CULTOUR framework will be thus
tested and validated in the next phases of the research, collecting relevant feed-
back and adjusting to specific contexts, assessing the feasibility and replicability
of the specific evaluation tools and methods identified, with the aim of generating
a usable methodology and tool to support European destination becoming circular,

human-centred and integrally sustainable.
Acknowledgements A.G. developed the overall research concept and assessment criteria, intro-
duction and research questions, identification of pilot case studies, coordination of the research,
discussion and conclusions, as well as funding acquisition. L.LR., M.C., F.B., M.B. and A.G.
specifically developed the methodology based on ToC. All co-authors co-developed the theoretical
study, literature review, results section and conclusions.
Funding This research was funded under the framework of Horizon 2020 research project
Be.CULTOUR “Beyond cultural tourism”. This project has received funding from the Euro-
pean Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement Number
101004627.
References
Allen, W., Cruz, J., & Warburton, B. (2017). How decision support systems can benefit from a
theory of change approach. Environmental Management. Jun;59(6), 956–965. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s00267-017-0839-y. Epub 2017 Mar 9. PMID: 28280913.
Bengo, I., Arena, M., Azzone, G., & Calderini, M. (2016). Indicators and metrics for social business:
A review of current approaches. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship.
Blamey, A., & Mackenzie, M. (2007). Theories of change and realistic evaluation: Peas in a Pod or
Apples and Oranges? Evaluation, 13(4), 439–455. https://doi.org/10.1177/1356389007082129
Dişli, G., & Ankaralıgil, B. (2023). Circular economy in the heritage conservation sector: An analysis
of circularity degree in existing buildings. Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments,
56, 103126. ISSN 2213-1388, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seta.2023.103126.
Doaa Abouelmagd. (2023). Sustainable urbanism and cultural tourism, the case of the Sphinx
Avenue, Luxor. Alexandria Engineering Journal, 71, 239-261. ISSN 1110-0168, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.aej.2023.03.041.
European Commission. (2022). EU Tourism Dashboard. Retrieved from https://tourism-dashboard.
ec.europa.eu/?lng=en&ctx=tourism.
European Commission. (2017). The European tourism indicator system: ETIS toolkit for sustainable
destination management. Retrieved from https://data.europa.eu/doi/https://doi.org/10.2873/
983087.
Forte, B., Cerreta, M., & De Toro, P. (2019). The human sustainable city: Challenges and perspectives
from the habitat agenda. The Human Sustainable City: Challenges and Perspectives from the
Habitat Agenda. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315198569
Fusco Girard, L., & Nocca, F. (2017). From linear to circular tourism, Aestimum [Preprint].
Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.13128/Aestimum-21081.
Gravagnuolo, A., Bosone, M., & Fusco Girard, L. (2021). Methodologies for impact assessment of
cultural heritage adaptive reuse. Deliverable D2.5 Horizon 2020 CLIC project.
Gravagnuolo, A., Bosone, M., & Fusco Girard, L. (2021). Deliverable D2.5 – Methodologies for
impact assessment of cultural heritage adaptive reuse. Retrieved from https://www.clicproject.
eu/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/D2.5-Methodologies-for-impact-assessment-of-cultural-her
itage-adaptive-reuse.pdf.
INCIRCLE project. (2020). Measuring tourism as a sustainable and circular economic sector. The
INCIRCLE model Deliverable 3.3.1 INCIRCLE set of circular tourism indicators.
Limata, P. (2017). Assessing social impact through theory of change in voluntourism, in 20th
Excellence in Services International Conference.
Neves, S. A., & Marques, A. C. (2022). Drivers and barriers in the transition from a linear economy
to a circular economy. Journal of Cleaner Production, 341, 130865. ISSN 0959-6526. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.130865.
Rheede, A., & Blomme, R. (2012). Sustainable practices in hospitality: A research framework.
Advances in Hospitality and Leisure, 8, 257–271. https://doi.org/10.1108/S1745-3542(2012)000
0008018
Rodríguez, C., Florido, C., & Jacob, M. (2020). Circular economy contributions to the tourism
sector: A critical literature review. Sustainability, 12(11), 4338. Retrieved from https://doi.org/
10.3390/su12114338.
Sgambati, M., Acampora, A., Martucci, O., & Lucchetti, M. C. (2021). The integration of circular
economy in the tourism industry: A framework for the implementation of circular hotels. In
Advances in Global Services and Retail Management. Cobanoglu, C., Della Corte, V., Eds.,
University of South Florida M3 Center Publishing: Tampa, FL, USA, pp. 1–10, ISBN 978-1-
955833-03-5.
Stein, D., & Valters, C. (2012). Understanding “Theory of Change” in international development:
a review of existing knowledge. In: Paper Prepared for the Asia Foundation and the Justice and
Security Research Programme at the London School of Economics and Political Science.
Stein, D., & Valters, C. (2012). Understanding theory of change in international development. (JSRP
and TAF collaborative project) (JSRP Paper 1). Justice and Security Research Programme,
International Development Department, London School of Economics and Political Science,
London, UK.
Twining-Ward, L., Messerli, H., Sharma, A., & Villascusa Cerezo, J. M., (2018). Tourism theory
of change. Tourism for Development Knowledge Series; World Bank, Washington, DC. http://
hdl.handle.net/10986/35459.
UNDP. (2017). Tourism and the sustainable development goals. Journey to 2030. World Tourism
Organization (UNWTO). https://doi.org/10.18111/9789284419401.
Venturi, P., De Benedictis, L., & Miccolis S. (2022). Società benefit. Promuovere senso e valore nel
perimetro offerto dalla normativa, AICCON, Short Paper 26/2022.
Vogel, I. (2012). Review of the use of ‘Theory of Change’ in international development. Retrieved
from https://www.theoryofchange.org/pdf/DFID_ToC_Review_VogelV7.pdf.
WTO. (2004). Indicators of sustainable development for tourism destinations a guidebook (English
version). World Tourism Organization (UNWTO). https://doi.org/10.18111/9789284407262.
Golden Rules for Sustainable Cultural
Tourism Development: Findings
of the EU SPOT Project
Milada Šťastná and Antonín Vaishar
Abstract Amongst the objectives of the H2020 SPOT project (Social and Innovative
Platform On cultural Tourism and its potential towards deepening Europeanisation),
there was the intention to explore the use of cultural tourism as a vehicle for improving
the social and economic fabric of disadvantaged rural areas. Through 15 Case Studies
(including a small number of over-touristed areas for comparison), partners ‘clus-
tered’ examples to establish common themes around which to describe the good prac-
tice. The detailed analysis demonstrated that each cultural tourism target is unique. It
may be that there is an attraction of cultural tourism despite there isn’t a ‘brand’ but
each site has its own special features. Following extensive dialogue with stakeholders
and the collation of relevant statistical data in each area, being inspired by the work
on Regional Development carried out by the European Research Centre in its work
on Smart Specialisation Strategies, SPOT teams described the key factors which need
to be addressed in progressing Cultural Tourism in new locations or in capitalising on
existing examples of Cultural Tourism. The factors are explored in detail and the rela-
tionship between them is identified by the local stakeholder’s observations; examples
of successful interventions are quoted from our extensive database of Case Study
findings. The importance of stakeholder engagement is described and the support
which can be given by the academic communities is highlighted. The framework
of European, national, regional and local policy approaches is analysed in general
terms and observations are made on the organisational structures which support (or
impede!) cultural tourism activity. Whilst SPOT argues that each example of Cultural
Tourism is unique, it is still able to draw conclusions regarding priorities at each level
(EU/national/regional/local) which need to be addressed. The approach is holistic—
single-issue intervention is not considered effective. The overall approach encourages
sustainability; sustainability in economic terms, sustainability in social and commu-
nity relationships, sustainability in resources, environmental point of view and finally
in the use of cultural tourism activity to promote community empowerment, reduce
conflicts and provide a dynamic future for disadvantaged areas.
M. Šťastná (B) · A. Vaishar

Mendel University in Brno, Zemědělská 1, 61300 Brno, Czechia
e-mail: milada.stastna@mendelu.cz

142 M. Šťastná and A. Vaishar
Keywords Cultural tourism · Regional development · Sustainability · Europe ·

Recommendations · Golden rules
1 Introduction
Tourism is one of the fastest-growing sectors of the economy, despite the damage
it has suffered as a result of the measures against the spread of COVID-19. It is
in line with the current transition of developed countries from a material to a post-
material society, or from production to consumption. The European Union, individual
countries and regions have high expectations regarding the development of tourism,
among other things, in the sense of replacing job opportunities lost by production.
Tourism represents a richly structured category. Different regions have different
bases for certain forms of tourism (mountains, sea, important historical buildings or
objects). However, the prerequisites for the development of cultural tourism can be
found (or created) in almost every place. In addition, cultural tourism brings not only
recreation and physical recovery, but also knowledge of foreign regions, customs
and people. This broadens the cultural horizons of both, tourists and residents. In
this sense, they are not only economic but also social categories.
Development can be understood in a quantitative sense—more products, higher
VAT and more inhabitants. However, recently, attention is turning (especially in rural
and less developed areas) to qualitative indicators of development. In this sense, we
can speak more about the contribution of cultural tourism to regional sustainability
in all three pillars: economic, social and environmental.
The article is one of the summarising outputs of the SPOT research project of
the HORIZON Europe program, which ran between 2020 and 2022. The consortium
included research institutions from 15 countries. Such a large consortium allowed
gaining knowledge about rural and partly urban tourism, in the countries of Northern,
Central and Southern Europe and in Israel, including the post-communist part of
Europe. The article presents possible strategic, political and practical measures/
recommendations to strengthen the role of cultural tourism in local, regional and
European development. Its goal is to generalise the main findings of the SPOT
project in the form of golden rules towards the support of sustainable cultural
tourism, not only as an economic sector but also as a tool of cultural development
and Europeanisation.
2 Cultural Tourism and Regional Development
The linkage between culture and tourism is not new (Richards, 2020). The peculiarity
lies in the fact that it is at the same time a combination of the economic sector and the
cultural development of tourists and local residents. The economic nature of tourism
is growth-oriented and emphasises income and employment opportunities (e.g. Pablo
Golden Rules for Sustainable Cultural Tourism Development: Findings … 143
Romero and Molina, 2013). According to Mei Pung, Gnoth and del Chiappa (2020),
contextual stimuli can lead tourists to reflectively interpret the experience and acquire
skills, values and knowledge, with consequences on attitude, habits and behaviour.
Cultural tourism in the narrowest sense is often considered as visiting cultural
monuments, cultural facilities or cultural events. This approach theoretically makes
it possible to divide destinations into cultural and other destinations. According to
our approach, cultural tourism is connected with a cognitive function. From this point
of view, it is not the destination that matters, but the purpose of travel. Kalvet et al.
(2020) define cultural tourism as a type of tourism activity in which the visitor’s
essential motivation is to learn, discover, experience and consume the tangible and
intangible cultural attractions/products in a tourist destination.
Cultural tourism can therefore be carried out in almost any place. It becomes
part of the locality and regional identity (Abram and Waldren, 1997). Practically,
every place has its history, traditions and peculiarities. The most famous ones form
a network of tangible and intangible UNESCO World Heritage. However, there is
a whole system of lower-level cultural heritage and, in addition, a large number
of hitherto unknown attractions. It’s just a matter of discovering, emphasising, or
completing these aspects. The active participation of tourists in organising their trips
is increasing. A new branch of creative tourism is emerging (Duxbury et al., 2021).
Cultural tourism has many different forms. Without claim to completeness, one can
name visits to traditional cultural institutions, namely museums, galleries, historical
monuments, participation in cultural events such as concerts, theatre performances,
folklore events, culinary and wine tourism, wandering in the footsteps of cultural
events, cultural personalities and the like. Exploring nature and open-air museums
is also a part of educational tourism. Games based on cognitive tourism are being
developed, for example, geocaching (Pisula et al., 2023).
Cultural tourism has a number of similar demands as tourism in general, for
example, infrastructure or information security requirements. However, at the same
time, it has certain specificities, for example, the structure of visitors with a higher
proportion of seniors or young families (McKarcher, 2020), not so pronounced
seasonality compared to types of tourism dependent on the weather. Of course,
cultural tourism is intertwined with other types of tourism (sports, recreation, enter-
tainment) and also with other types of services that are not directly focused on
tourism.
The main reason to develop cultural tourism is its potential benefit for different
levels of development. On the one hand, it can be developed in the sense of growth,
on the other one, it can be seen mainly in relation to less developed regions, which
prefers issues of regional cohesion, namely the reduction of differences compared to
other (more developed) regions. Another understanding can conceptualise regional
development as regional sustainability. Individual concepts of regional development,
therefore, choose different indicators for analysis. Durovic and Lovrentjev (2014)
attempted to design such indicators.
3 Case Studies
Methodologically, the contribution is based on the generalisation of findings from 15

case studies in 15 countries (Fig. 1). Results are based on research done using ques-
tionnaire surveys, interviews and analysis of data and geographical contexts. Exam-
ples of good practices were identified and collected. The research was conducted
during the period of the COVID-19 pandemic. Restrictions during the pandemic
greatly limited the possibilities of face-to-face research; therefore, a large part of the
interviews and questionnaires were carried out online, which particularly limited the
possibilities of non-verbal communication. On the other hand, the added value of the
research was the primary response of individual tourism actors to the pandemic and
anti-pandemic measures (Vaishar and Šťastná, 2022).
The findings from the empirical research were widely analysed and discussed at
workshops, organised especially in the last third of the project. Work workshops were
dedicated to individual topics. They took place in groups and their conclusions were
discussed in plenary. Recommendations for management could then be identified.
Here comes a brief specification of selected case studies. One of the case study
regions was Art Nouveau in Barcelona as an example of urban cultural tourism
with the risk of congestion. The Carpathians and their foothills in the Buzau
region of Romania are an example of a geopark with landscape attractions and
folk culture. The Cyclades archipelago in Greece includes both overcrowded and
tourist-underappreciated islands. The Ida-Viruma region in Estonia is an example of
Fig. 1 Case study areas. 2022 Source van Elburg et al. ()

an originally industrial region turning into a cultural tourism region. The Kinderdijk
area in the Netherlands is an important landscape of windmills and water canals.
Komárom/Komárno represents an example of cross-border tourism between
Hungary and Slovakia while Germany’s Lieberose/Oberspreewald region includes
a specific landscape whose wildness has been preserved thanks to the military area.
Ljubljana, the capital of Slovenia, is an example of urban cultural tourism. Lower
Silesia in Poland is known as a land of palaces and gardens. The Scottish case studies
focused on media tourism.
Nitra in Slovakia plays an important role as a centre of historical and religious
tourism. Southern Piedmont is a complex of historical sites and cultural actors, high-
lighted by the culture of wine. Wine culture is also used by rural cultural tourism
destinations in South Moravia in the Czech Republic. The Styrian Iron Route uses
the traditions of iron mining and processing for the development of cultural tourism.
The Beit Shean Valley in Israel combines archaeological and historical sites with the
present.
Thus, cultural tourism has been empirically investigated in areas of various types,
in the countries of northern, central, western and southern Europe, in cities and in the
countryside. Among the main attractions were historical sites, cultural events, wine,
nature, and technical monuments. Although the case studies were very different,
certain general characteristics could be found. This made it possible to formulate
conclusions for policy practice.
The importance of stakeholder’s engagement is described and the support which
can be given by the academic communities is highlighted. The framework of national,
regional and local policy approaches is analysed in general terms and observations
are made on the organisational structures which support (or impede!) cultural tourism
activity. Whilst SPOT argues that each example of Cultural Tourism is unique, it is
able to draw conclusions about priorities at each level (EU/national/regional/local)
which need to be addressed. The approach is holistic—single-issue intervention is
not considered effective. The SPOT project resulted (besides others) in Eight Golden
Rules for policy actors at a different level.
These rules have been developed from an analysis of strategy, policy and practice
in each of SPOT’s 15 Case Studies. The results of the analysis have been shared
with around 200 stakeholders from the public, private, voluntary and community
sectors. The Golden Rules structure reflects the regional development model set out
by the European Research Centre in its work on Smart Specialisation Strategies. An
Assessment Wheel has been used to assist in identifying priorities and further details
in each area and can be found in SPOT project reports such as Summary Report on
Stakeholder Involvement and Policy Guidelines and Briefings.
4 Eight Golden Rules
Rule 1 Policy Formulation Formal policies at national, regional and local levels so far
as they relate to Cultural Tourism will probably show relevant political priorities and
will almost certainly point the way to funding opportunities and the potential for influ-
encing those policies. These policies should contain visions, strategies and imple-
mentation rules for the implementation of cultural tourism at different geograph-
ical levels. They should also address the mutual competencies of the departments
of tourism, culture, the environment, and possibly others. Horizontal and vertical
linkages of policies, including cross-border cooperation, are also important.
Rule 2 Local Engagement/Local Benefit Successful Cultural Tourism activi-
ties tend to have strong local community support. To start a process of engaging
local residents and businesses, it is necessary to be clear about the likely benefits
(and dis-benefits) of any development. Unlike some other forms of tourism, where
tourists can operate almost without contact with local residents, the development of
cultural tourism directly requires the involvement of local residents, for whom it also
brings their own cultural development. There are also other benefits for localities,
especially direct financial benefits, creation of job opportunities, contracts for local
entrepreneurs and the like. At the same time, it is necessary to minimise the possible
negative manifestations of the development of (cultural) tourism, such as excessive
traffic by strangers, noise, car traffic congestion, waste, etc.
Rule 3 Shared Vision to assemble the necessary finance, permissions, support
from all economic and social sectors and motivation, a Shared Vision should be
developed. There will be contrary forces, but the consultative processes involved in
developing a Vision will pay off in terms of identifying any ameliorative measures.
A locus (organisation or individual) will be needed to lead the work, along with a
putative timescale. One promising option may be the initiation of the creation of
destination management based on cooperatives or non-governmental associations
with the participation of public administration, entrepreneurs and various associa-
tions. Their task would be to coordinate cultural tourism in individual destinations
and offer these destinations as one package of experiences and products. Funding
may initially be a problem, as the relationship between input and effort may be
indirect and take time.
Rule 4 Sustainable Development Sustainability should be built into all aspects of
the programme; this will be of benefit to local residents, sustainability measures can
be an educational tool and may be attractive to potential visitors. In theory, sustain-
ability has three pillars: economic, social and environmental. Sustainability should be
evaluated in the context of regional development in a qualitative sense; inter-sectoral
conflicts that could disrupt any of the three pillars should be satisfactorily resolved.
However, it also makes sense to talk about the sustainability of cultural tourism as
such, when excessive intensity (over-tourism) could destroy or seriously damage the
very attractions of cultural tourism; so that the respective destination could lose its
appeal.
Rule 5 Innovation Any development will be innovative; be aware of the level of

innovation required to distribute benefits and impacts responsibly and ensure that
any necessary training, investment, etc. are put in place. Recently, innovations in
the tourism industry are mainly associated with digitalisation and online products.
However, innovation can also consist in finding or creating new products, targeting
other target groups of tourists, creation of new marketing structures, creating new
collaborations, and the like. The usual innovative procedure mainly consists of an
idea, development and implementation.
Rule 6 Infrastructure/Policy Mix Infrastructure may need to be in place in advance
of market demand, meaning resources to develop transport, accommodation, sanita-
tion, etc. have to be identified; the phasing of the different elements of implementation
will need to be considered, as will the impact on local communities. Infrastructure
is one of the fundamental prerequisites for the development of cultural tourism. It
should correspond to the target groups of tourists. It is a purpose-built infrastruc-
ture, focused mainly on the needs of tourists, but also a general infrastructure of the
destination, which can be used both by tourists and local residents. Improving infras-
tructure in relation to tourism development can also bring benefits to local residents
and offset some of the inconveniences caused by tourism. In doing so, it is necessary
to proceed sensitively, especially if the attraction of cultural tourism is historical
heritage. In such a case, the construction of modern infrastructure could disturb the
character of the cultural heritage.
Rule 7 Implementation Having decided what to do—policy and vision—who
will deliver it? Check implementation structures and particularly liaison arrange-
ments between public and private sectors. It is necessary to ensure support or at
least acceptance of the accepted idea from local residents, cooperation of interested
stakeholders, financial coverage, and responsible person or institution. Conditions
and relationships between interested parties may change during implementation. It
is necessary to maintain their motivation.
Rule 8 Monitoring and Evaluation Create processes for recording progress, in
particular, and ensure the measures being used identify Cultural Tourism metrics
specifically. Ensure data is shared between all stakeholders. Statistical data on the
number of overnight stays or attendance at selected attractions can be used for moni-
toring. Sample surveys or visitor censuses can also be carried out using devices.
However, these data do not cover the whole of cultural tourism and especially its qual-
itative aspect. This can be monitored using sociological methods—questionnaires,
interviews, and monitoring of satisfaction indicators on social networks.
5 Europeanisation
In addition to the contribution of cultural tourism to regional and local development,

from a Pan-European point of view, the importance of cultural tourism for Euro-
peanisation is visible. Cultural tourism contributes to intercultural understanding
within Europe through the discovery of different types of cultural heritage. The
current focus on the development of cultural tourism does not fully appreciate this
fact yet. At least there are significant differences between individual countries, and
regions, accepted: Europeanisation is understood in a vertical sense as a political
framework for harmonising top-down strategies or in a horizontal sense as emerging
autonomous similarities creating place-based identities grounded in similarities in
culture. Culture deals with people’s habits, beliefs, and views. Generally, cultural
tourism fosters Europeanisation by emphasising distinctive cultural values—often
featuring characteristic landscapes—that are typical for Europe. Europeanisation can
be a responsible strategy for promoting both cultural diversity and European identity
as reflected in the landscape.
The following recommendations for stakeholders on the European level have been
adopted:
• Focus more on horizontal Europeanisation and less on vertical Europeanisation.
• Create policies to promote individual cultural tourism. It increases diversity,
prevents exclusion and encourages horizontal Europeanisation.
• Approach cultural tourism and Europeanisation as a process of emancipation and
recognise them as forms of democratisation and management of cultural resources.
• Involve tourists actively in planning, creating and doing their trips.
• Implement cultural tourism at local and regional levels and align this with
European regional development policy.
• Identify EU financial support for the development of cultural tourism (multilevel
financing or cofinancing).
Acknowledgements This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020
programme for research and innovation under grant agreement no. 870644.
References
Abram, S., & Waldren, J. D. (1997). Introduction: tourists and tourism—identifying with people
and places. In Abram, S., Macleod, D., & Waldren, J. D. (eds.) Tourists and Tourism: Identifying
with People and Places, not paged. Routledge, Abingdon-on-Thames. https://doi.org/10.4324/
9781003136002.
Durovic, M., & Lovrentjev, S. (2014). Indicators of sustainability in cultural tourism. The
Macrotheme Review, 3(7), 180–189.
Duxbury, N., Bakas, F. E., Vinagre de Castro, T., & Silva, S. (2021). Creative tourism development
models towards sustainable and regenerative tourism. Sustainability 13(2), 2. https://doi.org/10.
3390/su13010002.
Elburg, E. van, Pleijte, M., Pedroli, B., Donders, J., & Rip, F. (2022). Report on the results of
surveys for tourists, residents and entrepreneurs in the case studies [D1.4 report]. Wageningen
Research.
Kalvet, T., Olesk, M., Tiits, M., & Raun, J. (2020). Innovative tools for tourism and cultural tourism
impact assessment. Sustainability, 12, 7470. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12187470
McKarcher, B. (2020). Cultural tourism market: A perspective paper. Tourism Review, 75(1), 126–
129. https://doi.org/10.1108/TR0320190096
Mei Pung, J., Gnoth, J., & del Chiappa, G. (2020). Tourist transformation: Towards a conceptual
model. Annals of Tourism Research, 81, 102885. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2020.102885
Pablo-Romero, M. P., & Molina, J.A. (2013). Tourism and economic growth: A review of empirical
literature. Tourism Management Perspectives, 8, 28–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tmp.2013.05.
006.
Pisula, E., Florek, M., & Homski, K. Marketing communication via geocaching—When and how
it can be effective for place? Journal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism 42, 100622. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jort.2023.100622.
Richards, G. (2020). Culture and tourism: Natural partners or reluctant bedfellows? A perspective
paper”. Tourism Review, 75(1), 232–234. https://doi.org/10.1108/TR-04-2019-0139
Vaishar, A., & Šťastná, M. (2022). Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on rural tourism in Czechia.
Preliminary Considerations. Current Issues in Tourism, 25(2), 187–191. https://doi.org/10.1080/
13683500.2020.1839027
The Holistic, Digital Cultural Heritage
Documentation of the Fikardou
Traditional Village in Cyprus
Marinos Ioannides , Orestis Rizopoulos , Drew Baker ,

Elena Karittevli , Maria Hadjiathanasiou , Panayiota Samara ,
Ioannis Panayi , Marina Mateou , Iliana Koulafeti ,
Marios Koundouris , Kyriakos Efstathiou, George Savva ,
and Elina Argyridou
Abstract This paper focusses on the case study of Fikardou Village (Cyprus), a
UNESCO World Heritage Tentative List monument, highlighting its unique cultural
value by referencing historical evidence identified during our research. Our contribu-
tion investigates Fikardou’s cultural offerings by presenting and analysing the major
M. Ioannides (B) · O. Rizopoulos · D. Baker · E. Karittevli · M. Hadjiathanasiou · P. Samara ·

I. Panayi · M. Mateou · I. Koulafeti · M. Koundouris · K. Efstathiou · G. Savva · E. Argyridou
Department of Electrical Engineering, Computer Engineering and Informatics, Cyprus University
of Technology, UNESCO Chair on Digital Cultural Heritage, Arch. Kyprianou 31, 3036 Limassol,
CY, Cyprus
e-mail: marinos.ioannides@cut.ac.cy
O. Rizopoulos
e-mail: orestis.rizopoulos@cut.ac.cy
D. Baker
e-mail: drew.baker@cut.ac.cy
E. Karittevli
e-mail: elena.karittevli@cut.ac.cy
M. Hadjiathanasiou
e-mail: m.hadjiathanasiou@cut.ac.cy
P. Samara
e-mail: panayiota.samara@cut.ac.cy
I. Panayi
e-mail: ioannis.panagi@cut.ac.cy
M. Mateou
e-mail: marina.mateou@cut.ac.cy
M. Koundouris
e-mail: marios.koundouris@cut.ac.cy
K. Efstathiou
e-mail: kyriakos.efstathiou@cut.ac.cy

154 M. Ioannides et al.
outcomes of three H2020 EU-funded projects (TExTOUR, MNEMOSYNE, IMPAC-

TOUR) that include Fikardou as a major component in their research programme. By
elaborating on selected successful outputs such as policy interventions, new cultural
tourism trends, advances in visitor management systems, and new business and/or
governance models that arise from this specific case study, we argue for the advances
that have been achieved in the cultural tourism sector in Cyprus, as exemplified
through the experience of Fikardou Village as a developing cultural tourist destina-
tion exploring and embracing digital technology as a force multiplier in achieving
its aims.
Keywords Holistic documentation · Digital Fikardou Village · Digital cultural

heritage · Cultural tourism · Cultural strategies
1 Introduction
Fikardou Village is a traditional Cypriot village with rich cultural and natural heritage
assets but a complex and sometimes competing set of economic, social and envi-
ronmental challenges involving national, international, and local stakeholders that
must be carefully balanced if the village is to capitalize on its memory and heritage
resources as a sustainable cultural tourist destination. Views of Fikardou Village can
be seen in Fig. 1.
Located on the southeastern slopes of the Troodos Mountain range, about thirty
kilometres (30 km) southwest of the capital city of Nicosia, on the Eastern Mediter-
ranean island of Cyprus, the origins of the village suggest its existence at least as
far back as the fifteenth century. The use of the genitive case in the village’s name
Fig. 1 The traditional Cypriot village of Fikardou © UNESCO Chair on Digital Cultural Heritage
G. Savva
e-mail: georgesavva@windowslive.com
E. Argyridou
e-mail: elina.argyridou@cut.ac.cy
The Holistic, Digital Cultural Heritage Documentation of the Fikardou … 155
suggests that it probably once belonged to one Tomazo Phicardo, notary to King
James II during Frankish rule in Cyprus, as a feudal fief (George Jeffrey, 1918).
The village is considered a genuine example of eighteenth- and nineteenth-century
Cypriot folk architecture with some modifications belonging to the first decades
of the twentieth century (Hegoumenidou & Floridou, 1987). In the mid-twentieth
century, however, the trends of urbanization and rural abandonment led to a dramatic
population decline, causing economic depression in the village, which left many
properties deserted and at risk of becoming derelict. Due to its uniqueness the village
was put under the supervision of the Republic of Cyprus Department of Antiquities
in 1978, being listed as an “Ancient Monument” in its entirety, and a “Controlled
Area” was established around the settlement to control any contemporary develop-
ment in its immediate surroundings (Philokyprou & Limbouri-Kozakou, 2015). In
1984, the Department of Antiquities undertook a wide programme to revitalize the
entire village, restoring collapsing houses and improving the image and infrastruc-
ture of Fikardou. Owners of private dwellings received generous state subsidies for
the restoration and rehabilitation works they made. Aiming at high-quality protec-
tion and management of the heritage components that constitute its uniqueness the
village was included on the UNESCO World Heritage Tentative List1 in 2002.
2 Fikardou—The Challenge of Multimodal Heritage Use
2.1 Fikardou as a UNESCO World Heritage Tentative List

Site
The entire village of Fikardou has been placed on the UNESCO World Heritage
Tentative List2 (UNESCO-WHTL), an inventory of those properties which each
State Party intends to consider for nomination for inscription. States Parties are
encouraged to nominate national properties that they believe to be of “exceptional
universal value” in terms of their cultural and/or natural heritage but must comply to
The UNESCO Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage
Convention criteria for the assessment of Outstanding Universal Value,3 and satisfy
at least one of the ten selection criteria.
Fikardou was nominated by the Republic of Cyprus Department of Antiquities
under the Ministry of Communications and Works. It describes Fikardou as an “excel-
lent example of a traditional mountain settlement, which has preserved its eighteenth-
and nineteenth-century physiognomy and architecture, as well as its natural environ-
ment”, echoing the UNESCO sentiment “The main aesthetic quality is the integrity
1 The rural settlement of Fikardou, Tentative Lists, UNESCO World Heritage Convention.
2 https://whc.unesco.org/en/tentativelists/1673/.
3 https://whc.unesco.org/en/guidelines/.
and authenticity of the village, in complete harmony with its environment”. Fikardou
Village embodies four of the ten section criteria as follows:
• to exhibit an important interchange of human values, over a span of time or
within a cultural area of the world, on developments in architecture or technology,
monumental arts, town-planning, or landscape design;
• to bear a unique or at least exceptional testimony to a cultural tradition or to a
civilization which is living or which has disappeared;
• to be an outstanding example of a type of building, architectural or technological
ensemble or landscape which illustrates (a) significant stage(s) in human history;
• to be an outstanding example of a traditional human settlement, land-use, or sea-
use which is representative of a culture (or cultures), or human interaction with
the environment especially when it has become vulnerable under the impact of
irreversible change;
2.2 Fikardou as a Cultural Heritage Resource
Due to its cultural, historical, and aesthetic value, the village has been the case study of
academic papers, publications, and European projects. The village is one of the few
examples left of a traditional settlement in Cyprus which has remained unspoiled
over time and preserved elements and architectural features that demonstrate the
traditional Cypriot way of life.
The architecture of the village is a representative example of Cypriot rural settle-
ments during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries (Philokyprou & Limbouri-
Kozakou, 2015). The structures are small, unique and simple, constructed with
local materials such as solid “iron” stone (sieropetra), pebbles, limestone slabs and
mudbricks for the walls, and olive wood for the roof. Pine shingles and locally made
tiles are the main components of sloping roofs, however most dwellings have flat
roofs (known as doma), serving domestic functions notably the drying of grapes,
pulses, and other products. Houses usually have two floors; the upper floor where
the family would traditionally have lived, while the ground floor rooms were used
for stabling animals and storing agricultural products.
At the northern edge of the village, two of the most important domestic structures
can be found, the House of Katsinioros and the House of Achilleas Demetri, so named
for their last owners. George Jeffrey (1918) wrote about them in 1918: “The House of
Achilleas Demetris is also a representative example of 19th architecture in Cyprus,
but it differs from the other houses in terms of construction, due to the incorporation
of huge stones within the wall”. Because of their architectural value, both houses are
listed as “Ancient Monument Schedule A”, meaning that they are state property and
both were restored by the Department of Antiquities between 1984 and 1986 with a
grant from the A.G. Leventis Foundation.4 The two buildings subsequently became
4 https://www.leventisfoundation.org/.
Fig. 2 Images of the Houses of Achilleas Dimitri (left) and Katsinioros (right) © Department of
Antiquities
part of the Local Rural Museum project and received the Europa Nostra International
Award recognizing outstanding heritage conservation initiatives (PIO, 1987).
Traditional monuments of Fikardou Village, like the House of Katsinioros and
the House of Achilleas Dimitri, can be seen in Fig. 2.
Other notable buildings include a large winepress (linos) and the Church of Apos-
tles Peter and Paul. The wine press was still operational until the second half of the
twentieth century as a community cooperative, both the pressing mechanism and the
large clay jars used to store wine are still preserved. The church built between the
seventeenth and eighteenth centuries is a small, single-aisle church with a wooden
slopping roof and walls built with local stones and a bell tower to the northeastern
corner.
Although Fikardou is currently a quasi-abandoned settlement with only a handful
of remaining permanent residents, the village has become a significant tourist attrac-
tion. While the cultural and natural heritage of the village and its surroundings are
the predominant factors for tourism, Fikardou is more than an open-air museum.
Contributing to the touristic offering is the active participation of Fikardou in the
recent popularity and growth of organized traditional festivals promoting both local
and national cultural heritage. For example, most recently Fikardou was awarded the
best Christmas Village 2022–23 by the Cyprus Hospitality Awards of the Deputy
Ministry of Tourism, a highly competitive and prestigious award.
2.3 Fikardou as a Cultural Tourist Destination
According to the United Nations World Tourism Organization,5 cultural tourism

is “movements of persons for essentially cultural motivations such as study tours,
performing arts and cultural tours, travel to festivals and other cultural events, visits
to sites and monuments, travel to study nature, folklore or art, and pilgrimages”.
5 https://www.unwto.org/.
Although tourism has great potential to promote a destination, attract visitors to

study and learn about its cultural heritage and increase local revenue, some local
communities and heritage experts are sceptical about tourism and possible negative
impacts due to overcrowding, noise pollution and other nuisances, nature destruction,
cultural appropriation, littering, and loss of authenticity, the very things that Fikardou
wishes to guard against.
The IMPACTOUR project addresses sustainable cultural tourism as “integrated
management of cultural heritage and tourism activities in conjunction with the local
community creating social, environmental, and economic benefits for all stake-
holders, to achieve tangible and intangible cultural heritage conservation and sustain-
able tourism development”. To this extent, cultural tourism is about managing cultural
heritage and tourism in an integrated way, working with local communities to create
benefits for everyone involved. To ensure that both cultural heritage and the local
community benefit from the channelling of tourism to the site, it is essential to include
local stakeholders and communities in the decision-making processes. The goal is
to integrate sustainable cultural heritage, tourism activities, and local communities,
resulting in a greener environment, a healthier economy, and happier people. Finding
the proper balance between the economic, social, and political aspects of tourism
has been gaining importance.
3 e-Fikardou—Implementing a Digital Cultural Strategy
3.1 e-Fikardou—Creating the Platform
Managing and maintaining the demands of protecting heritage assets while promoting
and supporting tourism, requires cooperation and constant dialogue with local
communities, national and international agencies and, of course, tourists them-
selves, is essential if all parties are to benefit from cultural tourism. The TExTOUR
project aims to establish pioneering, sustainable cultural tourism strategies to improve
deprived areas in Europe and beyond. It further seeks to recognize difficulties, estab-
lish cooperation between regions and countries, and integrate the generated knowl-
edge into a platform. The TExTOUR project team at CUT is working on a collab-
oration with Fikardou (one of the eight pilot sites in the project) to create a digital
platform for the village. Named eFikardou.eu,6 the platform showcases applications
presenting Fikardou’s tangible and intangible cultural heritage, allowing the would-
be visitor to plan their visit and be informed of its significance as a UNESCO-
WHTL, seasonal events and responsible tourism. The platform includes 3D models,
360° Tours, Virtual Reality (VR) Tours, a Virtual Gastronomy Lab, e-books, images,
and storytelling. Notably, the platform features a 3D model of the entire digitized
village, its monuments and historical objects. Furthermore, it embodies the holistic
6 https://efikardou.eu/.
digital documentation and archiving of the village’s intangible cultural heritage, its
related data, metadata, and paradata—the “Information about human processes of
understanding and interpretation of data objects” (Denard, 2009).
Considering the different types of user needs, the team organized several work-
shops to produce valuable results and choose actions to be implemented. The team
invited stakeholders, interested parties, and locals to participate and share their
thoughts. A standout element of these workshops was that people who would have
otherwise been passive “end-users” were offered the opportunity to be actively
engaged in the decision-making process. This upgrade from end-users to decision-
makers has been crucial in allowing the stakeholders to shape the development of
the e-Fikardou platform, most notably for the local community, allowing them to
decide the scale and form of impact on the local economy and market. Given that,
currently, the Fikardou community generates zero revenue from tourism, it is a new
opportunity for the village to decide what kind of incentives to offer in order to attract
the desired types of visitors, investors, and businesses, and to what degree they wish
to engage in economic ventures. It also presents an opportunity for Fikardou to reach
out to its diaspora and invite them to return and bring life back to the village.
One of Fikardou’s prime cultural elements is the harmony of the village with its
natural environment and the advancement of the village must be approached strategi-
cally in order to protect this asset. The actions chosen in the framework of TExTOUR
project in collaborating in the Fikardou pilot supported this requirement and formed
the basis for developing the e-Fikardou platform. The e-Fikardou platform serves
as a vessel for collected data and generated knowledge designed to offer a unique,
integrated experience (and at the same time to educate users) and engagement with
Fikardou’s tangible and intangible cultural heritage. Moreover, the platform supports
policymakers and practitioners in assessing cultural tourism strategies, services, and
facilities as the sector develops within the village.
The platform incorporates educational content, an interactive e-book (Fig. 3),
and a downloadable application from the Fikardou e-Gastronomy Lab (Fig. 4). The
virtual gastronomy lab has been developed under the guidance and cooperation of
the creators of the Cyprus Food Museum which is the first of its kind worldwide.
Additionally, the platform includes VR Tours of the entire digitized village with the
ability to access fully digitized points of interest (POIs) (Fig. 5). Additionally, the
creation of the BIM (building information modelling) model is in progress (Fig. 6).
Also, the 360° Tour application links the various location points from the digitization
laser scan results and ultimately allows the user to navigate through the village from
point to point, as can be seen Fig. 7. The 360° Tour is also compatible with the VR
experience.
Among others, the e-Fikardou platform includes the following characteristics:
• Shareability: By integrating links and downloadable apps within the e-platform
content and creating a platform readable in multiple formats with multilingual
menus.
• Functionality: Integrating the generated knowledge into the platform to boost
cultural tourism and support policymakers and practitioners.
Fig. 3 Images of the interactive e-book © UNESCO Chair on digital cultural heritage
Fig. 4 Screenshots of the virtual gastronomy lab at the house of Katsinioros © UNESCO Chair on
digital cultural heritage
Fig. 5 3D dense point cloud from drone photogrammetry © UNESCO chair on digital cultural
heritage
Fig. 6 Creation of the BIM model using as base the point cloud of terrestrial laser scanner and
drone © UNESCO chair on digital cultural heritage
Fig. 7. 360° Tour images from the inner layout of the village © UNESCO chair on digital cultural
heritage
• Usability: By incorporating User Interface (UI)/User Experience (UX) compo-

nents. The user is guided by recognizable icons and titles, with a practical and
easily readable menu interface.
• Accessibility: By offering the opportunity to people who cannot travel to the site
and to people with disabilities to experience Fikardou through a faithful Virtual
Tour designed in collaboration with the Office of the Commissioner for Admin-
istration and the Protection of Human Rights (in its capacity as the competent
authority for the protection and inclusion of persons with disabilities).
3.2 e-Fikardou—Holistic Heritage Digitization

and Documentation
The process of holistic digitization and documentation of the movable and immov-
able tangible cultural heritages of Fikardou Village is crucial for the protection,
preservation and renovation of the village and is based on the research outputs of the
EU Study VIGIE2020/654 (Commission, 2022). Additionally, the 3D digitization
process can significantly improve the accessibility of the unique cultural heritage of
the village for research, innovation, education, and enjoyment. Digitized 3D cultural
heritage tangible objects can be used in several ways such as.
• High-quality 3D scans and records can be used by archaeologists and engineers

in conservation, protection, and conditional/structural assessment.
• Data of medium quality for 3D printing are extensively used in the creative
industry sectors such as the games industry, XR applications, and education.
• Low- and/or high-resolution 3D structures are delivered through online platforms,
repositories, and infrastructures to facilitate the work of scholars, archaeologists,
museologists, historians, architects, engineers, multidisciplinary researchers/
experts, and students.
The Study lays out clear guidelines and best practice in how to conduct a digitiza-
tion campaign for cultural heritage and considers the wider implications of quality,
complexity, and stakeholder requirements that are vital if the created “digital twin” is
to be of maximum use and impact across multiple use cases as a trusted and authentic
representation of cultural heritage assets. This is the fundamental principle behind
the holistic documentation of cultural heritage and the MNEMOSYNE methodology.
3.3 e-Fikardou—Taxonomy of Holistic Documentation
Fikardou Village’s monuments and environment as well as its embedded intangible

aspects and features were examined using the MNEMOSYNE project methodology
for the holistic documentation and digitization of tangible cultural heritage. The
project developed an integrated taxonomy for the tangible cultural heritage assets
of the village supporting the representation of movable/immovable heritage, the
complexity of heritage assets and the embedded nature of intangible heritage assets
within the context of the Fikardou study. The proposed taxonomy divides heritage
into tangible and intangible components, with a focus on creating a class for tangible
heritage. By dividing these two categories, it will be possible to determine where
intangible heritage can be recognized, how it interacts with tangible heritage, and
how this detailed information can be integrated into this system.
In its most basic form tangible cultural assets can fall into one of two categories,
namely, movable or immovable (Fig. 8). Classifications beyond this simple divi-
sion, however, become more complex as definitions become refined and progres-
sive classification is a major challenge. The subcategories are distinguished by
various difficulties and levels of complexity that have been recognized and handled
in various ways. Although there may be an overlap between the categories—even at
the movable/immovable classification level—they should be considered separately
before expanding the wider knowledge system that is available for each object,
monument, and site of Fikardou.
Fig. 8 Classification of tangible heritage class into the movable and immovable cultural heritages
of Fikardou village
The following standards are used to categorize movable objects:

• function which refers to an asset’s technical capabilities;
• form which refers to the typological categories of an asset;
• subject type which describes a particular use or purpose of an asset that
distinguishes it from another physical form with similar physical characteristics;
• material/technique which refers to the physical characteristics of the asset
relating to its creation or manufacture, including its material(s) and production
technique(s), where those are discernible;
• location or context which serves as a crucial connecting point between tangible
and intangible heritages, as well as the heritage of both movable and immov-
able objects, and emphasizes documenting the asset’s temporal and physical
provenance;
• state and condition which covers the asset’s entire lifecycle, pre- and post-
depositional.
Furthermore, monuments can be classified according to:
1. feature depending on the spatial–temporal variables, rooted in the general
environment;
2. significance intended as the main function attached to the monument and how it
related to the human social economic context (e.g. storage, cultic, etc.);
3. (3a) components partitioned into two categories, namely, space, which can be
delimited (indoor) or not (outdoor) (3b) built elements referring to the parts
composing a specific structure depending on the segmentation of the space they
provide.
The village can be categorized by using a general taxonomic system based on The
Getty Vocabularies,7 within the classes of “Tangible”, “Immovable”, “Terrestrial”,
“Site”, “Function”, and “Residential”, to “villages” the indicative type for Fikardou
as a cultural heritage asset (Fig. 9). Furthermore, the data and information needed to
record the tangible facet of this cultural heritage asset are represented in classes such
as “Elements” and “Materials”. The “Elements” taxonomy of the village includes
the historical monuments of the village such as the church, winepress, museum, and
7 https://www.getty.edu/research/tools/vocabularies/aat/index.html.
Fig. 9 Conceptualization of
holistic documentation
regarding Fikardou Village
traditional houses. Finally, “Materials” taxonomy refers to the physical characteris-

tics of the asset relating to its creation and manufacture, including its materials and
production technique, where those are discernible.
The intangible information of the asset is recorded in the class “Context”, which
includes general and historical information about Fikardou Village.
Subsequent branches can be added to the class tree increasing the complexity of
the representation but deepening the understanding and interrelationships between
the components of the assets. Further details of these taxonomies for Fikardou Village
are available for the Fikardou case study from the MNEMOSYNE project.8
8 https://erachair-dch.eu/case-studies/.
3.4 e-Fikardou—Creation of a User Classification
As noted previously a vital component to implementing the cultural strategies chosen

to support Fikardou was the inclusion of parties at all levels of investment in devel-
oping the village as a cultural heritage asset, from UNESCO to the Department
of Antiquities to residents of Fikardou and the wider community diaspora. The
MNEMOSYNE methodology considers all stakeholders, or asset users, to be part
of the documentation process classifying and categorizing these them based on their
needs and backgrounds. This is in part supported by the taxonomy which can be
used to assist in identifying missing stakeholders and engaging them with the project
dialogue.
The first step of this classification is to define interdisciplinary user groups, their
members, and identify users’ knowledge of cultural heritage. The main criteria by
which users are displayed are informational needs (general, educational, trade visi-
tors), expertise (domain expertise and technical expertise), and motivations (curiosity,
work, planning visits, pleasure, captive, and non-captive learning). These categories
distinguish previously identified groups and provide a way to introduce specific cate-
gories of users whose contribution is frequently underestimated or not considered at
all (e.g. the hobbyist).
Figure 10 shows the four main identified categories, based on their area of expertise
and knowledge with corresponding subcategories. We note that experts are also
involved as users. The four main categories are.
Fig. 10 The multidisciplinary community of experts and users involved in the documentation and
knowledge of Fikardou Village
• experts with domain and technical expertise in this particular area, e.g. historians,
geographers, and geologists;
• case study experts with empirical knowledge and studies of this domain, e.g.
curators, archaeologists, architects, surveyors, civil engineers, and IT specialists;
• non-experts who are motivated by this particular area, e.g. students, tourists,
guides, policymakers, decision-makers, the general public, the tourist industry,
and creative industries;
• case study users who are involved in the use and reuse part of the process, e.g.
educators and multimedia experts.
3.5 e-Fikardou—Data Acquisition and Digitization Pipelines
While the documentation process, taxonomy and user classification are vital in
defining the problem domain (what needs to be digitized, who are the stakeholders,
how will the results be used, etc.), it does not inherently address the practicalities of
data acquisition actualization. EU Study VIGIE2020/654 (European Commission,
2020) establishes best practice in data acquisition both in terms of planning a digiti-
zation campaign and in the recording of paradata as part of the holistic documentation
and digitization process. The MNEMOSYNE method implements these guidelines
allowing the objective measurement for the confidence and credibility in produced
data, metadata, and paradata described by the fundamental parameters of Complexity
and Quality.
The complexity of 3D data acquisition is determined by multiple factors that can be
evaluated and assigned a confidence weighting; for example, software and hardware
are evaluated based on reliability, operability, compatibility, maintainability, security,
etc. A more specific evaluation can be undertaken as necessary, in the case of hardware
based on license availability (i.e. frequencies, interferences with other systems),
the precision of multisensory systems under different environmental conditions, the
usability (i.e. communication, transfer of data, battery life, available storage), the
efficiency (i.e. speed of data and accuracy), and sensor integration. These groupings
and subcategories, including their rationale and evaluation criteria, can be found
within the Study (European Commission, 2022).
Figure 11 shows the resulting general radial chart for the evaluation of the
complexity of digitizing Fikardou Village, with categories highlighted to indicate the
expected effort and estimated impact of these factors and contribution to complexity
from each subcategory within a particular group.
The MNEMOSYNE methodology aligns itself with the position expressed by the
Expert Group on Digital Cultural Heritage and Europeana (European Commission,
2022) that “Quality in 3D digitisation of cultural heritage is not only about capture
accuracy and resolution, but also about other key aspects such as historical accuracy,
range of data and metadata generated and collected, and fitness for purpose”. The
Fig. 11 Radial chart describing the complexity parameters for Fikardou Village
methodology therefore records the wider aspects of quality in regard to the docu-
mentation of the project, not in the fidelity of 3D data output (although it may be
indicative of high-fidelity results).
In a similar approach to the quantification of complexity, the quality parameters’
documentation types are grouped according to recording type/task with subcategories
for specific parameter weighting. For example, when considering the recording of
Materials this is broken down into individual parameters like yield, fatigue, tensile or
toughness. These parameters in turn may be directly or indirectly, singly or collec-
tively, engaged with the overall quality of the digitization process in response to
the complexity imposed by the properties of the concerned material(s), i.e. chemical
composition, moisture, corrosion, carbonation, resistance, and porosity which refer to
the layers of the material parameter. These groupings and subcategories, including
their rationale and evaluation criteria, can be found within the Study (European
Commission, 2022).
The resulting quality of the digitization for Fikardou is described in Fig. 12.
The 3D digitization process necessarily varies according to the heritage asset
under consideration (as described through the taxonomy), the processes and methods
utilized during the acquisition (the complexity parameters), the physical disposition
of the asset (the quality parameters) and the potential uses or purposes of the produced
Fig. 12 Radial chart describing the quality parameters for Fikardou Village
material (identified during the user classification). Taking all of these into consider-
ation, if the criteria set by the parameters are achieved, the confidence in the results
of a digitization campaign and the resulting data capture’s fidelity as a faithful and
complete record of a cultural heritage asset is increased within the given (and known)
constraints.
In the case of Fikardou Village, having holistically considered the digital docu-
mentation of the site provided a ground truth on which to base confident, informed
and appropriate decision-making (based on the strategies/actions developed in the
IMPACTOUR and TExTOUR projects) in collaboration and engaging with all stake-
holders at the appropriate level, and ultimately the realization of the e-Fikardou
platform, its content and digital cultural tourism offering.
4 Conclusion and Future Plans
This paper has presented the case study of Fikardou Village, a UNESCO Tentative
List monument, as a successful example of cultural tourism advancement. The three
European projects that include Fikardou in their work plan have decidedly set the
pace for opening new routes in experiencing tourism in Cyprus. Nevertheless, already
plans are in place to further the objectives of each one of the projects and to establish
new lines of inquiry. Specifically, in the context of the TExTOUR project, the CUT
team aims to digitize the cycling and walking routes and experiences in and around
the village recording and mapping of the routes for accessible tourist activities.
Figure 13 shows the first stage of the mapping process in KML format and inte-
grated into Google Earth. When all stages of the process are completed, the results
will be fully integrated into a geoinformatics platform with applications for cyclists,
hikers, and visitors. Moreover, such athletic excursions can be combined with expe-
riencing the surrounding nature or a visit to the village to experience its traditions
and gastronomy through touristic scenarios and available workshops. The village
seeks to capitalize on this and establish a Cycling/Hiking Centre to organize and
host sports events, to create local accommodation for visitors, as well as introduce
modest commercial activity through bike rentals.
As part of the wider commitment to revitalize the village and stimulate the local
economy, the CUT team, in collaboration with the Department of Antiquities and
the Community Council of Fikardou, has been working on creating incentives for
renovating the buildings to attract former residents back to the village or to rent them
to new people who wish to enjoy the lifestyle that Fikardou now offers. Alternatively,
given the increased tourist activity in the village, there is interest in how buildings
may serve visitors as shops run by local owners or as potential rentals. The next step
Fig. 13 Fikardou-Kalo Chorio cycling/hiking routes mapping KML

is to organize a pan-community gathering, bringing together village residents and

property owners who may not reside in Fikardou, to inform them of these incentives
and opportunities.
Finally, the project co-designs pioneering and sustainable cultural tourism strate-
gies to improve deprived areas in Europe and beyond. This framework contains
provisions for the creation of a roadmap of cooperation around cultural heritage
and tourism between Fikardou, Cyprus and Anfeh, Lebanon.9 Anfeh and Fikardou
share important similarities; both are placed on the Tentative List of the UNESCO
World Heritage, and both present a harmonious relationship between the built and the
natural environment, enabling a perspective of the cultural landscape. A milestone
of this cooperation has been the signing of a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU)
between the municipalities of the two cultural sites. This MoU signifies a remark-
able partnership between an EU and a non-EU member for regional development
and sets a new precedent for furthering cultural diplomacy in the Eastern Mediter-
ranean and the Middle East, allowing for the interaction of peoples, the exchange of
language, religion, ideas, arts, and societal structures, thus forming and/or strength-
ening relations between divergent groups. The Levantine Basin has always been an
epicentre of interaction, not only regarding trade in goods, but importantly, regarding
the exchange of ideas, values, traditions, and other aspects of culture or identity,
whether to strengthen relationships, enhance socio-cultural cooperation, promote
national interests and beyond. Hence, the cooperation between Fikardou and Anfeh
re-establishes long-standing traditions and shared history of the region.
The goal is to design and set up a roadmap for the development of long-term
sustainable cooperation between the two regions, including the local communities,
as well as local and regional policymakers and stakeholders. Resources from the two
sites include local agriculture and gastronomy, art and crafts, literature and music,
and underwater, urban, and natural sites of historical, religious, and archaeological
significance. This aims to introduce local tourism exchange, widening of regional
professional networks, knowledge exchange, commerce and trade on local products.
Acknowledgements IMPACTOUR has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020
research and innovation programme under grant agreement no. 870747.
MNEMOSYNE project has received funding from the European Union’s H2020 Framework.
Programme for research and innovation under Grant agreement no. 810857
TEXTOUR has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and
innovation programme under grant agreement no.101004687
EU VIGIE2020/654 Study at the request of and financed by the European Commission,
Directorate-General of Communications Networks, Content & Technology VIGIE 2020/654.
Special thanks to the excellent cooperation with the Community Council of Fikardou and
the Cyprus Department of Antiquities which is responsible for the management of the archae-
ological heritage of Cyprus. The settlement of Fikardou has been under the supervision of the
Department since 1978, as an “Ancient Monument” in its entirety, and within a “Controlled Area”.
9 Anfef, Lebanon.
References
Denard, H. (ed). (2009). The London Charter for the Computer-Based Visualisation of Cultural
Heritage. London, [Online]. Retrieved from https://www.london-charter.org/.
E. Commission. (2022). Directorate General for Communications Networks, and Technology, Study
on quality in 3D digitisation of tangible cultural heritage: mapping parameters, formats, stan-
dards, benchmarks, methodologies, and guidelines: executive summary. Publications Office of
the European Union. https://doi.org/10.2759/581678.
European Commission, Expert Group on Digital Cultural Heritage and Europeana. (2020). Basic
principles and tips for 3D digitisation of tangible cultural heritage for cultural heritage
professionals and institutions and other custodians of cultural heritage. Luxembourg [Online].
Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/dae/document.cfm?doc_id=69201.
George Jeffrey, F. S. A. (1918). A description of the historic monuments of Cyprus. Studies in the
archeology and architecture of the Island. Nicosia: Governing Printing Office, Nicosia, Cyprus
[Online]. Retrieved from http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924028551319.
Hegoumenidou, F., & Floridou, A. (1987). Phikardou: A traditional village in Cyprus. Nicosia: Chr.
Nicolaou and Sons Ltd, A.G. Leventis Foundation, Dept. of Antiquities.
Philokyprou, M., & Limbouri-Kozakou, E. (2015). An overview of the restoration of monuments and
listed buildings in Cyprus from antiquity until the twenty-first century. Studies in Conservation,
60(4), 267–277. https://doi.org/10.1179/2047058414Y.0000000136
PIO. (1987). Houses in Fikardou Village are selected for Europa Nostra’s certificate of value. Press
and Information Office, 3.
Methodology and Application of 3D
Visualization in Sustainable Cultural
Tourism Planning
Karima Kourtit , Peter Nijkamp , Henk Scholten, and Yneke van Iersel
Abstract This paper addresses the global imperative of implementing sustainable

initiatives in contemporary industrial and service sectors, with a focus on the tourism
industry’s quest for resilience and recovery post the COVID-19 pandemic. To foster
balanced tourism development, the necessity for evidence-based information at local
and regional levels is emphasized, highlighting the demand for transparent planning
support tools within the sector. Alongside traditional statistical monitoring tools like
Tourist Satellite Accounts, the increasing popularity of digital tools, including local
tourism dashboards, e-booking systems, and interactive tourist guidance devices,
is noted. Noteworthy is the prospect of applying digital twins, an emerging visu-
alization technique in spatial planning, to local and regional sustainable cultural
tourism planning. This paper explores the scope and utility of digital twins, drawing
on principles from geoscience and geodesign, to create 3D visualizations of spatial
tourist realities. The urban architecture of these visualizations is outlined, demon-
strating their use through an empirical illustration of digital twins for the Park-
stad region in Limburg, the Netherlands. The 3D images depict the tourism area
across various cultural-historical periods, presenting a multi-layer representation
of ‘cultural-historical epochs’, starting from the Roman period. This innovative
approach contributes to digital sustainable cultural tourism planning by offering a
data-based perspective on spatial realities and historical epochs, providing a valuable
tool for the industry’s planning and decision-making processes.
Keywords Cultural tourism · Sustainability · Circularity · Digital twin ·

Cultural-historical epochs
K. Kourtit (B) · P. Nijkamp

Open University, The Netherlands, Valkenburgerweg 177, 6419 AT Heerlen, Netherlands
e-mail: karima.kourtit@ou.nl
H. Scholten
VU University, The Netherlands, De Boelelaan 1105, 1081 HV Amsterdam, Netherlands
e-mail: henk.scholten@geodan.nl
H. Scholten · Y. van Iersel
Geodan Amsterdam, The Netherlands, President Kennedylaan 1, 1079 MB Amsterdam,
Netherlands
e-mail: yneke.van.iersel@geodan.nl

174 K. Kourtit et al.
1 Aims and Scope
Over the past decades the tourism sector has shown—both locally and globally—a
rapid structural rise. It has become one of the most important industries in the world,
as a result of the rise in leisure time, decline in transportation costs, globalization and
logistic accessibility, local scale advantages from mass tourism, and a rise in global
tourism participation by visitors from emerging economies (Yang & Wong, 2021;
The World Tourism Organization 2021, 2022). More recently, digital technology
has become one of the accelerators of worldwide tourism, e.g. through the use of
e-booking systems, digital information systems on literally all places on our planet,
social media and electronic platform access and use, etc. (Lau, 2020). Tourism has
turned from a rather low-tech physical mobility activity for visitors to a high-tech
information-driven and data-based industrial sector (Daldanise, 2016; Kourtit et al.,
2022). It has the typical features of an advanced Industry 4.0 sector.
Nevertheless, modern tourism has also many shadow sides. Environmental decay
is one of the obvious consequences of tourism in destination places, e.g. noise, waste,
air and water pollution, etc. But there are also other negative externalities, like local
crowding effects and loss of local identity and authenticity (Gössling, 2020; Lu et al.,
2022; Song et al., 2022). Examples like Venice and Barcelona illustrate that tourism
is not an undisputed activity that only serves the local economy in a positive way. Is
there a possibility to turn tourism into an economic activity that would lead to envi-
ronmentally benign, climate-neutral or circular outcomes for tourist destinations?
And can digital technology provide tools to pave the road to sustainable results at
local or regional level that are supported by the locals and at the same time avoid
or mitigate insider versus outsider conflicts? The challenges involved are multi-
faceted and complex, and call for evidence-based creative responses (Angrisano
et al., 2016; Hampton, 2005). The Be.CULTOUR project—as part of the EU Horizon
programme—seeks to develop a co-creation approach, with many partner institutions
from all over Europe, in order to provide informed strategies and policy lessons for
cultural tourism in a circular economy context, based on modern research tools. In this
context, digital data handling capacity is a sine qua non for an effective sustainability-
and circularity-oriented policy approach.
The present paper aims to demonstrate the potential of three-dimensional (3D)
visualization methods in local cultural tourism planning, with a particular emphasis
on the use of ‘digital twins’ as spatial imaging tools for providing policy-makers
and planners with appropriate and evidence-based information for acquiring an inte-
grated perspective on sustainable cultural tourism planning. The paper is organized as
follows. After this introductory Sect. 1, we will introduce in Sect. 2 some evidence on
the need for appropriate visualization methods, by referring to critical tourist issues
in a particular case study, viz. the Heerlen/Parkstad region in the Southern part of
the province Limburg in the Netherlands. Then, Sect. 3 is devoted to the analytical
and planning potential of geoscience and geodesign in a digital world. Section 4
provides a concise overview of digital planning support (DPS) tools that highlight
the relevance of digital twins in cultural tourism planning. This culminates then in
Methodology and Application of 3D Visualization in Sustainable … 175
the presentation of an empirical illustration of digital twins for urban circularity

for the Parkstad region, South-Limburg, in Sect. 5. The final section provides some
concluding remarks.
2 Culture and Tourism: A Complex Nexus
Culture is a broad economic sector that comprises inter alia art, history, architecture,
entertainment, performing arts, creative professions, and so forth (Alberti & Giusti,
2012; Coccossis & Nijkamp, 1995; Nijkamp & Kourtit, 2023). It has both a material
and spiritual component. It forms a representation or mapping of societal trends and
mindful developments that combine the past with the present. It goes without saying
that tourism is all over the world attracted by rich local or regional cultural amenities,
as is witnessed by cities like Venice, Paris, Amsterdam, Boston, Cape Town, Mumbai,
or Shanghai. This also holds for smaller cities like Leeuwarden in the Netherlands,
Bruges in Belgium, Delphi in Greece, or Bandung in Indonesia. Tourism is of course
an economic asset which may generate many financial resources for the host area.
However, in the age of mass tourism, an uncontrolled influx of visitors may lead to
countervailing crowding effects that erode the cultural and ecological assets which
form exactly the basis of tourism (see a sketch of the tourism paradox in Fig. 1).
There is an abundant literature on the paradoxical developments in tourism (Fusco
Girard & Nijkamp, 2009; Greffe, 2004; McManus & Carruthers, 2014). Studies
include inter alia crowding effects, environmental decay, decline in quality of life of
residents in destination places, etc. (e.g. Gössling et al., 2020; Hall et al., 2020; Song
et al., 2022; Yang & Wong, 2021). In this context, it should be noted that cultural-
historical heritage is not just a static asset from the past, but a dynamic phenomenon
comprising influences from different periods (‘cultural-historical epochs’). This will
Ecological
Cultural assets
resources
Mass Tourism
tourism attractions
Fig. 1 The tourism paradox

be illustrated here for the case of South-Limburg in the Netherlands, an attractive and
rich cultural-historical and vulnerable ecological area near the German and Belgian
border. It is for Dutch people a peripheral region, but it has a good accessibility
for Germans (nearby Aachen) and Belgians (nearby Liege, and not very far from
Brussels). It is also for Dutch tourists one of the most attractive natural areas to visit,
with a wealth of cultural-historical and ecological resources dating even back to the
Roman period (Nijkamp & Kourtit, 2023).
The historical, political and cultural time frame of South-Limburg can be
subdivided into five distinct cultural-historical epochs (Visit Zuid Limburg, 2022):
1. the Roman period; 750 BC–500 AC (‘Carrefour of the Romans’);
2. the Medieval period; 500 AC till the seventeenth century (‘Knights and Bandits’);
3. the coal mine era; modern time till 1970s (‘Golden Mining’);
4. the intermediate era; break-down period end of last century (‘Dramatic Transi-
tion’);
5. the modern era; beginning twenty-first century (‘New Revival’).
Each of these epochs is part of the ‘great story’ of this region and has left behind
important characteristic footprints (‘icons’). So, for each of these five epochs, one
can draw a map that presents the location of cultural-historical landmarks in the area
at hand. By using an overlay approach to each of these five maps, one may obtain
a comprehensive map of the entire region containing the cultural-historical assets in
an integrated way (see Fig. 2).
Legend
Fig. 2 An integrated representation of the cultural-historical assets across the entire region in the
form of a comprehensive map. Source The Story of Parkstad, and its implementation within the
Customer Journey Model, a presentation by Anya Niewierra, General Director Visit Zuid Limburg,
on 8 September 2022 (pp. 27)
New Revival
Dramatic Transition
Golden Mining
Knights and Bandits
Carrefour of the Romans
Fig. 3 Sketch of the cultural-historical epochs in South-Limburg. Source The Story of Parkstad,
and its implementation within the Customer Journey Model, a presentation by Anya Niewierra,
General Director Visit Zuid Limburg, on 8 September 2022 (pp.27)
In an image form, the cultural-historical evolution of South-Limburg can also be

visualized systematically from a synthetic multi-faceted time perspective (see Fig. 3).
In goes without saying that the visitors to South-Limburg have different motives:
nature, culture, history, shopping, entertainment, etc. Especially in the summer
season, clearly overcrowded places can be observed, which reduces the tourist attrac-
tiveness of this area and leads also to dissatisfaction among the local residents.
Tourism policy is therefore a delicate search for a balance between conflicting inter-
ests. To find such a balance, detailed user-friendly information of tourist attractions,
tourist pressure, and negative externalities is needed. To that end, the use of digital
support tools is a necessity. This will be discussed in Sect. 3.
3 Benefits of Geoscience and Geodesign Methods
Over the past decades we have witnessed an enormous interest in the development
and application of geoscience and geodesign approaches. This development was
stimulated by (i) the ‘quantitative revolution in geography’ which started in the 1970s
and which heralded a new period in geographical analysis and (ii) the need for a proper
visualization of complex spatial data systems, characterized by multi-dimensional
features and multi-scalar geographical information. Geographic Information Systems
(GIS) were one of the clear exponents of this new development and have provided a
wealth of applications in spatial planning all over the world.
The above-described revolutionary trends in geoscience were, in particular,
induced by the quantitative and modelling orientation in the spatial sciences; the
combination of spatial data systems and advanced spatial visualization techniques
led to a great popularity of geoscience in modern spatial analytics and in urban or
regional planning in many policy fields.
Geodesign was the next step in geoscience, as it enabled researchers to link spatial
data representations to spatial design issues, ranging from municipal planning tasks
to urbanization challenges (including housing stocks, infrastructural facilities, or
environmental provisions). Consequently, these new toolboxes formed the beginning
of a new planning tradition in the field of urban and regional policy and management.
And gradually this new orientation has also entered the domain of tourism planning
(Albuquerque et al., 2018; Brown & Weber, 2012; Liritzis et al., 2015; Melenchuk,
2021; Valjarević et al., 2017).
The tourist sector forms a mutually interwoven amalgam of supply conditions
and visitors’ demand or responses. On the supply side, we may distinguish several
core tourist facilities, in particular, cultural amenities (e.g. museums, historical quar-
ters), tourist assets (e.g. hotels), urban ambiance (e.g. historical-cultural atmosphere),
and environmental quality (e.g. green areas and nature). On the demand side, we
may identify volumes of tourist visits, tourist expenditures, crowding effects, space–
time profiles/concentrations of tourists, etc. The combination of this bi-polar tourist
constellation forms the data base pattern that is needed for a mapping of the local
tourist sector (see Fig. 4).
Such a mapping needs both a data metrics approach and a 2D—but preferably
a 3D—geoscience image approach. One of the modern techniques for mapping the
space–time complexity of spatial systems—in this case, a local tourist system—is a
digital twin. Digital twinning has in recent years become a fashionable geoscience
approach. Examples can be found inter alia in Scholten (2017), Micheli et al. (2018),
Craglia et al. (2021), Ivanov and Dolgui (2021). This approach is gradually also
Cultural Tourist Tourist Tourist

Amenities Assets Visits Expenditures
Urban Environmental Crowding Space-time

Ambiance Quality Effect Profiles
Fig. 4 The supply–demand nexus of local tourism

finding useful applications in the tourist sector and will briefly be introduced in
Sect. 4 of this study.
4 Digital Planning Support Tools and Digital Twins

in Cultural Tourism
Local tourist planning presupposes tailor-made information on the supply and

demand profiles of the characteristics of tourist areas, including core touristic ameni-
ties, attractiveness conditions, bottlenecks on the supply and demand sides (e.g.
contextual constraints due to physical geography), and strength-weakness conditions
at local or regional level (Niccolucci et al., 2022; Singh et al., 2022). In addition,
general conditions on sustainability development (e.g. fulfilments of the 17 SDGs),
urban circularity conditions, and climate-neutrality objectives are to be considered
as well, taking into account a differentiation of objectives due to multiple stakeholder
groups.
A wide variety of evidence-based digital planning support (DPS) tools has been
developed in the past decades. Examples are digital scoreboards; interactive user-
oriented dashboards; community-based geodesign tools; 3D visualization techniques
and maps; and, more recently, digital twins. Digital twins may be seen as a virtual
3D mapping of a real-world constellation of a multi-faceted and complex phys-
ical phenomenon, with space–time components based on an array of systematically
organized micro-based or meso-based data. They do not only offer a static picture of
characteristic features of the urban space on the basis of a collection of multi-scalar
data, but incorporate also an array of time-varying digital data sources (ranging from
cadastral data to GPS data). Consequently, a digital twin is much more than a 3D
atlas: it is systematically and thematically organized and is able to meet the users’
requirements by its interactive nature and its 3D simulation capacity (e.g. in the form
of virtual museums, historical experience centres, and metaversal digital cultural
heritage).
It goes without saying that the modern ICT sector—and in particular digital tech-
nology—provides unprecedented opportunities for cultural tourism as well as for
the cultural and creative sector in Europe and elsewhere. It will not only benefit the
tourism industry and the cultural economy at macro- or meso-level, but will also
enrich cultural awareness among the citizens and local stakeholders and NGOs. The
cultural tourism ecosystems nurtured by tailor-made DPS tools have the capacity to
foment innovativeness and creativity in the current age of sustainability initiatives,
including Green Deal objectives and the New European Bauhaus programmes. We
will now present in Sect. 5 a pedagogical example of the use of a data-driven digital
twin exercise for the Parkstad region in South-Limburg.
5 A Digital Twin Prototype for South-Limburg
Cultural heritage is a broad concept that comprises a wide range of historical urban
and regional assets that reflect a rich past and are still memorable in present times
(see, e.g. Angrisano et al., 2016). Historical landscapes and cityscapes are part of
cultural heritage (UNESCO 2011). Cultural heritage contains a wealth of intrinsic
and use functions (e.g. economic, social, creative, financial, environmental, iconic,
historical, aesthetic, cultural, etc.) related to both the built environment and natural
areas (see, e.g. Throsby, 2001; Kourtit & Nijkamp, 2022). An important question
pertains to the key factors (X-Factors) that drive societal well-being in the context of
cultural tourism and historical-cultural heritage. This calls for an impact assessment
and market potential analysis of sustainable, inclusive, and circular cultural tourism
through the use of multi-dimensional quantitative and qualitative indicators, system-
atically organized in the decomposition scheme with measurable key performance
indicators (KPIs). To that end, a digital data toolbox using as a frame of reference
a digital twin approach is very helpful, as this may also generate the necessary data
of spatial digital planning support (DPS) tools like an interactive user-oriented dash-
board for sustainable cultural tourism at urban and regional levels (see Fig. 5). This
decomposed data structure can be represented in an integrated data warehouse from
a multi-scalar perspective (see Fig. 6), where the symbol XXQ in the centre repre-
sents the highest possible level of urban quality or well-being from the perspective of
cultural tourism performance. It is clear that Fig. 6 comprises all multi-scalar data that
are needed for constructing a digital twin for the area concerned in South-Limburg.
The empirical focus in the present study will be on a prototype design of a digital
twin for sustainable and circular development of the city of Heerlen, the touristic
centre of the Parkstad region in South-Limburg. To undertake this endeavour, an
extensive data base collection (based on municipal statistics, cadastral data, place-
specific tourist data, relevant land-use data, etc.) had to be organized. A necessary
condition for building up a reliable 3D thematic image of a given area is to specify
precisely the points of interest and to get precise data on the coordinates of this site.
Fig. 5 A cascade of hierarchical data use and monitoring

Fig. 6 Integrated data warehouse for sustainable and circular performance of cultural tourism
This is certainly a sine qua non for a reliable and quantitative representation of spatial
phenomena in relation to cultural tourism and sustainable urban development.
As an illustrative introduction to the spatially varying tourist amenities in the city
of Heerlen, we present here a GIS map of all hospitality provisions (including hotels,
restaurants, (snack)bars, café’s) in the city (see Fig. 7). The centre of the city and the
main axes appear to be popular locations of these visitors’ facilities.
The next step is to present a few prototypes of digital twins for the central part of
the city of Heerlen. We demonstrate now the first results from an empirical proof-
of-concept experiment on Heerlen by zooming in on two KPIs, viz. (i) the spatial
sustainability/circularity dimension of the housing stock (measured in terms of its
energy efficiency, as a proxy for favourable conditions of the built environment) and
(ii) the density and spatial spread of urban green in relation to the construction year
of the buildings, as a proxy for attractive quality of life of neighbourhoods in the
Legend
Fig. 7 Location of hospitality amenities in the centre of Heerlen
city. The detailed spatial 3D images of these KPIs for the centre of the city can be
found in the prototype digital twins presented in Figs. 8 and 9, respectively.
Figure 8 shows a 3D map of the spatial distribution of energy labels for individual
buildings (ranging from highly energy-efficient outcomes in the central part of the
city to extremely inefficient outcomes elsewhere). In general, there appears to be
an enormous spread of the ecological energy (and circularity) performance in the
urban area of Heerlen, while it is noteworthy that the density of trees appears to be
rather irregular. This reveals an interesting finding in comparison to Fig. 7: tourist
attractions like hospitality amenities and shopping areas are positioned in areas with
a relatively high energy performance.
Figure 9 shows another interesting digital twin feature of the city. The construction
years of the buildings in the inner city display a great variation, with only a few
buildings constructed in the past decades. This finding illustrates once more that
generally the attractiveness of the inner city is not balanced from the perspective of
tourist visits.
Legend
Fig. 8 Prototype digital twin of Heerlen for energy efficiency of buildings at micro-scale (based
on energy labels of houses and presence of trees)
Legend
Fig. 9 Prototype digital twin of Heerlen for age of buildings at micro-scale (based on year of
construction and presence of trees)
Clearly, many more digital twins on the attractiveness characteristics of the city
might be created, e.g. cultural amenities, entertainment places, synergies among
tourist attractions, and accessibility for visitors. Our digital twin experiment offers
only a prototype of the actual potential of geoscience techniques and needs much
more detail in future research. In addition, an analysis of the interaction between
different thematic digital twins is an interesting challenge.
6 Conclusion
The present study has to be seen against the background of the UN SDGs and the New
Urban Agenda. It aimed to position cultural tourism in the context of sustainable,
inclusive, and circular urban development. Tourism may be a major resource for the
urban economy and culture, while urban attractiveness may act as a major magnet
for enhancing the cultural development potential of cities and regions. But negative
externalities involved (e.g. environmental decay, crowding) overshadow the benefits
of tourism. And therefore, effective planning for balanced tourism is pertinent. In
this context, advanced digital planning support (DPS) tools are needed, in particular,
sustainability dashboards and digital twins. This study has presented in a concise
form the principles of modern geoscience techniques, with a particular focus on the
potential offered by digital twins.
The empirical illustration in the present paper focussed on a vulnerable tourist
area in the southern part of the Netherlands, viz. the Heerlen/Parkstad region. It
has brought to light that systematic data collection—in particular, in the form of a
data warehouse that is systematically and hierarchically decomposed into relevant
KPIs—is a prerequisite for evidence-based balanced tourism policy.
Digital twins can generate ample 3D insights into the fragility and develop-
ment potential of urban tourist areas, provided the underlying database is up to
date. Such digital twins can also be instrumental for mapping citizens’ interests
regarding tourists’ spatial choices in cities with a wealth of cultural-touristic ameni-
ties. And finally, they may support an interactive design of urban liveability scenarios,
displayed in an attractive and citizen-oriented visible way.
Acknowledgements Peter Nijkamp and Karima Kourtit acknowledge the grant from the European
Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement no. 101004627.
References
Alberti, F. G., & Giusti, J. D. (2012). Cultural heritage, tourism and regional competitiveness: The
motor valley Cluster. City, Culture and Society, 3(4), 261–273.
Albuquerque, H., Costa, C., & Martins, F. (2018). The use of geographical information systems for
tourism marketing purposes in Aveiro Region (Portugal). Tourism Management Perspectives,
26, 172–178.
Angrisano, M., Biancamano, P.F., Bosone, M., Carone, P., Daldanise, G., De Rosa, F., Franciosa,
A., Iodice, S., Gravagnuolo., A, Nocca, F., Onesti, A., Panaro, S., Ragozino, S., Sannicandro,
V., Fusco Girard, F. (2016). Towards operationalizing UNESCO recommendations on ‘Historic
Urban Landscape’; a Position Paper, Aestimum, 69, 165–190.
Brown, G., & Weber, D. (2012). Using public participation GIS (PPGIS) on the Geoweb to monitor
tourism development preferences. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 21(2), 192–211.
Craglia, M., Scholten, H. J., Micheli, M., Hradec, J., Calzada, I., Luitjens, S., Ponti, M., & Boter,
J. (2021). Digitranscope: The Governance of Digitally-transformed Society; EUR 30590 EN;
Publications Office of the European Union: Luxembourg. ISBN 978-92-76-30229-2. https://doi.
org/10.2760/503546, JRC123362.
Coccossis, H., & Nijkamp, P. (eds.). (1995). Sustainable Tourism Development. Aldershot, Avebury,
UK.
Daldanise, G. (2016). Innovative strategies of urban heritage management for sustainable local
development. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 223, 101–107.
Fusco Girard, L., & Nijkamp, P. (Eds.). (2009). Cultural tourism and sustainable local development.
Ashgate.
Gössling, S. (2020). Risks, resilience, and pathways to sustainable aviation: A COVID-19 perspec-
tive. Journal of Air Transport Management, 89, 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jairtraman.2020.
101933
Gössling, S., Scott, D., & Hall, C. M. (2020). Pandemics, tourism and global change: A rapid
assessment of COVID-19. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 29(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/
09669582.2020.1758708
Greffe, X. (2004). Is heritage an asset or a liability? Journal of Cultural Heritage, 5(3), 301–330.
Hall, C. M., Scott, D., & Gössling, S. (2020). Pandemics, transformations and tourism: Be careful
what you wish for. Tourism Geographies, 22(3), 577–598. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616688.
2020.1759131
Hampton, M. P. (2005). Heritage, local communities and economic development. Annals of Tourism
Research, 32, 735–759.
Ivanov, D., & Dolgui, A. A. (2021). Digital supply chain twin for managing the disruption risks
and resilience in the Era of industry 4.0, Production Planning & Control, 32, 775–788.
Kourtit, K., & Nijkamp, P. (2022). Creative actors and historical-cultural assets in urban regions.
Regional Studies. https://doi.org/DOI.ORG/10.1080/00343404.2018.1541077.
Kourtit, K., & Nijkamp, P. (2023). Culture and tourism: A sustainability Dilemma?, Liber Amicorum
in Honour of Harry Geerlings (J. Vroomans, B. Kuipers, and J.H.R. van Duin (eds.)), Erasmus
School of Social and Behavioural Sciences.
Kourtit, K., Nijkamp, P., Östh, J., & Türk, U. (2022). Airbnb and COVID-19: Space-time vulner-
ability effects in six world-cities. Tourism Management, 93, 104569. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
tourman.2022.104569.
Lau, A. (2020). New technologies used in COVID-19 for business survival: Insights from the hotel
sector in China. Information Technology and Tourism, 22(4), 497–504. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s40558-020-00193-z
Liritzis, I., Al-Otaibi, F. M., Volonakis, P., & Drivaliari, A. (2015). Digital technologies and trends
in cultural heritage. Mediterranean Archaeology and Archaeometry, 15(3), 313–332.
Lu, J., Xiao, X., Xu, Z., Wang, C., Zhang, M., & Zhou, Y. (2022). The potential of virtual tourism
in the recovery of tourism industry during the COVID-19 pandemic. Current Issues in Tourism,
25(3), 441–457. https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2021.1959526
McManus, C., & Carruthers, C. (2014). Cultural quarters and urban regeneration—The case of
cathedral quarter Belfast. International Journal of Cultural Policy, 20(1), 78–98.
Micheli, M., Blakemore, M., Ponti, M., Scholten, H., & Craglia, M. (eds.). (2018). The governance
of data in a digitally transformed european society. In Second Workshop of the DigiTranScope
Project.
Melenchuk, A. (2021). Inclusive local digital participation in Georgia, Moldova, and Ukraine. Policy
Paper, German Marshall Fund of the United States.
Niccolucci, F., Felicetti, A., & Hermon, S. (2022). Populating the data space for cultural heritage
with heritage digital twins. Data, 7, 105.
Nijkamp, P. (2012). Economic valuation of cultural heritage. In G. Licciardi & R. Amirtahmasebi
(eds.), The Economics of Uniqueness, World Bank, Washington, DC.
Scholten, H. (2017). Geocraft as a means to support the development of smart cities, getting the
people of the place involved - youth included -. Quality Innovation Prosperity, 21(1), 119–150.
https://doi.org/10.12776/qip.v21i1.784.
Singh, M., Srivastava, R., Fuenmayor, E., Kuts, V., Qiao, Y., Murray, N., & Devine, D. (2022).
Applications of digital twin across industries: A review. Applied Sciences, 12, 5727.
Song, X., Gu, H., Li, Y., & Ye, W. (2022). A systematic review of trust in sharing accommoda-
tion: progress and prospects from the multistakeholder perspective. International Journal of
Contemporary Hospitality Management, 1–35. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-12-2021-1555.
The World Tourism Organization (UNWTO). (2021). UNWTO Tourism Recovery Tracker. Retrieved
25 April, 2023, from www.unwto.org/unwto-tourism-recovery-tracker.
The World Tourism Organization (UNWTO). (2022). International Tourism Back to 60% of Pre-
pandemic Levels in January-July 2022. Retrieved 25 April, 2023, from www.unwto.org/tax
onomy/term/347.
Throsby, D. (2001). Economics and culture. Cambridge University Press.
UNESCO. (2011). Recommendation on the Historic Urban Landscape. Retrieved from www.whc.
unesco.org.
Valjarević, A., Vukoičić, D., & Valjarević, D. (2017). Evaluation of the tourist potential and natural
attractivity of the Lukovska Spa. Tourism Management Perspectives, 22, 7–16.
Yang, F. X., & Wong, I. A. (2021). The social crisis aftermath: Tourist wellbeing during the COVID-
19 outbreak. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 29(6), 859–878. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.
2020.1843047
Identifying Cultural Tourists
via Computational Text Analysis
and Association Rule Mining
Bart Neuts
Abstract Cultural tourism has evolved into a mass market phenomenon that
contributes a sizeable portion to international tourist arrivals in Europe. Yet, exact
estimates of cultural tourists are hard to come by, due both to a lack of standardized
conceptualization, and a difficulty in operationalization. Mostly, estimates are based
on visitor surveys, which are expensive to conduct, infrequent, and often do not allow
an in-depth analysis of the phenomenon. This paper proposes an alternative analyt-
ical methodology, scraping user-generated content and applying computational text
analysis and association rule mining on visitor reviews in order to establish both
centrality of cultural travel motives and improve understanding of cultural tourism
typologies via analysing topical associations within the reviews. The methodology
is tested on 2507 reviews for the historical centre of the city of Ghent, Belgium. The
results show estimates that are comparable in size to visitor survey statistics, while
lending additional information on relative importance of cultural travel motivations.
Keywords Cultural tourism · Typologies · Computational text analysis ·

Association rule mining · User-generated content
1 Introduction
According to a frequently reported statistic, 40% of all European tourists are consid-
ered culturally motivated (United Nations World Tourism Organization, 2018). This
proportion is based on a survey of UNWTO Member States, where each nation esti-
mated the market size for cultural tourism. However, it should be noted that different
nations employed various estimation techniques; 32% of the surveyed countries based
their estimate on information about cultural participation, 30% on information about
cultural motivations, 15% on both, and another 25% on various other metrics.
Not only is measurement of the phenomenon difficult and non-standardized, the
definition of what constitutes a cultural tourist is in itself not clarified. Richards (2018)
B. Neuts (B)
KU Leuven, Celestijnenlaan 200E, 3001 Heverlee, Belgium
e-mail: bart.neuts@kuleuven.be

188 B. Neuts
mentions how cultural tourism has only become an academically established field of
study, and being recognized as an emerging niche form of international tourism, since
the 1980s. In the past 40 years, coinciding with the exponential growth in arrivals,
cultural tourism has rapidly gained mass market appeal, in itself being fragmented
into niche activities and motivations, often distinguished by (i) the types of landscape
in which the activity is performed (e.g., natural, rural, cultural, urban/built), (ii) the
main motivation (e.g., ecotourism, heritage tourism, urban tourism), and/or (iii) the
main attraction(s) being visited (including both tangible and intangible elements).
Hughes (2000), therefore, rightly concludes that cultural tourism is now often used as
an umbrella term that covers a variety of activities, motivation, and types of cultural
resource the visitor connects with. This can lead to an erosion of the concept, with
nearly every visitor adhering to at least part of the cultural tourism phenomenon.
Therefore, some studies and definitions consider relative centrality and strength
of culture and heritage as a travel motive to be an important antecedent for character-
izing tourists, typically classifying about 11% (Association for Tourism & Leisure
Education & Research, 2021) to 15% (Lord, 1999) as primarily or strongly motivated
cultural tourists. Matteucci and Von Zumbusch (2020) state that due to the cultural
tourism market fragmentation, besides considering degree of engagement, it might
be more relevant to study visitor experiences and the meanings ascribed to cultural
tourism activities. McKercher et al. (2002) specifically propose such behavioural
segmentation, based on identifying homogenous visitor segments through on-site
activity analysis. Gnoth and Matteucci (2014) provide contemporary experiential
goals that are comparable to Cohen’s (1979) earlier works, namely: experience as
pure pleasure, as rediscovery, as existentially authentic exploration, and as knowl-
edge seeking. All of these visitor types might be, to some extent, cultural tourists, but
their prior expectations, on-site behaviour, engagement with local products and activ-
ities, and post-trip reflections will differ significantly. From a destination perspective,
being able to frame cultural tourism through a more diverse and fragmented lens and
acknowledging the various behavioural and experiential visitor types is important in
order to ensure proper supply–demand links.
We can therefore conclude that (i) while the number of cultural tourists in total
international arrivals is no doubt significant, it is challenging to acquire more or
less accurate estimates, and (ii) beyond market size estimates, destinations need to
be advised on behavioural and experiential typologies within the general label of
cultural tourism. The most common practices for acquiring such information are
either structural visitor data (e.g., in the form of entrance tickets sold at cultural
venues), visitor surveys, qualitative interview methods, or, less frequently, other
digital alternatives. While the first of these types of data—structural official data—
can be reliable and consistent, it is only capable of capturing site-specific visits and
does not allow to study visitation patterns between different attractions in a region, nor
does it allow understanding of underlying visitor motivations. The method therefore
fails to identify behavioural and experiential typologies. Visitor surveys are more
flexible and have the potential to incorporate estimates of the market share of cultural
tourism, as well as extent of motivation, different attractions being visited within
a single trip, underlying behavioural and experiential typologies, and satisfaction.
Identifying Cultural Tourists via Computational Text Analysis … 189
However, such visitor surveys are costly and therefore only undertaken infrequently
in a limited number of well-visited destinations, thus not allowing for a continuous
evaluation. Qualitative studies adopting more in-depth interview methods, direct
observations or visitor diaries, equally allow for more in-depth analysis of visitor
motivations within cultural tourism destinations, but—apart from suffering from the
same prohibitive costs associated with such fieldwork—fail in quantification efforts.
Finally, some more contemporary studies have experimented with digital tracking
technologies and visitor-employed photography. While such studies can potentially
provide rich data in terms of visitor flows and the tourist gaze, it can be challenging
to uncover behavioural and experiential typologies. While many advances have been
made in the use of positioning data via a variety of methodologies (e.g., mobile apps,
GPS trackers, RFID tags, mobile phone data, Wi-Fi or Bluetooth sensors, infrared
or heat sensors, object recognition), they typically either require relatively large
investments, are mostly limited to measuring quantities, and/or could lead to ethical
concerns (Galí-Espelt, 2012).
In this paper, we therefore experiment with analysing user-generated content as
an alternative. By adopting a methodology that focuses on linguistic data, we hope
to be able to better understand travel motivations, cultural propensity to travel, and
general market size. Via a combination of web scraping of open access user content,
computational text analysis, and association rule mining, we aim to generate a better
understanding of the various visitor typologies, while proposing a method that is
economically affordable, effective, and sustainable (in terms of continuity) by using
openly accessible data and open source software. The methodology is tested on user
reviews of the historical city of Ghent (Belgium).
2 Methodology
2.1 Case Study Overview: Ghent
Ghent is the third largest city in Belgium and has a long and rich history, being one
of the largest and richest cities of Northern Europe in the late Middle Ages. Many
significant buildings of this period remain intact to this day and are well-preserved
and renovated. The city has three beguinages and a belfry that are part of the UNESCO
World Heritage Sites recognitions. Other significant cultural heritage attractions are
the twelfth-century Gravensteen castle, the Graslei (old medieval harbour), and the
Saint Bavo Cathedral, holding the famous fifteenth-century Ghent Altarpiece of the
brothers Van Eyck: the Adoration of the Mystic Lamb. Similar to Bruges, the city is
also characterised by the picturesque waterways crossing the inner city, starting with
the Scheldt River.
The city is marketed as one of the five Flemish art cities, along with Bruges,
Antwerp, Mechelen, and Leuven. In 2019 the city received 689,019 tourist arrivals
(of which 65.1% were foreigners), for 869,901 overnight stays, and an average trip
190 B. Neuts
duration of 1.26 nights for overnight tourists and 7.47 h for day visitors. It was the third
most visited destination in Flanders, behind Bruges and Antwerp. The type of interna-
tional leisure visitors attracted to Flanders can be considered of slightly more affluent
backgrounds due to the general cost of living—similar to other Western European
countries—leading to a relatively low ranking of Belgium on price competitiveness
in the Travel & Tourism Report of the World Economic Forum (2023). At rank 117
in 2019, Belgium was comparable in this sense to Japan, the United States, Austria,
New Zealand, Finland, Germany, and the Netherlands. Visitor surveys conducted in
2018 as part of the Flemish art cities research, give insight into important visitor
characteristics. On average, overnight leisure tourists were 43 years of age, with the
largest contingent (38%) being between 18 and 34 years old. Only 12% of surveyed
visitors were above 65. The majority of tourists were highly educated with tertiary
degrees (65%). A small minority (6%) visited Ghent as part of a package tour. The
survey further collected information on visitor motives, with the local heritage being
a main motive for 33% of tourists in Ghent. 22% mentioned the city’s rich history,
while 9% mentioned its artists, museums and art-related attractions, 3% mentioned
other cultural attractions, and 7% mentioned cultural events. Since visitors could
choose up to three main motivations, there will likely be an overlap in these cate-
gories though. Apart from pre-trip motivations, tourists were also asked about their
on-site activities while in the city. In Ghent, 55% of tourists had visited monuments,
churches and/or museums, 22% followed guided tours or boat rides along the canals,
and 7% participated in events or concerts (Vlaanderen, 2018).
2.2 Data Collection, Data Characteristics, and Analytical

Procedures
Data were collected for the period 2012–2019, allowing for a modest longitudinal
approach and avoiding the break in data due to the COVID-19 pandemic and subse-
quent lockdowns of 2020 and 2021. The study is based on secondary, user-generated
online data, which has the advantage of being readily available, cheap and available
across time periods, unlike survey data which is often expensive to collect, time-
consuming and typically only represents a specific moment in time. On the other
hand, the collected sample can exhibit patterns of self-selection bias, which cannot
be managed to the same extent as in primary research. This is particularly true in
terms of language groups, age groups, educational levels, and potentially spending
patterns (Presi et al., 2014; Xiang et al., 2017).
Online user-generated data were scraped from the Tripadvisor webpage on Ghent
City Centre (https://www.tripadvisor.com/Attraction_Review-g188666-d4185801-
Reviews-Ghent_City_Center-Ghent_East_Flanders_Province.html) on 7 December
2019. A total of 2507 English-speaking reviews were scraped, using the RSele-
nium1 and rvest2 packages and retrieving the dynamic contents of the webpage via
Document Object Model parsing.
Of the total sample, 13.4% of reviews were from the 2012–2014 period (6 in
2012, 79 in 2013, 251 in 2015), 60.3% from the 2015–2017 period (521 in 2015,
549 in 2016, 442 in 2017), 25.5% from the 2018–2019 period (386 in 2018, 252 in
2019) and the remaining 0.8% (21) had an unknown date. Only 435 reviews listed
data on their travel company, with the majority of those (46.2%) travelling as a
coupe, followed by travelling with friends (21.1%), family (16.6%) and solo (9.2%).
Travelling for business purposes was less common in the collected sample (6.9%).
Out of the 2507 reviews, the vast amount were positive with 5-star (76.4%) and 4-
star reviews (20.3%) encompassing the near-complete sample. Only 3.3% of reviews
were more negative (2.5% of 3-star, 0.6% of 2-star, and 0.2% of 1-star reviews).
In order to identify visitor origin, R countrycode (Arel-Bundock et al., 2018) was
used in order to clean the non-formatted structure of the Tripadvisor location variable.
This led to a limited data loss due to faults in user-generated strings and allowed for
the nationality identification of 2022 reviews. Unsurprisingly, given the linguistic
choices made during the scraping process, Great Britain (33.1%) and the United
States (15.7%) dominated the reviews, followed by Belgium (11.7%), the Nether-
lands (4.9%), Australia (3.7%), Canada (2.7%) and India (2.2%). These countries
accounted for nearly three quarters of the total. It needs to be acknowledged that
significant differences exist between our sample and the population of international
tourists in Ghent.
The computational text analysis we follow is based on the creation of a dictionary
object, followed by an automated frequency analysis, rather than a fully unsupervised
machine learning approach such as Latent Dirichlet Allocation (see e.g., (2021)). This
entails an a priori selection of dictionary elements. To this extent, a random sample of
150 reviews was drawn—50 from the period 2012 to 2015, 50 from the period 2016
to 2017, and 50 from 2018 to 2019. This sample formed the basis for a traditional
qualitative thematic analysis, following the recommended steps of Braun and Clarke
(2006), namely: data familiarization, outlining of initial codes, identification of final
codes, definition of tentative themes, finalization of themes, and identification of
categories. The computational text analysis focused on frequencies in a bag-of-words
text analysis, preparing the scraped data as suggested by Welbers et al. (2017) in terms
of basic string operations such as tag, whitespace, punctuation and stopword removal,
and lowercase transformation. Normalization stemming was also adopted to convert
inflected forms into base forms. The resulting document-term matrix (DTM) was
analysed via the quanteda-package in R (Benoit et al., 2018), based on a constructed
dictionary that followed from the qualitative thematic analysis.
1 The RSelenium package allows for web browser automation to mimic the behaviour of native
users. More information can be found at https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/RSelenium/.
2 The rvest package helps to harvest web pages and download and manipulate HTML and XML.
More information can be found at https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/rvest/.

192 B. Neuts
Next, association rule mining via the R package arules (Hahsler & Grün, 2005)
was used as a data mining technique to help discover relationships between word
categories. The procedure aims to observe patterns, correlations, or associations
between non-numeric data, rather than focusing on a single-item analysis. Associ-
ation rules are commonly used in market basket analysis in order to identify items
that are commonly bought together. The dependency between objects is based on
an antecedent and a consequent—i.e., the items more commonly consumed together
with the items in the antecedent. There are three main metrics that support association
rule mining: lift, support, and confidence. Support is the probability that a partic-
ular combination of items is present in the transaction database and can simply be
calculated as the count of each itemset, divided by the total number of transactions.
For example, if the total sample consists of 5 tourists and 4 out of 5 tourists visited
Gravensteen, then the support count for Gravensteen would be 0.8 (=4/5). If 2 out of
5 tourists visited both Gravensteen and the Saint Bavo Cathedral, then the support
for this itemset would be 0.4 (=2/5). So clearly individual items will always have
more support than multi-item item sets. In order to simplify the analysis, commonly
a minimum support standard is defined, excluding all item sets that do not reach this
minimum probability (Benoit et al., 2018).
As a second metric, Confidence is defined on the level of an association rule
and, given the example of an association rule α → β is calculated as: P(α,β) / P(α).
Reusing the previous example, if the antecedent is visiting Gravensteen (Support =
0.8), and the consequent is visiting Saint Bavo Cathedral, then the union of item
sets in antecedent and consequent is {Gravensteen, Saint Bavo Cathedral}, with a
support of 0.4. The confidence of the association rule between Gravensteen and
Saint Bavo Cathedral is then equal to 0.4/0.8 = 0.5. Finally, the lift metric defines
the strength of an association rule and is calculated as the ratio of the observed
support versus expected support under the hypothesis that antecedent and consequent
item sets are independent. Given an association rule α → β, this can be written as:
P(α,β) / [P(α)P(β)]. Continuing the previous example, if support for Saint Bavo
Cathedral would be 0.6, the lift for the association rule Gravensteen → Saint Bavo
Cathedral would then be 0.4 / (0.8 * 0.6) = 0.83. The lift metric has some interesting
analytical characteristics. If an association rule has a lift less than one, antecedent
and consequent items could be considered substitutes, with increase in frequency of
the one, leading to a decrease in frequency of the other. If the lift is greater than one,
items are considered dependent on each other, while a lift of exactly one would mean
that both items are independent (Goh & Ang, 2007).
3 Results and Discussion
The qualitative thematic analysis of the random sample of 150 reviews identified
relevant codes from frequent words and sentences, related to visitor experience to the
historic city centre of Ghent. The analysis revealed a number of relevant categories—
each with a unique set of keywords. The vast majority of analysed reviews included
multiple categories across themes, for example:
Ghent is a beautiful small city, with magnificent old buildings. Linger at the ’Graslei’, etc.…
watch the magnificent old monuments of the former glorious city. Visit the Castle of the
Counts, etc.…When you have done walking around, take a boattrip. It takes around 45 min.
They show you all the important sites to see, and at the main time they tell you about the
history of the city. Ghent has also many shops. So, when you are done sightseeing… go
shopping in one of the many stores Ghent has. (R2018).
This review was coded as including aspects of ‘History’, ‘General architecture’,

‘Landmarks: castle’, ‘River/Canals’, ‘Shopping’, contributing dictionary elements
to these categories. While many reviews are relative complex and extensive, there
are also simple examples with limited information being represented, for instance,
the following review was only assigned one category, ‘General atmosphere’:
This place is so small and beautiful. I mean i felt as if i were in a fairy tale movie. This is a
must stop. You won’t need more than two days but it is totally worth it. (R1347).
From the 150 reviews, four main themes were distilled: (i) Culture: combining
reviews that highlight the historical nature of the city, its general and specific historical
landmarks, and the (art) museums, (ii) Atmosphere/sightseeing: relaying a more
general sense of aesthetics of the city, as well as relating to review elements on
the walkability (as a sightseeing activity), and the rivers, canals, boat cruises and
carriage rides, (iii) Tourism services: including codes on restaurants, bars, general
food and drinks, shopping, festivals and events, accommodations, tourist information
offices, price-related opinions, transportation options within and to/from Ghent, and
the sense of touristification—or lack thereof—in the visitor economy, and (iv) Social
dimension: covering review elements on the local population, as well as perceptions
of crowdedness of the city centre. Table 1 provides an overview of all categories
within each theme and the associated dictionary elements that were identified and
will serve the computational text analysis of the complete database.
In order to apply the codes identified via the qualitative analysis on the complete
dataset of 2507 reviews, dictionary elements within the same categories were bina-
rized, meaning that if a review included multiple codes within a specific category
(e.g., ‘restaurant’, ‘food’, ‘bar’), the category would only be counted once per review.
This ensured that each category had a maximum score of 100%. As can be seen from
Fig. 1, the five most mentioned categories were ‘General atmosphere’ (59.6% of
reviews), ‘Walkability’ (39.7%), ‘Food & drinks’ (37.9%), ‘History’ (37.1%), and
‘River/Canals’ (36.8%). Notably, while the thematic cultural categories are impor-
tant, there is a marked difference between the number of reviews mentioning more
general sentiments of beauty, atmosphere and the historical nature of the city, and
194 B. Neuts
Table 1 Themes, categories, and associated dictionary items

Themes and Dictionary elements
categories
Theme 1. Culture
History history*, old, medieval, centur*, authentic, untouched, heritage, preserve*
General building*, michael*, michiel*, picturesque, architecture, facade*, park*,
architecture scenery, cobblestone*, surrounding, gothic, roman*, graslei, patershol,
korenlei, monuments, square, harbo*
Landmarks: cathedral*, church*, monestar*, nicholas, niklaas*, bavo, baaf*
cathedrals
Landmarks: castle gravensteen, castle*, fortress
Landmarks: other belfry, belfort, tower, stadhuis, lakenhalle, slaughterhouse, post, guild, cloth
Museums/art musea, museum*, painting*, alter, lamb, eyck
Theme 2. Atmosphere/sightseeing
General beaut*, atmospher*, fairy*, quaint, impressive, vibe*, vibrant, photo*,
atmosphere appeal*, lively, charm*, cozy, cosy, gorgeous, ambiance, scenic, love*,
relaxed, alive
Walkability walk*, stroll*, foot, wander*, compact, footpath*, car free, pedestrian, auto
free, closed to traffic
River/canals boat*, canal*, cruise*, waterway*, river*, water
Carriages carriage*, horse*
Theme 3. Tourism services
Food & drinks terrace*, eat, restaurant*, food, drink*, bar, bars, waffle*, chocolate*,
eateries, café*, cafe*, beer*, wine, fries, bite, pancake*, cake*, cuisine,
pub, pubs, noses, brewery
Shopping shop*, galleries, store*, vintage, antique*
Festivals/events christmas, xmas, festival, theater, music, comedy, festivities, feesten
Hospitality staff, hotel, hostel, tourist office
industry
Price pricey, overpriced, cheap, expensive
Connectivity/ accessible, connected, train, bus, tram, motorway, public transport
accessibility
Touristification authentic, inauthentic, tourist trap, overrun
Theme 4. Social dimension
Locals kind, divers*, friendly, welcoming, helpful, smiling
Crowding crowd*, uncrowded, overcrowd*, calm, queues, busy, busier, masses, quiet,
packed, laid back, lots of tourists, tourist trail
Fig. 1 Frequencies of categories within n = 2507 reviews
reviews mentioning more specific cultural heritage attractions such as Saint Bavo’s
Cathedral, Van Eyck’s Adoration of the Mystic Lamb, or the Gravensteen castle.
These data might be a first indication of the categorization of tourists as purposeful,
sightseeing, serendipitous, and incidental cultural tourists (McKercher, 2002). At
first glance, it would seem that a majority of tourists in Ghent fall in the category
of sightseeing or serendipitous cultural tourists, with a smaller group being more
strongly culturally motivated.
However, at this point in the analysis, the categories are still treated independently
of each other while there is likely to be overlap in reviewers who mentioned both
individual cultural landmarks, general atmosphere, general history, etc. Similarly,
from the above figure we could not conclude that the 37.9% of reviews mentioning
‘Food & drinks’ are not culturally motivated. In order to further develop the conclu-
sions, we therefore need to look at combinations of categories, which will help in
identifying significant tourism segments based on user-generated text. Through asso-
ciation rule mining we can move beyond identifying relevance of single codes and
identify relevance of itemgroups. We set a minimum support metric of 0.05; meaning
that item sets should at least have a 5% likelihood of appearing, and a minimum confi-
dence level of 0.5, meaning that given a particular antecedent, the consequent has a
likelihood of 50%. This results in the creation of 39 rules via an apriori algorithm
which are included in Table 2.
196 B. Neuts
Table 2 Item association rules

Rule Antecedent Consequent Support Confidence Lift Count
1 Waterways, shopping Food and 0.052 0.621 1.640 131
drink
2* landmarks.cathedral, Waterways 0.052 0.583 1.585 130
atmosphere
3 Atmosphere, Walkability 0.053 0.624 1.572 133
connectivity
4 Walkability, shopping Food and 0.054 0.584 1.542 136
drink
5 Atmosphere, shopping Food and 0.077 0.578 1.527 193
drink
6 Connectivity Walkability 0.081 0.586 1.474 202
7* History, atmosphere, Waterways 0.058 0.541 1.471 145
walkability
8 Atmosphere, Waterways 0.053 0.538 1.463 134
walkability, food and
drink
9* Landmarks.cathedral Waterways 0.073 0.528 1.434 182
10 Shopping Food and 0.113 0.540 1.426 284
drink
11* Landmarks.cathedral History 0.071 0.519 1.400 179
12 Walkability, food and Waterways 0.082 0.511 1.390 205
drink
13* History, atmosphere, Walkability 0.058 0.549 1.382 145
waterways
14* History, walkability Waterways 0.083 0.504 1.369 208
15* Atmosphere, History 0.058 0.507 1.368 145
walkability, waterways
16* History, waterways Walkability 0.083 0.515 1.296 208
(continued)
Table 2 (continued)
Rule Antecedent Consequent Support Confidence Lift Count
17 Atmosphere, Walkability 0.053 0.511 1.287 134
waterways, food and
drink
18* Landmarks.cathedral, Atmosphere 0.052 0.714 1.199 130
waterways
19 Waterways, shopping Atmosphere 0.059 0.706 1.185 149
20* History, walkability, Atmosphere 0.058 0.697 1.170 145
waterways
21* History, shopping Atmosphere 0.057 0.691 1.159 143
22 Food and drink, Atmosphere 0.077 0.680 1.140 193
shopping
23 Walkability, Atmosphere 0.053 0.658 1.105 133
connectivity
24 Walkability, waterways, Atmosphere 0.053 0.654 1.097 134
food and drink
25* History, waterways Atmosphere 0.105 0.653 1.097 264
26 Walkability, shopping Atmosphere 0.061 0.652 1.095 152
27 Walkability, waterways Atmosphere 0.114 0.651 1.093 286
28* Gen.architecture Atmosphere 0.064 0.650 1.091 160
29* History, walkability Atmosphere 0.107 0.649 1.089 268
30 Waterways Atmosphere 0.238 0.646 1.085 596
31* Landmarks.cathedral Atmosphere 0.089 0.646 1.085 223
32 Shopping Atmosphere 0.133 0.635 1.066 334
33 Waterways, food and Atmosphere 0.105 0.633 1.062 262
drink
34* History Atmosphere 0.231 0.623 1.046 579
35 Walkability, food and Atmosphere 0.099 0.621 1.042 249
drink
36 Connectivity Atmosphere 0.085 0.617 1.036 213
37* History, food and drink Atmosphere 0.091 0.617 1.035 227
38 Food and drink Atmosphere 0.231 0.610 1.024 579
39 Walkability Atmosphere 0.239 0.602 1.011 600
Of the 39 rules, 17 (identified in Table 2 by *) could be related to cultural tourism

motivations. All lift statistics are above one, meaning that there is at least a posi-
tive association between the antecedents and consequences in these rules. The most
common of these was rule 34, the combination of ‘history’ and ‘atmosphere’ elements
in reviews, present in 579 out of 2507 reviews (=23.1%). Within this rule, a few
more specific subsets in the antecedents can further be identified, namely rule 37
(‘history’ + ‘food and drink’, in 9.1% of reviews), rule 29 (‘history’ + ‘walkability’,
198 B. Neuts
in 10.7% of reviews), rule 25 (‘history’ + ‘waterways’, in 10.5% of reviews), rule 21

(‘history’ + ‘shopping’, in 5.7% of reviews), and rule 20 (‘history’ + ‘walkability’
+ ‘waterways’, in 5.8% of reviews). So, while the combination between history
and atmosphere in reviews does seem to suggest at least some cultural interest, the
drilldown analysis explores how in many cases the specific reviews seem to include
more hedonic interests (food and drinks, shopping). This part of the sample could
therefore only be considered weakly culturally motivated.
A second set of rules takes ‘landmarks.cathedral’ as antecedent. Reviews focusing
on the Ghent cathedrals are more likely to include reference to the ‘waterways’ (rule
9, 7.3% of reviews) or the ‘history’ (rule 11, 7.1% of reviews). Furthermore, rule
2 links ‘landmarks.cathedral’ and ‘atmosphere’ combined with ‘waterways’ (5.2%
of reviews). Visitors to the Saint Bavo Cathedral and other churches/cathedrals thus
seem less likely to also focus on the more commercial aspects of the tourist system. As
such, they might be considered more strongly culturally motivated than the previous
group.
Finally, rules 7, 13, 14, 15, 16 all combine ‘history’, ‘atmosphere’, ‘walkability’,
and ‘waterways’ in one way or another, with support for these rules in the dataset
ranging from 8.3% to 5.8%. These visitors might be more akin to the sightseeing
cultural tourists in that they place importance on the atmosphere and general urban
layout, without mentioning individual cultural attraction points in any depth.
Looking back at the results from the visitor surveys in Ghent, 33% of respondents
had indicated to be motivated for their trip by the local heritage of the city. We can
now compare these data to the results from the analysis of review data, both the single-
item frequency analysis from Fig. 1, and the item association rules from Table 2. We
could see from Fig. 1 that 37.1% of reviews mentioned ‘history’, thus being relatively
comparable in magnitude to the traditional visitor survey. A further analysis of item
associations revealed that in 23.1% of cases, ‘history’ was combined with elements
of ‘atmosphere’. However, in many cases, this itemset could be extended with codes
from ‘food and drink’, ‘shopping’, indicating that of the 23.1%, an important section
was not just (or purely) culturally motivated but also had a strong hedonic incen-
tive. While the analysis does not allow us to quantify these typological segments
exactly, the analysis of item associations can therefore help in better framing the
centrality of the cultural travel motive. The results indicate that while Ghent is an
important destination for culturally motivated visitors, it is primarily the combination
of attraction elements that entices visitation, with tourists rarely being singular in
their motives. While important attractions such as the Saint Bavo Cathedral, with the
famous altar piece of the van Eyck brothers, and Gravensteen castle are important
attractions, they are framed within the wider experience of the historical city centre
of Ghent. In this sense, many cultural tourists attracted to Ghent are reminiscent to
‘flâneurs’, which is likely the case for cultural tourists in European heritage cities in
general. This underlines the importance of a strong and qualitative supportive tourist
infrastructure around cultural sites.
A significant advantage provided in the use of web scraping of user reviews is the
potential richness of the data that can be analysed, which allows for a more detailed
categorization of tourist behaviour and experiences as opposed to more traditional
questionnaires which are typically limited by predefined question scales and choices.
While such depth of experiences can be uncovered via traditional research techniques
in the form of interviews, in such cases the number of data points collected would
typically be small. Our approach allows for combining the richness of open text—
typical in qualitative studies—with the scale of analysis of quantitative studies, while
providing such analysis in a cost-effective fashion.
4 Conclusion
Cultural tourism has evolved from a historic market niche to one of the main forms
of tourism within the European continent. General estimates have been bandied
around, ranging from 40% of total tourist arrivals to 11%, depending on whether or
not only primary cultural motives are considered. Exact calculations are, however,
difficult, given a lack of clear and generally accepted definition, the variation in
cultural tourism typologies, and the challenge in assessing tourist motivations and
on-site behaviour.
This paper put forward the use of user-generated content in the form of TripAd-
visor reviews as a basis for better understanding quantity and typology of the cultural
tourism market, using the city of Ghent, Belgium, for a proof of concept. Besides
computational text analysis, which is useful for calculating single item frequencies
across large datasets, the addition of association rule mining improves understanding
on combinations of items. This allows for a deeper understanding of the tourist expe-
rience—at least as far as it has been reviewed by the visitor—across categories and
helps to establish whether a visitor was uniquely interested in culture, if cultural
attractions were likely combined in a visit and/or whether culture seemed to be more
adjacent to another visitor motivation. The analysis on review data for Ghent revealed
estimates more or less in line with existing visitor surveys, granting confidence to
the proposed methodology. Furthermore, the association rules helped in identifying
more diverse visitation patterns within a general motivation, allowing for a better
segmentation along strongly and weakly motivated cultural tourists.
Acknowledgements This article is based on research done in the context of the SmartCulTour
project that has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation
Programme under grant agreement number 870708. The authors of the article are solely responsible
for the information, denominations, and opinions contained in it, which do not necessarily express
the point of view of all the project partners and do not commit them.
References
Arel-Bundock, V., Enevoldsen, N., & Yetman, C. J. (2018). Countrycode: An R package to convert
country names and country codes. J Open Source Softw, 3(28), 848.
200 B. Neuts
Association for Tourism and Leisure Education and Research. Retrieved 10 August, 2021, from
http://www.atlas-euro.org/sig_cultural.aspx.
Benoit, K., Watanabe, K., Wang, H., Nulty, P., Obeng, A., Müller, S., & Matsuo, A. (2018). Quanteda:
An R package for the quantitative analysis of textual data. J Open Source Softw, 3(30), 774.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. J Qual Res Psycjol, 3(2),
77–101.
Cohen, E. (1979). A phenomenology of tourist experiences. J Brit Sociol Assoc, 13(2), 179–201.
Galí-Espelt, N. (2012). Identifying cultural tourism: A theoretical methodological proposal. Journal
of Heritage Tourism, 7(1), 45–58.
Gnoth, J., & Matteucci, X. (2014). A phenomenological view of the behavioral tourism research
literature. Int J Cult, Tour Hosp Res, 8(1), 3–21.
Goh, D. H., & Ang, R. P. (2007). An introduction to association rule mining: An application
in counselling and help-seeking behavior of adolescents. Behavior Research Methods, 39(2),
259–266.
Hahsler, M., & Grün, B. (2005). Arules – a computational environment for mining association rules
and frequent item sets. J Stat Soft, 14(15), 1–25.
Hughes, H. (2000). Arts, entertainment and tourism. Butterworth-Heinemann.
Lord, G. D. (1999). The power of cultural tourism. Keynote presentation at the Wisconsin Heritage
Tourism Conference, Lac du Flambeau, Wisconsin, US.
Matteucci, X., & Von Zumbusch, J. (2020). Theoretical framework for cultural tourism in urban and
regional destination. Deliverable D2.1 of the Horizon 2020 Project SmartCulTour (GA Number
870708).
McKercher, B. (2002). Towards a classification of cultural tourists. International Journal of Tourism
Research, 4, 29–38.
McKercher, B., Ho, P. S., Cros, H. D., & Chow, B. (2002). Activities based segmentation of the
cultural tourism market. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 12(1), 23–46.
Neuts, B. (2021). Revisiting bruges: Investigating the importance of tourist crowding perception
in the visitor experience through computational text analysis. In: Suzuki, S., Patuelli, R. (eds.)
A broad view of regional science. Essays in honor of Peter Nijkamp, pp. 235–258. Springer,
Singapore.
Presi, C., Saridakis, C., & Hartmans, S. (2014). User-generated content behaviour of the dissatisfied
service customer. Eur J Marketing, 48(9/10), 1600–1625.
Richards, G. (2018). Cultural tourism: A review of recent research and trends. J Hosp Tour Manage,
36, 12–21.
United Nations World Tourism Organization. (2018). Tourism and culture synergies. UNWTO.
Welbers, K., Van Atteveldt, W., & Benoit, K. (2017). Text analysis in R. Communication Methods
and Measures, 11(4), 245–265.
World Economic Forum. Retrieved 14 June, 2023, from https://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_
TTCR_2019.pdf.
Vlaanderen, T. (2018). Kunststedenonderzoek 2018. Toerisme Vlaanderen.
Xiang, Z., Du, Q., Ma, Y., & Fan, W. (2017). A comparative analysis of major online review
platforms: Implications for social media analytics in hospitality and tourism. Tourism Manage,
58, 51–65.
SPOT-IT: An Advanced Tool
for Dynamic Cultural Tourism
Management and Regional Development
Anat Tchetchik, Shilo Shiff, Yaron Michael, Michael Sinclair,

Irit Cohen-Amit, Irit Shmuel, and Micheal Sofer
Abstract Global changes and trends have been greatly influencing the way cultural
tourism is defined, operated, and developed. These changes require the creation
of new measurement and management tools. Given the diverse nature of cultural
tourism, one of the most pertaining obstacles hindering its sustainable development is
that the required relevant information for effective decision-making and management
is currently not well complied with, organized, and processed. SPOT-IT, which was
developed under SPOT, an EU-Horizon2020-funded project, rises to this challenge
by offering a new approach to cultural tourism that reflects the tourism patterns of
the twenty-first century. It is a decision-supporting platform for the development of
cultural tourism sites within a Web-based Resource Centre. This paper describes the
purposes of the tool, its conceptualization, its components, and its importance. It
concludes with some policy implications.
Keywords Cultural tourism · Tourism development · Web platform · ArcGIS ·

Decision making
1 Introduction
Before the twenty-first century, the focus of Cultural Tourism (cultural tourism) was
limited mostly to cultural values, conservation, and the economic potential of prop-
erty or landscape. Given global trends and changes, today’s cultural tourism is both
influenced and at the same time influences, physical changes such as climate change;
social and economic changes, including cultural differences and diversity; global
A. Tchetchik (B) · S. Shiff · Y. Michael · I. Cohen-Amit

Bar-Ilan University, Tel Aviv, Israel
e-mail: anat.tchetchik@biu.ac.Il
M. Sinclair · M. Sofer
The University of Glasgow, Glasgow, Scotland
I. Shmuel
Hadassah Academic College, Jerusalem, Israel

204 A. Tchetchik et al.
crisis (e.g., Covid19), migration, and opportunities for quick and easy movement
from place to place; cross-border communication; and globally accessible informa-
tion. These changes have also had a great impact on the way cultural heritage tourism
is defined, its characteristics, and its development (Lexhagen et al., 2022; Richards,
2018). In that vein, the traditional definitions of cultural tourism are becoming obso-
lete as they fail to capture the multidimensional and dynamic nature of contemporary
cultural tourism (Richards, 2021) Rather, they focus on visits to cultural heritage sites,
such as museums, historical monuments, and archaeological sites while neglecting
the broader spectrum of cultural experiences that tourists seek, such as local festivals,
culinary traditions, indigenous communities, and contemporary cultural practices. As
a result, new and updated definitions have emerged to reflect the evolving landscape
of cultural tourism and its broader impacts (Richards, 2018).
Old definitions also neglected the importance of sustainable practices. It appears
that while there is a growing demand for cultural tourism, there is a growing concern
about surpassing the carrying capacity and therefore harming cultural heritage sites
and cultural landscapes (Kitchen & Marsden, 2009). Social, ethical, and environ-
mental issues became essential (Vučetić, 2018), and sometimes even more important
than economic issues, which characterized the tourism industry so far (Macdonald &
King, 2018).
The changes that have taken place in the definition and characterization of cultural
tourism require the creation of new measurement and management tools that can
tackle the numerous issues and considerations that need to be taken into account
when planning, marketing, and managing cultural tourism sites, their components,
and the relationships between them. However, one of the most pertaining obstacles
hindering the shift towards effective development and management of CT is that
the required relevant information is currently not well complied with, organized,
presented, and processed in a manner that allows for effective decision-making for
the development of cultural tourism sites and infrastructure.
The underlying goal of this paper is to address the emerging complexity and multi-
dimensionality of cultural tourism that reflects the tourism and travel patterns of the
twenty-first century (Lam et al., 2022). For this purpose, we offer a new approach to
cultural tourism development, planning, and marketing. In particular, we aim to fill
several research gaps in the research on cultural tourism development. First, there is
a lack of systematically organized information required for cultural tourism devel-
opment. Second, there is no decision-making support platform for the development
of cultural tourism which provides a holistic view and integrates economic, social,
and environmental considerations. Third, current tools are quite rigid and do not
endow power and flexibility to their users (including the decision on which devel-
oping criteria are the most important). Fourth, most tools cannot benefit numerous
stakeholders, they are either designed for central/regional authorities, or visitors (Aas
et al., 2005). Accordingly, we offer a Social Platform on Cultural Tourism (SPOT-IT)
which is the first inclusive web-based platform, designed to accommodate the needs
of cultural tourism developers, planners, and visitors. The SPOT-IT tool is applied
in several case study areas including rural and peri-urban areas.
SPOT-IT: An Advanced Tool for Dynamic Cultural Tourism … 205
The SPOT-IT tool is an innovative GIS-based decision-supporting platform for

the development of cultural tourism sites and infrastructure within a Web-based
Resource Centre. It was designed to help realize the current and future potential of
cultural tourism. It provides extensive and diversified information (represented visu-
ally and geo-referenced) regarding the development of cultural tourism in a given area
and it integrates several features based on machine learning methods and automatic
procedures. In line with new definition and approaches for cultural tourism (Cros &
McKercher, 2020) this platform integrates social considerations (e.g., it identifies
potential social conflicts and empower local communities), environmental consid-
erations (e.g., by pointing to vulnerable landscape and ecosystems), and economic
considerations (e.g., by providing annual visitors prediction algorithm) in a unified
framework, which was so far lacking in existing IT-tools. The tool is designed for
various cultural tourism stakeholders, with a special focus on remote and peripheral
areas that can benefit tourism as a mechanism for local and regional development
(Salvatore et al., 2018). It was developed by a group of researchers and designers
from Bar-Ilan University (Israel) and incorporates inputs from Israel and all 14 Euro-
pean teams that contributed with empirical data from their case studies and tested
the tool with their local and regional stakeholders. The tool enables the capturing of
multiple information layers relating to cultural tourism development and manage-
ment (including environmental, economic, and social indicators) at a high-resolution
level and accuracy while leveraging technological advancement in GIS and machine
learning, and involving multiple stakeholders. The tool can help long-term planning
that includes spatial elements, infrastructure, climate forecasts, zoning, and other
considerations. It was developed as a pilot for a case study region in Israel. Below
we describe the purposes of the tool, its conceptualization, its components, and its
importance. We conclude with a description of the application of the tool in the Israel
case study and a short summary.
2 The SPOT-IT Goals
The over-arching goal of the SPOT-IT innovative tool is to provide a decision-support

mechanism for the development of CHT attractions/sites.
The sub-goals of the tool are:
1. To enable the sustainable development of CT which takes into account the interest
of multiple stakeholders (i.e., entrepreneurs, officials in local authorities and
supra-regional bodies, tourists, residents, ethnic and cultural minorities, etc.)
(Esfehani & Albrecht, 2018).
2. To enable localities interested in developing cultural tourism to be able to
systematically assess their tourism potential and identify gaps and barriers.
3. To help design strategies for establishing, promoting, and marketing new and
existing attractions.
4. To enable sponsors, local authorities, and entrepreneurs to evaluate the develop-

ment potential of a given cultural heritage asset.
5. To enable communities to be incorporated into the development of a chosen
project.
3 SPOT-IT Concept and Design
The first step was to develop the concept of the innovative tool (SPOT-IT) as a
multi-criteria decision-supporting mechanism by identifying its main objectives, the
stakeholders it is expected to serve, data availability, and, finally, based on these
inputs, to design the tool’s concept, its components and how they will interact with
each other.
The tool is an innovative GIS-based website that helps realize the current and
future potential of cultural heritage tourism, and as such it provides a decision support
mechanism for the development of cultural tourism sites and infrastructure. The tool
was designed to provide extensive and diversified information (represented visually
and geo-referenced) regarding the development of cultural tourism in a given area.
The tool is designed to allow several sources of flexibility including the choice of
data layers to be used.
Since effective decision-making regarding the development of any tourism market
requires various information on multiple aspects that have a spatial and geographical
context, at the heart of the tool are the multiple data layers, their integration, and
their spatial representation. The tool delivers in one place, exhaustive and diversified
social, economic, and environmental information (data layers, which are visually,
and geo-references represented). By bridging multiple sources of information and
knowledge in a single GIS-based platform, the tool was designed to contribute to
a better decision-making process regarding new or existing CT initiatives, better
destination management, and marketing and to promote integration and intra-regional
joint planning.
3.1 The First Stage
The first stage was to decide which data layers and features to include in the tool.
These data can be categorized into two types of input data:
(1) Primary data, i.e., data that was collected directly from main sources through
interviews with experts, and officials. Local residents’ knowledge and experi-
ence were collected via surveys.
(2) Secondary data, i.e., censuses, information collected by government depart-
ments and other official organizations, online consumer reviews, or data that
was collected for other research purposes.
Based on the literature and experts’ opinions, it was decided which data layers are
relevant to the development of CT and can support initiatives for CT development
and management. The selection of the layers can be modified and extended based
on the users’ needs and availability of information and data. The selected variables
include:
1. Land use data—distinguishes between several land use categories including
Residential; Services; Industrial; Transportation; Industrial and Commercial
Complexes and Recreational. This layer enables the end-user to identify
geographical locations (pixels) that can be suitable for cultural tourism develop-
ment.
2. Distance from the nearest metropolitan area—distance surface map showing the
distance from each pixel to the nearest metropolis. Due to the limited area of the
Israeli case study, this layer has not been included in the Israeli version.
3. Transport accessibility—A map indicating locations of intercity bus routes and
stations, train stations, and exits on the highway. (In the Israeli case study area
there is only one highway and one railroad connecting the region to the country’s
center).
4. Cultural tourism sites in the region—distinguished by each site’s theme. This
layer can identify agglomeration or clusters of cultural sites, the potential for
generating complementarities, and compatibilities.
5. Cultural tourism potential (cultural stock)—this refers to cultural points of
interest which have not been developed, categorized by three levels of interest: 1.
The local visitors; 2. The National/regional visitors; 3. the international visitors.
This layer is based on CT experts’ opinions.
3.2 The Second Stage
The second stage was designed so it was possible to integrate these data into one user-
friendly platform to facilitate decision-making. Figure 1 illustrates this integration
via a logical block scheme of the SPOT-IT tool.
1. Complementarity tourism infrastructure (hotels, restaurants, other touristic

attractions)—in the case study area. This layer can help identify tourism ‘hot
spots’ and highlight available facilities activities and visitor attractions in the
area.
2. Potential social conflicts– mapping locations of potential conflicts including
conflicts between new and old comers, ultra-orthodox and secular populations,
socio-economic classes, or conflicts over the use of natural resources. These data
were derived from stakeholder and expert opinions.
3. Environmental vulnerability—mapping locations in which vulnerable/fragile
ecosystems, important habitats, endangered species, and ecological corridors
exist. These data were retrieved from Israel’s National Terrestrial Biodiversity
Assessment Program and the Open Landscape Institute (OLI) of Israel. These
Fig. 1 Logical block scheme of the spot-it tool
layers reflect the environmental carrying capacity of the case study area indi-
cating the ecological fragility and vulnerability in terms of wildlife, biodiversity,
and landscape.
4. Microclimate conditions—several interrelated factors that characterize the local
microclimate are Temperature, solar radiation, wind distribution, wind speed, and
relative humidity. These conditions, jointly, are responsible for thermal comfort.
A mapping of these conditions was done such that each pixel’s thermal comfort
was ranked compared to the optimal thermal comfort conditions in Israel (The
data for this layer was received from the Israel Meteorological Services).
3.3 The Third Stage
In the third stage in addition to the multiple data layers, several features were designed
to facilitate decision-making. These features include:
(3) Suitability analysis (“layer by layer” summation) component that allows the
user to define the desired criteria for initiating, developing, and visiting cultural
tourism sites, based on the location’s peculiar attributes. In particular, layers
were ranked on a scale (1–5 or 1–3) where the lowest level indicates the least
favorable conditions for cultural tourism development and the highest level
indicates the most favorable conditions. For example, for the micro-climate
layer, a score of 1 is endowed to pixels with a ‘very hot’ categorization. This
component allows the creation of a map where each pixel is characterized by a
(layer-by-layer) summation of these scales. Pixels with the highest total score
are presumed to have favorable conditions across all combined layers and vice
versa.
(4) Visitors’ prediction algorithm that allows to receive an estimate of the economic
performance of cultural tourism sites. In particular, the tool is equipped with
an algorithm that returns the predicted number of annual visitors for a potential
cultural tourism site at a chosen geographical point (pixel) in the case-study
area. The function is based on the features of the chosen location (e.g., popu-
lation density, distance from nature reserves within a certain radius) as well as
characteristics of the designated tourism site as defined by the user. The annual
number of visitors is a good proxy for a site’s prospected revenue. The function
that returns the expected annual visitors was estimated on Israeli market-based
data collected in 2015 and 2018 of visitors’ attractions in the rural space. The
function was drawn from an adapted version of the rural attraction’s equilibrium
model (demand and pricing equations) developed by Hatan et al. (2021)
(5) User-Generated Content: two different layers based on online consumers’
contributions were added to the tool. These layers were created by employing
online reviews and images retrieved from social media and tourism websites
in 2019 (before the outbreak of Covid-19, (Sinclair et al., 2020) Sinclair et al.,
2020). Images were analyzed via a machine learning algorithm. Machine tags
were attached to each of the images. Based on these results we performed
sentiment analysis on the content to assign the photograph as positive/neutral/
negative. The texts were analyzed via big data methods to create a landscape
characterization layer. The sentiment analysis layer may help realize the general
disposition towards a specific location. An interesting insight, for example, that
was derived from the sentiment map, is the incongruence between the high
ranking on Google and TripAdvisor reviews and the sometimes-unsatisfied
sentiment on the image sentiments analyses as reflected in Fig. 2. While Gan-
Guru Zoo and nearby Gan Ha’shlosha National Park have both high rankings on
Google and TripAdvisor reviews (4.5 stars), Gan-Guru has many images with
a negative attitude, whereas nearby Gan Ha’shlosha has almost only positive
images.
(6) Community Collaboration app is a web\mobile app intended for the general
public and the local community, in particular. It enables community members
including minorities to propose potential cultural tourism sites or reflect on
existing sites and actively participate in the process of cultural tourism devel-
opment. The CT sites proposed by the community are automatically added to
the decision-supporting tool’s map. The intention is to contribute to CT ‘from
below’ by recognizing place identity through the involvement and engagement
of local communities, minorities, and organizations in protecting and presenting
their own cultural heritage.
Fig. 2 An example of the sentiment analysis layer in Emek Ha’Maayanot
3.4 The Last Stage: Testing the Tool and Dissemination.
A prototype of the tool has been developed and tested on an ArcGIS Server that
was deployed on the Microsoft Azure: Cloud Computing Services. In 2022, the beta
version of SPOT-IT was designed and launched for testing by Consortium members
and experts. This process was carried out as a feedback loop mechanism in which
the teams provided continuous feedback, reported on problems and faults, suggested
ways to improve the tool, and communicated their case study’s specific needs and
requirements. The last stage was fine-tuning and re-circulating the tool among the
partners for final comments.
A dissemination process of the tool among the officials of the case study regional
council and municipality was initiated with the intention that the tool will be
employed to its full potential and will be updated regularly (see for details Sect. 4).
After the project ends, the responsibility for the operation of the tool, including
its maintenance, and regular updates, should be granted to tourism officials at the
regional level. Procedures for regular and ongoing updates of the tool should be
established. Such updates include data regarding new tourism sites or facilities (or
the closure of existing ones), public or private. Updates should also include data
on new infrastructure (e.g., transportation), socio-demographical and economic data
from the Central Bureau of Statistics, zoning updates from National, and regional
planning authorities, climatic data from the Meteorological services, and so on. The
entities responsible for the updates and maintenance of the tool should ensure that it
is accessible to all stakeholders.
4 The Potential Benefits and Contribution of the SPOT-IT

Tool
As mentioned earlier, SPOT-IT encourages a range of stakeholders to initiate CT

activities from the personal/business level (micro) up to the regional and national
levels (macro). The tool can be used at the supra-regional level (district, national,
global) by developing new attractions and pulling tourist, human and economic
capital to those less developed areas. The development momentum can potentially
have impacts on a large scale, economically, socially, and image-wise. Its main
beneficiaries include, among others, tourism entrepreneurs and sponsors, tourism
officials, planning authorities, local and regional municipal authorities, and resi-
dents (including ethnic and cultural minorities). The tool can support the evaluation
of developing cultural heritage sites by allowing preliminary examination of the
area’s carrying capacity, accessibility, landscape characteristics and availability of
other complementary tourism services (Tieskens et al., 2018). The tool can help in
marketing the area and the cultural tourism sites in it, by its ability to identify unique
special propositions as well as clusters of compatible cultural assets, that may attract
tourists to the region.
Potential local and international visitors can also benefit from SPOT-IT as an
inclusive unified platform for trip planning, which includes the required information
to optimize the experience. The tool enriches the visit experience; it encourages the
pre-planning of thematic tours. For example, a visit to several heritage sites related to
a certain historical event, or a visit following an adventure or plot described in a book.
Updated information regarding opportunities for active travel (walking, cycling) can
motivate visitors to visit the area thus reducing the negative impact of tourism whilst
spreading the economic benefit. Future extensions and updated versions of the tool
can include options for booking sites, communicating with site operators and other
visitors, booking tickets for shows and festivals, leaving feedback, etc. Finally, the
tool can benefit and inspire tourism scholars in universities and colleges.
4.1 Applying the SPOT-IT in the Israel Case-Study Area
For the Israeli case study area, we chose the Emek HaMayanot Valley which is part
of the Jordan River Valley in the north of Israel (Fig. 3 illustrates the case study
region). It consists of two municipalities: The town of Beit She’an and the regional
council Emek Ha’Maayanot which comprises 24 rural settlements, most of which
are kibbutz-type settlements (Amit-Cohen, 2012). The rationale for choosing Beit
She’an Valley as our case study is that (1) it is a peripheral region, far from the core
of the country and the center of economic activities. The area, and in particular the
town of Beit She’an, suffers from low socio-economic status and is in a dearth of
economic development. (2) the region is a well-known global corridor for seasonal
bird migration; therefore, it has a potential for cultural tourism development which
should be responsible (Chan et al., 2006). (3) since the rural and the urban spaces
developed apart, there is some degree of alienation between the rural and the urban
municipalities (Sofer et al., 2021). These features all together turn the case study
area into a suitable choice for the purposes and targets of the SPOT-IT.
Fig. 3 A map of the Israeli case study region

4.2 Challenges of the Cultural Tourism in the Case Study

Area
One of the most pertaining issues is the lack of consistently collected, tourism
related data (e.g., visitors’ attractions, complementary services, infrastructure, micro-
climate, etc.). The lack of knowledge-based destination planning platform is reflected
in the inability to design long-term tourism planning and marketing strategies. This
is manifested in the sporadic nature of local initiatives which are usually not reaching
maturity. In fact, most of the tourist attractions in the area are run by government
bodies (e.g., the Israel National Parks and Natural Reserves) mostly managed by non-
residents of the area. In addition, there is a lack of cooperation and trust between the
regional council and the town. This is even though they offer complementary tourism
sites (natural, water, and wildlife vs. cultural and historic sites). These complemen-
tarities can be used for the benefit of both municipalities. Finally, tourism in the case
study area is mostly domestic tourism. In order to penetrate the international market,
there is a need in massive tourism development which levers on cultural local assets
and resources while meeting international tourism standards.
4.3 How the Tool Accommodates These Challenges
The tool offers a platform, currently not existing, that enables to plan and design of
prosperous and sustainable cultural tourism, which integrates into the life of local
landscapes and communities. The tool holds a holistic view of the area, which crosses
the boundaries between the regional council and the town. It thus allows a spatial
‘view from above’ of the entire area and help identify deficiencies of facilities and
infrastructure. In particular, each type of cultural tourism being developed has its
infrastructure requirements. The tool can help in this process by providing visualized
spatial information on the already existing infrastructure, as well as required ones.
It can promote collaboration between the regional council and the town by
providing a common platform for tourism managers. This platform can be used
for designing a balanced bundle of attractions and exploiting potential synergies and
external economics. For example, given the temperature rise in the area, which is
characterized by extremely hot summers, indoor activities need to be developed in
new and existing sites. Since the regional council hosts numerous springs, indoor
facilities and the development of ‘night tourism’ are critical in Beit She’an town.
Via its potential social and environmental conflict layers, the tool can facilitate trust-
building between the two municipalities and involve multiple stakeholders. Its public
participation platform can accommodate feedback and recommendations related to
the current local, and regional, development.
Finally, acknowledging the diverse range of experiences sought by modern

cultural tourism travelers, so far overlooked by tourism designers, this platform inte-
grates multiple layers of information that are required for a compatible and diversified
tourism experience.
5 Summary
In this paper we have presented the SPOT-IT tool designed to accommodate contem-
porary cultural tourism planning needs. We have outlined the motivation for estab-
lishing the tool, the research gaps it addresses, its concepts, rationale and poten-
tial benefits. The tool levers on state-of-the-art knowledge in ArcGIS and machine
learning methods as well as additional features which allow prediction and better-
informed decision-making. The tool can promote structured idea exchange (thinking
outside the box thinking) between people involved in the cultural tourism industries
and local administrations. The tool was applied to 15 case studies of which 14 are
located in European countries, and one is located in Israel. The paper addresses and
emphasizes the suitability of the tool to the Israeli case study region, i.e., the Valley
of Springs. While the tool was demonstrated on a regional case study, it is very well
suited to accommodate different geographic scales, from the very local to the supra-
regional. The relatively wide access to the tool may lead to cross-ministries, cross-
municipalities, and cross-regional initiatives, for joint, synergetic, cultural tourism
projects.
It should be noted however that while the conceptualization of the tool is universal,
its specifications should be place dependent. Therefore, it is recommended to develop
the tool for each location (e.g., city or regional councils and other urban and rural
municipalities) based on its needs and specific characteristics.
Acknowledgements This project has received funding from the European Union’s H2020
programme for research and innovation under grant agreement no. 870644.
References
and Tourism Management, 36, 12–21.
Lexhagen, M., Ziakas, V., & Lundberg, C. (2022). Popular Culture Tourism: Conceptual Founda-
tions and State of Play. Journal of Travel Research, 00472875221140903.
Richards, G. (2021). Rethinking cultural tourism. Edward Elgar Publishing.
Kitchen, L., & Marsden, T. (2009). Creating sustainable rural development through stimulating the
Eco-economy: Beyond the Eco-economic paradox? Sociologia Ruralis, 49, 273–294.
Vučetić, A. Š. (2018). Importance of environmental indicators of sustainable development in the
transitional selective tourism destination. International Journal of Tourism Research, 20(3),
317–325.
Macdonald, E., & King, E. G. (2018). Novel ecosystems: A bridging concept for the consilience
of cultural landscape conservation and ecological restoration. Landscape and Urban Planning,
177, 148–159.
Lam, J. M., Makhbul, Z. K. M., Aziz, N. A., & Ahmat, M. A. H. (2022). Incorporating multidi-
mensional images into cultural heritage destination: does it help to explain and analyse better?.
Journal of Cultural Heritage Management and Sustainable Development.
Aas, C., Ladkin, A., & Fletcher, J. (2005). Stakeholder collaboration and heritage management.
Annals of Tourism Research, 32(1), 28–48.
Du Cros, H., & McKercher, B. (2020). Cultural tourism. Routledge.
Salvatore, R., Chiodo, E., & Fantini, A. (2018). Tourism transition in peripheral rural areas: Theories,
issues, and strategies. Annals of Tourism Research, 68, 41–51.
Esfehani, M. H., & Albrecht, J. N. (2018). Roles of intangible cultural heritage in tourism in natural
protected areas. Journal of Heritage Tourism, 13(1), 15–29.
Hatan, S., Fleischer, A., & Tchetchik, A. (2021). Economic valuation of cultural ecosystem services:
The case of landscape aesthetics in the agritourism market. Ecological Economics, 184, 107005.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2021.107005
Sinclair, M., Mayer, M., Woltering, M., & Ghermandi, A. (2020). Using social media to esti-
mate visitor provenance and patterns of recreation in Germany’s national parks. Journal of
Environmental Management, 263, 110418.
Tieskens, K. F., Van Zanten, B. T., Schulp, C. J., & Verburg, P. H. (2018). Aesthetic appreciation
of the cultural landscape through social media: An analysis of revealed preference in the Dutch
river landscape. Landscape and Urban Planning, 177, 128–137.
Amit-Cohen, I. (2012). Cultural tourism in the Kibbutz: Values, assets, and attitudes. Horizons in
Geography, 79–80, 210–225.
Chan, J., To, H.-P., & Chan, E. (2006). Reconsidering social cohesion: Developing a definition and
analytical framework for empirical research. Social Indicators Research, 75, 273–302.
Sofer, M., Cohen, N., Applebaum, L., Amit-Cohen, I., Shaul, Y, and Shmuel, I. (2021) Changing
Urban-Rural Relations in Israel’s Periphery, in Banski, J. (ed.) Routledge Handbook of Small
Towns, Routledge. pp. 203–217. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003094203
Redefining Cultural Tourism Leadership:
Innovative Approach and Tool
João Martins , Pedro Pereira , Shabnam Pasandideh ,

Kashyap Raiyani , Tarmo Kalvet , Mikel Zubiaga De la cal ,
and Alessandra Gandini
Abstract The paper discusses the intersection of Cultural Tourism and topics
that emerged during the IMPACTOUR project’s lifespan. It showcases innovative
approaches to managing Cultural Tourism and emphasizes essential trends related
to tools and data. The paper also introduces the IMPACTOUR methodology and
tool, which enhances the crucial role of Cultural Tourism stakeholders and offers a
forward-looking perspective.
Keywords Cultural tourism · Data · Tools · Evaluation · Assessment
1 Introduction
The travel and tourism sector plays a significant role in the global economy,
contributing $2.8 trillion to the GDP in 2018 and generating $8.8 trillion including
its indirect and induced impacts. It was also the fastest-growing sector in the world
in 2018, expanding by 3.9% (World Travel Tourism Council (WTTC) 2019). Europe
accounts for a significant portion of the global tourism (see Fig. 1), with Southern
Mediterranean destinations making up 21% of the global international tourist arrivals
and 15% of international tourism receipts. The top destinations in Europe include
France, Spain, Italy, Germany, and the UK. On average, tourism directly contributes
4.4% of GDP and 6.9% of employment, although there are considerable differences
among countries.
J. Martins (B) · P. Pereira · S. Pasandideh · K. Raiyani

NOVA School of Science and Technology, UNINOVA-CTS and LASI, Universidade NOVA de
Lisboa, 2829-516 Caparica, Portugal
e-mail: jf.martins@fct.unl.pt
T. Kalvet
Institute of Baltic Studies, Lai 30, 51005 Tartu, Estonia and Department of Business
Administration, Tallinn University of Technology 5, 19086 Tallinn, Estonia
M. Z. De la cal · A. Gandini
TECNALIA, Basque Research and Technology Alliance (BRTA), Parque Científico y
Tecnológico de Bizkaia, Astondo Bidea, Edificio 700, E-48160 Derio, Spain

218 J. Martins et al.
Fig. 1 International tourism expenditure (share %)
Cultural tourism, as a sub-sector of tourism, has been defined as a type of tourism

where the visitor’s main motivation is to learn and experience the cultural attractions
and products in a destination. It has developed towards the mass market and comprises
several distinct themes such as historic and cultural heritage, arts, gastronomy, film
and music, and tourism based on creative industries. The size of the cultural tourism
market is estimated to account for 40% of all international tourism arrivals and is
expected to further grow in the coming years (OECD, 2009).
Cultural tourism has the potential to drive growth, jobs, economic development
and to substantially reduce seasonality. Cultural tourists are also known to spend
more than other tourists, making cultural tourism a significant source of revenue for
destinations. However, the economic contribution of cultural tourism can be impacted
by factors such as inadequate quality of cultural tourism products and suboptimal
policy for pricing cultural tourism products. The demographic, socio-economic, and
behavioural characteristics of visitors who travel for cultural tourism are important
parameters to consider for the analysis of tourism flows and the management of
cultural heritage sites, destinations, and events.
Cultural tourism holds great potential for economic development and job creation,
but its impact must be carefully monitored and assessed to inform policy decisions
that will best utilize its economic potential. The Cultural Tourism ecosystem must be
then prepared to catch up with the economic recovery, supported by three fundamental
pillars, as addressed on the IMPACTOUR Re-Discover Europe Workshop: data,
people and technology 3.
In order to identify recent key trends related to policy monitoring and evaluation,
as well as the use of data and tools in the fields of tourism and cultural tourism, a
research process was conducted. Academic sources were analyzed using specific key
terms such as " + tourism + impact assessment + evaluation + data" and "cultural
tourism." Additionally, policy-relevant sources were identified by employing similar
terms and exploring the websites of prominent international organizations such as
the European Commission, Eurostat, OECD, and UN/UNWTO.
Redefining Cultural Tourism Leadership: Innovative Approach and Tool 219
2 Towards a New Way of Leading Cultural Tourism
Data plays a crucial role in the development and success of cultural tourism for
several reasons:
• Understanding Tourist Demands: Data helps in understanding the preferences,
behaviours and expectations of tourists who are interested in cultural tourism.
This information can be used to tailor products and services that meet the needs
of these tourists, which can help to attract and retain them.
• Destination Planning and Development: Data can be used to identify cultural
tourism resources, such as museums, monuments, festivals, and cultural events,
and determine their popularity, attendance, and potential for future development.
This information can be used to guide destination planning and development, to
ensure that resources are being used effectively and efficiently.
• Market Segmentation: Data can be used to identify different market segments
within the cultural tourism sector, such as heritage tourists, cultural travellers,
and adventure tourists. This information can be used to target marketing and
promotional efforts more effectively, and to provide tailored products and services
that meet the needs of each segment.
• Evaluation and Assessment: Data can be used to measure the impact of cultural
tourism on local economies and communities, and to evaluate the effectiveness
of cultural tourism development strategies. This information can be used to make
informed decisions about the future development of cultural tourism, to ensure
that it continues to contribute positively to local communities.
2.1 Key Trends Regarding Data and Tools
There are three key trends in the field of data analysis and their applications in public
policy.
The first trend is big data, which refers to extremely large data sets that can be anal-
ysed computationally to reveal patterns, trends, and associations (Miah et al., 2017).
The characteristics of big data include variety, volume, and velocity. Additional char-
acteristics such as volatility, veracity, and value have also been emphasized by some
authors (Grover & Kar, 2017). The processing of big data poses several challenges,
but it also offers extensive benefits, including social and economic value. The use
of big data for public policy is still in its early stages, but it is seen as of strategic
importance for the European statistical system.
The second trend described is the rapid development of intelligence and analyt-
ical tools, including geoinformation and GIS tools, which are particularly important
for cultural tourism assessment. Stakeholders in the tourism sector are increasingly
looking for user-friendly solutions for data analysis, with Tableau and Microsoft
being leading solutions in this field. Simple visualization applications built on open
data access to public statistical data are also making a significant impact, such as
the Harvard Growth Lab’s Atlas of Economic Complexity (The Atlas of Economic
Complexity, 2020).
The third trend is the inclusion of data science tools, particularly predictive
analytics, into platforms. Artificial intelligence is seen as having a significant impact
on public policies and services, with the potential to free up time for public servants
and improve the speed and quality of public services. However, there are also
extensive challenges to overcome in this field (Berryhill et al., 2019).
2.2 Key Trends Regarding Data and Tools in Cultural

Tourism
The tourism industry is heavily reliant on information and is influenced by current

trends in data analytics. The increasing use of Information and Communication
Technologies (ICTs) and big data analytics is becoming increasingly important as
organizations use their information assets to gain a competitive advantage. The use
of big data analytics has been shown to improve the understanding of the consumer
market and support strategic decision-making. This has led to the concept of "smart
tourism," where advanced technologies and data collection from physical infrastruc-
ture, social connections, and human sources are used to transform data into improved
experiences and business value-propositions (Xiang et al., 2017).
Smart tourism is based on the concept of "smart destinations", where tourism
destinations use ICTs to improve the physical tourism infrastructure. Data generated
from smart tourism can support tourism planning and governance, with tourists seen
as co-creators of valuable data. The shift in tourism statistics is moving from tradi-
tional surveys to big data sources, with big data expected to eventually become the
main source of information for tourism statistics.
The benefits of using big data for tourism statistics include the immense volume
of information, real-time synchronisation, and granularity. However, there are also
challenges, such as potential problems with the alignment of concepts and definitions
and issues around objectivity, independence, and trust by users. Potential big data
sources for tourism include social media, travel reviews, and location-based data.
The potential of open data is also becoming increasingly important, with open data
seen as a means of enhancing tourist experiences.
2.3 Emerging Tools for Cultural Tourism Impact Assessment
2.3.1 Mobile Positioning Data
Information and communication technology have enabled the collection of data on

tourists and their behaviour through the widespread use of mobile phones. Mobile
phones, especially smartphones, have various sensors that can be used to gather infor-
mation, but most studies are limited in time and space. The main source of data is
mobile positioning data (MPD) which is collected automatically by mobile network
operators and includes the time and location of mobile phone events. Mobile posi-
tioning data can be obtained through passive means, which is the majority of mobile
phone tracking studies in tourism research. Passive MPD is valuable in analysing
human mobility in time, space, and frequency of trips and can be used to describe
different forms of temporary mobility including tourism (Ahas et al., 2007).
Despite its potential advantages over traditional data sets, mobile positioning data
also has several limitations, including differences in phone use patterns, lack of qual-
itative information, and difficulties in access to data due to international regulations
and network operators’ reluctance to provide the data for privacy and confidentiality
reasons.
2.3.2 World Wide Web Data
Online big data sources (World Wide Web Data) have surfaced in the recent years as
a source with a lot of promise for tourism research and evaluation. Whereas satellite
imagery or mobile phone data are relatively well-defined as data sources, big data
generated from Internet users’ online activities constitute more of a mixed basket,
including data from various social media sites, online searches, website traffic, online
booking and review sites, and so on. A general common denominator of such data is
that they are disseminated throughout the Internet. Further, most data collected comes
from text messages, images, video or searches voluntarily submitted by persons.
Against this background, the following section explores which kind of online data
could be collected, analysed and processed into (statistical) information that will be
useful for tourism policy purposes.
Geotagged data from social networks (Social Media Data) such as Twitter,
Foursquare, Flickr, and Instagram have become a valuable source of information
on human movement over the past decade (Ahas et al., 2007). Studies in tourism
have utilized this data to estimate the number of inbound tourists and profile trav-
ellers based on their country of residence, interests, and other tourist attractions
visited. Previous studies have successfully used Flickr photo data to quantify visits
to tourist sites, predict tourism demand, and extract trend and seasonal patterns. The
analysis of textual metadata on Flickr photos can also give valuable information on
tourist interests and activities. In addition, Twitter messages with photo attachments,
spatial coordinates, hashtags, and social links have also been used to assess users’
mobility patterns, trip purposes, and engagement with specific tourism sites. The
analysis of Twitter data has shown the potential to assess spatiotemporal fluctuations
in mobility, identify popular times for visiting sites, and plan potential attractions.
Tourists are increasingly using online sources, such as search engines and
websites, to plan their trips. Big data from online searches (Web Traffic and Search
Data) is used to measure and forecast tourism arrivals (Gunter & Önder, 2016).
The World Economic Forum’s Travel and Tourism Competitiveness Index includes
a “digital demand” indicator that measures tourists’ interest in a country’s cultural

resources based on the number of related online searches. In addition to search
engines, website traffic can also be used for forecasting tourist demand. Previous
studies have used website traffic data on Google Analytics for predicting tourism
arrivals and Google Trends to predict numbers of visitors to specific tourist attrac-
tions such as museums. Similarly, the potential of big data from Wikipedia page
views is being actively explored as a source of data on tourism flows.
The growth in online travel reviews (OTR) is significant in the field of tourism
and hospitality (Marine-Roig & Anton Clavé, 2015). These user-generated data from
OTRs are used to study the image of tourism destinations. For example, Roig and
Clavé analysed more than 100,000 travel blog posts and online travel reviews to study
the image of Barcelona and found recurring problems and discrepancies between
the city’s branding and visitors’ perceptions (Marine-Roig & Anton Clavé, 2015).
Another study by Tilly and colleagues supports the use of online travel reviews as
a source of macro-level information on the spatio-temporal distribution of tourism
and found that the information quality has greatly improved over time and is highly
correlated with official statistical sources (Tilly et al., 2015).
2.3.3 Data on Sharing and Collaborative Economy
The collaborative economy has greatly impacted cultural tourism, with the sharing
and collaborative economy being used interchangeably. The collaborative economy
involves service providers who share assets, resources, time, and/or skills, users of
these services, and intermediaries that connect providers with users. The growth of
the collaborative economy has been notable in transportation and accommodation
with a projected 31% annual growth rate for the global peer-to-peer accommodation
economy between 2013 and 2025. Despite the impact of the collaborative economy,
comprehensive data on its effect on tourism is limited and nuanced understandings
of it and its relationship with tourism remains a challenge. It is seen as a potential
contributor to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG), but critical questions have
been raised about whether it is in the public interest and its regulation (O’Rourke &
Lollo, 2015). Data from collaborative platforms like Airbnb and Tripadvisor can be a
useful source of information on occupancy rates, average prices per night, customer
ratings, and more, but access to this data may be limited. Third-party companies
like AirDNA collect data from public websites to estimate Airbnb activities. Other
collaborative economy practices like car sharing or short-term car rental services
have potential to provide useful data on tourist mobility, but accessing proprietary
data may be difficult.
2.3.4 Passenger Data
Passenger data is information about individuals’ movements to, from, and within
a geographic location. There are big data sources for analysing passenger traffic
flows, including tourist flows, such as road sensors, taxi GPS logs, online traffic and
navigation services, and pedestrian monitoring systems. An example of a pedestrian
monitoring system is the Smart Heritage City project in which cameras were used to
record the regular patterns of tourist movement and occupancy levels of sites in the
Historic City of Ávila (Zubiaga et al., 2019). The gathered data was used to provide
city managers with 2-D and 3-D visualizations to identify overcrowded sites and
to develop smartphone applications for tourists. However, a common difficulty is
that it is often difficult to distinguish between local and tourist traffic. To overcome
this, data from road sensors can be complemented with computer vision from traffic
control cameras and CCTV surveillance cameras in parking lots to analyse license
plates and the size and type of vehicles. Other data sources, such as aviation data
and public travel data sources, may also be relevant in analysing passenger traffic
connections.
3 Evaluation and Assessment
In the previous section, a wide range of emerging tools were identified for assessing
the impact of cultural tourism, providing a general overview of the various possibil-
ities available. However, several limitations were identified in Kalvet et al., (2020a),
which were further examined during the IMPACTOUR pilots. The findings indicated
that while a number of the innovative data sources and tools have the potential to
be useful for evaluating the cultural, social, economic, and environmental impacts
of cultural tourism, certain data sets are not readily available at the regional level.
Additionally, some of the tools require advanced data science expertise that is not
currently available, while others are more applicable to the tourism sector as a whole
rather than specifically to cultural tourism (as discussed in Zubiaga et al., 2022b).
Evaluation and Assessment is important in cultural tourism for several reasons:
• To understand the impact of cultural tourism on the host community: Cultural
tourism can bring economic benefits to a community, but it can also have negative
impacts such as overcrowding and strain on local resources. Assessment helps to
understand the positive and negative effects of cultural tourism and identify ways
to mitigate any negative impacts.
• To monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of cultural tourism initiatives: By moni-
toring and evaluating the results of cultural tourism initiatives, such as the devel-
opment of new attractions or the implementation of cultural heritage preserva-
tion programs, it is possible to assess their effectiveness and identify areas for
improvement.
• To plan for sustainable cultural tourism development: Assessment helps in devel-
oping sustainable cultural tourism initiatives by taking into account the capac-
ities and needs of the host community, as well as the potential impact on the
environment and cultural heritage.
• To allocate resources efficiently: Assessment provides information on the demand

for cultural tourism and the most popular destinations, allowing for the efficient
allocation of resources and the development of targeted marketing and tourism
development initiatives.
• To ensure the preservation of cultural heritage: Cultural heritage is an important
aspect of cultural tourism, and assessment helps to ensure that cultural heritage
is being conserved and managed in a sustainable manner. This is important for
preserving cultural heritage for future generations and maintaining its authenticity
for tourists.
3.1 The IMPACTOUR Methodology and Tool
Any assessment methodology needs a list of indicators to help stakeholders and

destination managers measuring the impact that cultural tourism has or may have
on their local sites. Establishing a set of useful, usable and understandable set of
criteria and indicators following a clear metrics system, will be essential to compare
different cases in similar contexts with the same form of cultural tourism. Several
world-wide tourism institutions consider distinct analysis impact domains in their
indicator systems, as presented in Table 1.
Dealing with the particular field of Cultural Tourism the IMPACTOUR project
proposed a modified set of domain indicators to tackle the Cultural Tourism filed:
• Characterisation indicators: Embrace the overall site context indicators that will
help understand the site. Those related to comparison criteria, which will help us
to discover the relevant issues in each site. General management indicators are
also part of this first characterization list of indicators.
• Resilience indicators: Related to tourism management when destinations face or
may face a crisis (whoever or whatever the source of the crisis is) that produces
an adverse change in the circumstances of the site, and therefore directly impacts
on the cultural tourism trends; how these crises are measured and how the site’s
resilience can be measured via indicators.
• Impact indicators: Indicators per impact domain. They help understand the need
for measuring one or more aspects. We will define the list of impact indicators
to be measured in the next steps of the project (the comparative assessment with
pilots). Also, inter-relations between indicator Domains are meaningful. The four
domains are:
• Cultural domain;
• Social domain;
• Economic domain;
• Environmental domain.
The IMPACTOUR Methodology embodies step-based guidance in the decision-
making process that tourism destinations deal with in the selection of the most suitable
development Strategies for CT in their site. It was conceived as an operational and
Table 1 Summary of how existing indicator systems tackle the different domains (O’Rourke & Lollo, 2015)
Source Analysis domains
Characterization (or Resilience Environment Economic Socio-economic Social & cultural Cultural (separated to
management) (together) social)
UNWTO X X X X X
ETIS X X X X
SIROCCO X X X X
CO-EVOLVE X X X X
MITOMED + X X X X
GSTC D-C X X X X
IMPACTOUR X X X X X X
Redefining Cultural Tourism Leadership: Innovative Approach and Tool
225
Fig. 2 Step-based approach of the IMPACTOUR Methodology (Gössling & Michael Hall, 2019)
user-oriented step-by step method to ensure replication beyond the IMPACTOUR

Community (see Fig. 2).
Understanding the generic context of the Cultural Tourism sites (urban, rural,
natural or itinerary) plus their main Strategic Objectives when facing any transition
in Cultural Tourism management, IMPACTOUR Tool will provide them with a set
of Strategies and Actions that they can follow.
The IMPACTOUR Tool provides a set of decision support tools for Cultural
Tourism stakeholders and pilot and site managers. Users can input and visualize their
data, access the Decision Support System and follow the impact of their Actions
through the KPIs Graphic Representation or using the Visual analytics Tool (see
Fig. 3).
Each user must categorize its own site (urban, rural, natural or itinerary) and
also indicate the main type of local cultural activity along with the cultural activity
impact. After selecting, and prioritizing, a set of objectives for its site (cultural, social,
economic, environmental), the user will be presented with a list of strategies more
suitable to his site. After the user chooses the most suitable ones, the IMPACTOUR
Tool will display a set of Actions that can be pursued in order to achieve the previously
chosen strategies and objectives.
To explore the impact of the adopted Strategies and Actions, evaluating how those
Actions are having a positive or negative impact on the performance of sustainable
Fig. 3 IMPACTOUR Tool front web page

CT development is mandatory. For that a complete set of Key Performance Indica-

tors (KPIs) was developed and adopted (going beyond the usual indicator systems)
comprising 12 Characterization Indicators, 4 Resilience Indicators, 8 Social Indi-
cators, 7 Cultural Indicators, 5 Environmental Indicators, and 10 Economic
Indicators. The complete list of IMPACTOUR Indicators can be found in Gandini
et al. (2021).
To compute these Key Performance Indicators data is needed. Good quality data is
actually needed to access the impact of the adopted Actions and Strategies in Cultural
Tourism development. No accurate assessment can be made without data. In order
to compute the 41 IMPACTOUR Key Performance Indicators 110 data elements are
needed.
4 The Role of Stakeholders
Stakeholders (Tourists/Travelers, Local communities, National/Regional/Local

government, Tour operators, Government agencies, Non-governmental organiza-
tions, Museums, galleries, and heritage sites, Local businesses, Tourist guides, Trans-
port providers, Mobile Phone Operators, or Academics and researchers) are impor-
tant in cultural tourism data gathering process because they have access to primary
information, thus they can provide support and collaboration while managing and
operating Decision Support System’s tools, contributing to the sustainability of the
local Cultural Tourism.
Stakeholders can gather cultural tourism data (either manual or automatically)
using a variety of ways, including:
• Surveys and Interviews, providing valuable insights into the needs and expecta-
tions of visitors.
• Cultural Asset Mapping, identifying, mapping and characterising local cultural
assets.
• Tourism Statistics and Data related to tourism in the destination, such as the
number of visitors, their spending habits, and their satisfaction levels.
In order to successful use Cultural Tourism Decision Support System’s tools, it is
important to gather data about the interests, needs, and preferences of visitors as well
as the cultural resources available at the destination. Stakeholders can contribute to
this data gathering process in a number of ways:
• Providing insights about cultural resources: Stakeholders such as local residents,
cultural institutions, municipalities, or historical societies have valuable knowl-
edge about the cultural resources available at the destination. They can provide
insights about the history, traditions, and cultural events that visitors may find
interesting.
• Collecting data about visitor preferences: Stakeholders such as tourism businesses,
tour operators, or even mobile phone operators can collect data about visitor
preferences through surveys, focus groups, and other forms of market research or
data gathering.
• Monitoring visitor behaviour: Stakeholders such as tourism businesses and attrac-
tions can use data from visitor behaviour, such as ticket sales and visitor numbers,
to understand which cultural tourism experiences are most popular and adjust
their offerings accordingly.
Stakeholders play a critical role in data gathering for cultural tourism initiatives,
and their input and insights can help to ensure that cultural tourism experiences are
engaging, informative, and enjoyable for visitors. IMPACTOUR project gathered a
large number of stakeholders grouped around 30 Pilots, with distinct characteristics
spread around Europe (https://www.impactour.eu/).
The involvement of stakeholders in the IMPACTOUR data gathering information
process was essential to access relevant data sources, maximise the quality of gathered
information and identifying the best practices and roles that involved actors play in
the development of cultural tourism strategies. However, in order to be effective and
motivated, their commitment must include a human dimension highly related to the
governance of the projects they are involved.
5 The Future Vision
Digital transformation is the basis for a new diversity paradigm, where new offers and
markets will come into place. Cultural Tourism new markets and new tourist profiles
will undoubtedly consider new indicators where quality outperforms quantity. Often
forgotten, accessibility issues will provide huge benefits for the Cultural Tourism
ecosystem.
In Europe, culture plays a vital role in sustainable development as it is both a
driver and an enabler of it. The region’s cultural richness is particularly significant
for global and local ecosystems, making it an invaluable resource for sustainable
development in education, the economy, and tourism. As local communities are the
primary beneficiaries of sustainable Cultural Tourism, it is of utmost important to
develop their sense of natural and cultural pride, being themselves, not copying
others.
The effective use of data is essential for enhancing the quality of information
and communication among stakeholders in the Cultural Tourism ecosystem (Kalvet
et al., 2020b). Leveraging "smart" data has become a crucial element in the transition
towards a collaborative economy framework. Adopting a multisectoral and interdis-
ciplinary approach that engages local communities, tourism providers, visitors, and
digital platform intermediaries is critical. This approach enables decision-making
that is backed by recorded evidence and analysis of best practices, as envisaged by
the IMPACTOUR methodology and tool.
Local communities, SMEs, cooperatives, and CCIs are critical to promoting
people-centric innovation and entrepreneurship in Cultural Tourism. By engaging
people from all walks of life, they can reach new markets and create strong emotional
bonds based on local cultural roots. The new generation of entrepreneurs should adopt
lifelong learning strategies and have access to cutting-edge technologies and deep
knowledge. By engaging with and respecting local communities, we can promote
social inclusion and cohesion, leading to a shared identity and unity.
Acknowledgements This work has been supported by the project IMPACTOUR, “IMproving
Sustainable Development Policies and Practices to access, diversify and foster Cultural TOURism
in European regions and areas“ which has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon
2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 870747 and from TEXTOUR,
“Social Innovation and TEchnologies for sustainable growth through participative cultural
TOURism” which has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and
innovation programme under grant agreement No 101004687. Additional support was granted by
national funds through FCT Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia with reference UIDB/00066/
2020 and UIDP/00066/2020.
References
World Travel & Tourism Council (WTTC). (2019). Travel & Tourism. Economic Impact 2019.
Retrieved 22 February, 2023, from https://wttc.org/Research/Economic-Impact.
OECD. (2009). The Impact of Culture on Tourism, Paris. Retrieved 22 February, 2023, from https://
www.oecd.org/cfe/tourism/theimpactofcultureontourism.htm.
Consensus Declaration. (2021, 9 May). IMPACTOUR ReDiscover Europe Workshop. Retrieved
22 February, 2023, from https://www.impactour.eu/pages/consensus-declaration-rediscover-eur
ope-workshop.
Miah, S. J., Vu, H. Q., Gammack, J., & McGrath, M. (2017, September). A big data analytics
method for tourist behaviour analysis. Information and Management, 54(6), 771–785. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2016.11.011.
Grover, P., & Kar, A. K. (2017). Big data analytics: A review on theoretical contributions and tools
used in literature. Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management, 18(3), 203–229. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s40171-017-0159-3
The Growth Lab at Harvard University. (2020). The Atlas of Economic Complexity. Retrieved 13
July, 2020, from https://atlas.cid.harvard.edu/.
Berryhill, J., Heang, K. K., Clogher, R., & McBride, Hello, K. (2019). World: Artificial intelligence
and its use in the public sector. OECD Working Papers on Public Governance, No. 36. Paris:
OECD Publishing.
Xiang, Z., & Fesenmaier, D. R. (2017). Big data analytics, tourism design and smart tourism. In
Z. Xiang & D. Fesenmaier (Eds.), Analytics in smart tourism design, tourism on the verge
(pp. 299–307). Springer.
Ahas, R., Aasa, A., Roose, A., Mark, Ü., & Silm, S. (2007). Evaluating passive mobile positioning
data for tourism surveys: An Estonian case study. Tourism Management, 29(3), 469–486. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2007.05.014.
Zheng, Y. T., Zha, Z. J., & Chua, T. S. (2012). Mining travel patterns from geotagged photos.
ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology, 3(3), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1145/
2168752.2168770.
Gunter, U., & Önder, I. (2016). Forecasting city arrivals with Google Analytics. Annals of Tourism
Research, 61, 199–212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2016.10.007.
Signorelli, S., Reis, F., & Biffignandi, S. (2020). What attracts tourists while planning for a journey?
An analysis of three cities through Wikipedia page views. Global Forum on Tourism Statistics,
Venice. Retrieved 13 July, 2020, from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/310605164.
Marine-Roig, E., & Anton Clavé, S. (2015). Tourism analytics with massive user- generated content:
A case study of Barcelona. Journal of Destination Marketing and Management, 4(3), 162–172.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdmm.2015.06.004.
Tilly, R., Fischbach, K., & Schoder, D. (2015). Mineable or messy? Assessing the quality of macro-
level tourism information derived from social media. Electronic Markets, 25(3), 227–241. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s12525-015-0181-2.
O’Rourke, D., & Lollo, N. (2015). Transforming consumption: From decoupling, to behavior
change, to system changes for sustainable consumption. Annual Review of Environment and
Resources, 40(1), 233–259. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-102014-021224
Gössling, S., & Michael Hall, C. (2019). Sharing versus collaborative economy: how to align ICT
developments and the SDGs in tourism? Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 27(1), 74–96. https://
doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2018.1560455.
Zubiaga, M., Izkara, J. L., Gandini, A., Alonso, I., & Saralegui, U. (2019). Towards smarter manage-
ment of overtourism in historic centres through visitor-flow monitoring. Sustainability, 11(24),
7254. https://doi.org/10.3390/SU11247254.
Alessandra Gandini, Elena Usobiaga, Mikel Zubiaga, Amaia Sopelana. (2021). List of criteria and
indicators to carry out the comparative assessment. IMPACTOUR Deliverable 2.1. Retrieved
February, 2023, from https://www.impactour.eu/.
Zubiaga, M., Gandini, A., & Sopelana, A. (2022a). Sustainable cultural tourism methodology and
validation. Impactour Deliverable, 4, 4.
Kalvet, T., Olesk, M., Tiits, M., & Raun, J. (2020a). Identification of tools for cultural tourism
impact assessment. Impactour Deliverable, 1, 3.
Zubiaga, M., Gandini, A., & Sopelana, A. (2022b). IMPACTOUR key performance indicators.
Impactour Deliverable, 4, 2.
Kalvet, T., Olesk, M., Tiits, M., & Raun, J. (2020b). Innovative tools for tourism and cultural tourism
impact assessment. Sustainability, 12(18), 7470. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12187470

Advances in Cultural Tourism Research: Bart Neuts João Martins Marinos Ioannides

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Advances in Cultural Tourism Research: Bart Neuts João Martins Marinos Ioannides

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Advances in Cultural Tourism Research: Bart Neuts João Martins Marinos Ioannides

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Advances in Digital and Cultural Tourism Management

Advances in Digital and Cultural Tourism Management

If disposing of this product, please recycle the paper.

Brussels, Belgium Dr. Rodrigo Martín Galán

Participatory Approaches to Cultural Tourism Management

Responsible, Circular, and Human-Centred Regional

New Data Methods and Digital Tools

Leuven, Belgium Bart Neuts

Participatory Approaches to Cultural Tourism Management

Responsible, Circular, and Human-Centred Regional Development

Heritage and Territory: Tangible and Intangible Cultural

New Data Methods and Digital Tools

Hanna Szemző, Eszter Turai, and Gergő Berta

H. Szemző (B) · E. Turai · G. Berta

© The Author(s) 2025 3

Pilot cases and routes

Vale do Coa – Siega Verde

Fig. 1 List of TExTOUR pilots. Source TExTOUR website, https://textour-project.eu/

2 Data Collection and Methodology

dynamics. Some of these tendencies can be managed or counterbalanced by careful

3 Results and Analysis

The mix of institutional as well as occupational backgrounds of the respondents

identity’, which is viewed essential for building a common local understanding of

3.1 Heritage and Identity

It is generally assumed that heritage and the relationship to heritage is a signifi-

Source TExTOUR D1.4, “Results from the data collection phase”

In addition, intangible heritage—which is mostly related to the local community’s

3.2 Barriers to Development

Table 2 Population numbers at the pilot sites

3.3 Sustainability and Europeanisation

Importantly, the concept of long-term sustainability was also connected to

Pilot interview transcripts- 4 per each pilot site.

Elena Bussolati, Serena Cecere, Roberta De Bonis Patrignani,

Keywords Cultural tourism · Participatory process · Cultural heritage · Industrial

© The Author(s) 2025 19

3 The Pilot Site of Crespi D’Adda

4 The Identification of the Actions for the Promotion

In the framework of the TExTOUR project, in 2022 Unioncamere Lombardia and

Fig. 1 The village of Crespi d’Adda with its factory

Fig. 2 The pilot area considered within the TExTOUR project

Fig. 3 The 4 steps methodology developed by the University of Bologna

After the stakeholder engagement activities, organized in the previous phase of

The following workshops were dedicated to the definition of several Actions to

In addition, 12 new actions were proposed collectively within the Workshop 2

• #10 Network of cultural sites

4.1 Action 1: Green and Blue Routes

The action concerns the development of a network of routes (hiking/bicycle/

4.2 Action 2: Permanent Working Table on Cultural Tourism

• #10 Network of cultural sites.

4.3 Action 3: Vademecum for Citizens and Tourists

The action aims at defining a Vademecum to reduce the externalities of touristic

4.4 Action 4: Monitoring System for Touristic Flows Using

Fig. 6 Sustainability-driven business model canvas developed by the University of Bologna

embracing all four pillars of sustainability (social, economic, environmental and

Fig. 7 The fourth workshop

Fig. 8 Tables for the discussion of the UNESCO management plan

5 The UNESCO Management Plan and the Integration

• Identification of a network of tourist itineraries in the area and between UNESCO

ECTN European Cultural Tourism Network website—www.culturaltourism-network.eu, last