research paper on heritage and tourism

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here .

Loading metrics

Open Access

Peer-reviewed

Research Article

Exploring the relationships between heritage tourism, sustainable community development and host communities’ health and wellbeing: A systematic review

Roles Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

Affiliation Translational Health Research Institute, School of Medicine, Western Sydney University, Sydney, Australia

Roles Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

Affiliations School of Social Sciences, Western Sydney University, Sydney, Australia, Department of Archaeology, University of York, York, United Kingdom

* E-mail: [email protected]

Roles Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Methodology, Supervision, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

Affiliations Translational Health Research Institute, School of Medicine, Western Sydney University, Sydney, Australia, Maternal, Child and Adolescent Health Program, Burnet Institute, Melbourne, Australia

• Cristy Brooks, 
• Emma Waterton, 
• Hayley Saul, 
• Andre Renzaho

• Published: March 29, 2023
• https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0282319
• Reader Comments

Previous studies examining the impact of heritage tourism have focused on specific ecological, economic, political, or cultural impacts. Research focused on the extent to which heritage tourism fosters host communities’ participation and enhances their capacity to flourish and support long-term health and wellbeing is lacking. This systematic review assessed the impact of heritage tourism on sustainable community development, as well as the health and wellbeing of local communities. Studies were included if they: (i) were conducted in English; (ii) were published between January 2000 and March 2021; (iii) used qualitative and/or quantitative methods; (iv) analysed the impact of heritage tourism on sustainable community development and/or the health and wellbeing of local host communities; and (v) had a full-text copy available. The search identified 5292 articles, of which 102 articles met the inclusion criteria. The included studies covering six WHO regions (Western Pacific, African, Americas, South-East Asia, European, Eastern Mediterranean, and multiple regions). These studies show that heritage tourism had positive and negative impacts on social determinants of health. Positive impacts included economic gains, rejuvenation of culture, infrastructure development, and improved social services. However, heritage tourism also had deleterious effects on health, such as restrictions placed on local community participation and access to land, loss of livelihood, relocation and/or fragmentation of communities, increased outmigration, increases in crime, and erosion of culture. Thus, while heritage tourism may be a poverty-reducing strategy, its success depends on the inclusion of host communities in heritage tourism governance, decision-making processes, and access to resources and programs. Future policymakers are encouraged to adopt a holistic view of benefits along with detriments to sustainable heritage tourism development. Additional research should consider the health and wellbeing of local community groups engaged in heritage tourism. Protocol PROSPERO registration number: CRD42018114681.

Citation: Brooks C, Waterton E, Saul H, Renzaho A (2023) Exploring the relationships between heritage tourism, sustainable community development and host communities’ health and wellbeing: A systematic review. PLoS ONE 18(3): e0282319. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0282319

Editor: Tai Ming Wut, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, HONG KONG

Received: April 29, 2022; Accepted: February 14, 2023; Published: March 29, 2023

Copyright: © 2023 Brooks et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Data Availability: All relevant data are within the paper.

Funding: The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Introduction

Tourism, heritage, and sustainable development go hand in hand. Socio-economically, tourism is considered a vital means of sustainable human development worldwide, and remains one of the world’s top creators of employment and a lead income-generator, particularly for Global South countries [ 1 ]. For most low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), tourism is a key component of export earnings and export diversification, and a major source of foreign-currency income [ 1 ]. In 2019, prior to the international travel restrictions implemented to contain the spread of coronavirus disease (COVID-19), export revenues from international tourism were estimated at USD 1.7 trillion, the world’s third largest export category after fuels and chemicals with great economic impacts. Tourism remains a major part of gross domestic product, generating millions of direct and indirect jobs, and helping LMICs reduce trade deficits [ 1 ]. It accounts for 28 per cent of the world’s trade in services, 7 per cent of overall exports of goods and services and 1 out of 10 jobs in the world [ 1 ]. Given this, it is anticipated that tourism will play a strong role in achieving all of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), but particularly Goals 1 (No poverty), 8 (Decent work and economic growth), 12 (Responsible consumption and production), 13 (Climate action) and 14 (Life below water).

To ensure tourism’s continued contribution to sustainable development efforts, the World Tourism Organisation (UNWTO) has established the T4SDG platform in order to “to make tourism matter on the journey to 2030” [ 2 ]. Likewise, in recognition of the relationship between heritage, tourism, and sustainable development, UNESCO launched the World Heritage and Sustainable Tourism Programme, which was adopted by the World Heritage Committee in 2012. This Programme encapsulates a framework that builds on dialogue and stakeholder cooperation to promote an integrated approach to planning for tourism and heritage management in host countries, to protect and value natural and cultural assets, and develop appropriate and sustainable tourism pathways [ 3 ].

The addition of ‘heritage’ creates an important sub-category within the tourism industry: heritage tourism. This study adopts a broad definition of ‘heritage’, which encompasses the intersecting forms of tangible heritage, such as buildings, monuments, and works of art, intangible or living heritage, including folklore, cultural memories, celebrations and traditions, and natural heritage, or culturally infused landscapes and places of significant biodiversity [ 4 ]. This encompassing definition captures ‘heritage’ as it is understood at the international level, as evidenced by two key UNESCO conventions: the 1972 Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage , which protects cultural, natural, and mixed heritage; and the 2003 Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage , which protects intangible heritage. Although the identification, conservation and management of heritage has traditionally been driven by national aspirations to preserve connections with history, ancestry, and national identity, the social and economic benefits of heritage tourism at community levels have also been documented [ 5 ].

Heritage tourism, as one of the oldest practices of travelling for leisure, is a significant sector of the tourism industry. It refers to the practice of visiting places because of their connections to cultural, natural, and intangible heritage and is oriented towards showcasing notable relationships to a shared past at a given tourism destination [ 4 ]. It contributes to global interchange and inter-cultural understanding [ 4 ]. Heritage tourism places economic and political value on recognised heritage resources and assets, providing additional reasons to conserve heritage further to the cultural imperatives for its maintenance [ 5 ]. By drawing on the cultural and historical capital of a community, heritage tourism can contribute to the flourishing of local communities and their positive sustainable development. However, as this systematic review will demonstrate, when applied uncritically and without meaningful engagement with the needs of local stakeholder, heritage tourism can also elicit damaging effects on community health and wellbeing.

First published in 1987, the classic report ‘ Our Common Future’ , more commonly known as the Brundtland Report, conceptualised sustainable development as “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” [ 6 ]. Although this definition still works for many purposes, it emphasised the critical issues of environment and development whilst turning on the undefined implications of the word ‘needs’. In the report, the concept of sustainable development thus left unspecified the assumed importance of distinct cultural, political, economic, and ecological needs as well as health needs. Drawing on the work of globalization and cultural diversity scholar, Paul James [ 7 ], in this study we have defined ‘positive sustainable development’ as those “practices and meanings of human engagement that make for lifeworlds that project the ongoing probability of natural and social flourishing”, taking into account questions of vitality, relationality, productivity and sustainability.

Study rationale

For many years, the impact of heritage tourism has predominantly been viewed through ecological [ 8 , 9 ], economic and cultural [ 10 , 11 ] or political [ 12 ] lenses. For example, it has often been assumed that the conservation of historic, cultural, and natural resources, in combination with tourism, will naturally lead to sustainable local economies through increases in employment opportunities, provisioning of a platform for profitable new business opportunities, investment in infrastructure, improving public utilities and transport infrastructures, supporting the protection of natural resources, and, more recently, improving quality of life for local residents [ 13 – 15 ].

Similarly, the impact of heritage tourism on health and wellbeing has tended to focus on visitors’ wellbeing, including their health education and possible health trends, medical aspects of travel preparation, and health problems in returning tourists [ 16 – 18 ]. It has only been more recently that host communities’ health needs and wellbeing have been recognised as an intrinsic part of cultural heritage management and sustainable community development [ 19 ]. In this literature, it has been hypothesised that potential health implications of heritage tourism are either indirect or direct. Indirect effects are predominantly associated with health gains from heritage tourism-related economic, environmental, socio-cultural, and political impacts [ 20 ]. In contrast, health implications associated with direct impacts are closely associated with immediate encounters between tourism and people [ 20 ]. Yet, little is known of the overall generative effects of heritage tourism on sustainable community development, or the long-term health and wellbeing of local communities. For the first time, this systematic review identified and evaluated 102 published and unpublished studies in order to assess the extent to which heritage tourism fosters host communities’ participation and, consequently, their capacity to flourish, with emphasis placed on the long-term health impacts of this. The primary objective of the review was to determine: (1) what the impacts of heritage tourism are on sustainable community development; as well as (2) on the health and wellbeing of local host communities. Understanding the relationship between heritage tourism, sustainable community development and health is essential in influencing policies aimed at improving overall livelihood in local host communities, as well as informing intervention strategies and knowledge advancement.

This systematic review adhered to the guidelines and criteria set out in the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 statement [ 21 ]. A protocol for this review was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42018114681) and has been published [ 22 ].

Search strategy

In order to avoid replicating an already existing study on this topic, Cochrane library, Google Scholar and Scopus were searched to ensure there were no previous systematic reviews or meta-analyses on the impact of heritage tourism on sustainable community development and the health of local host communities. No such reviews or analyses were found. The search then sought to use a list of relevant text words and sub-headings of keywords and/or MeSH vocabulary according to each searched database. Derived from the above research question, the key search words were related to heritage tourism, sustainable community development, and health and wellbeing of local host communities. A trial search of our selected databases (see below) found that there are no MeSH words for heritage and tourism. Therefore, multiple keywords were included to identify relevant articles.

To obtain more focused and productive results, the keywords were linked using “AND” and “OR” and other relevant Boolean operators, where permitted by the databases. Subject heading truncations (*) were applied where appropriate. The search query was developed and tested in ProQuest Central on 22 November 2018. Following this search trial, the following combination of search terms and keywords, slightly modified to suit each database, was subsequently used:

(“Heritage tourism” OR tourism OR “world heritage site” OR ecotourism OR “heritage based tourism” OR “cultural tourism” OR “diaspora tourism” OR “cultural heritage tourism” OR “cultural resource management” OR “cultural heritage management” OR “historic site”)

(“Health status” [MeSH] OR “health equity” OR health OR community health OR welfare OR wellbeing)

(“sustainable development” [MeSH] OR sustainab* or “community development” or “local development” or “local community” or “indigenous community”)

The search covered the following bibliographic databases and electronic collections:

• Academic Search Complete
• Australian Heritage Bibliography (AHB)
• Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts (ASSIA)
• CAB Abstracts
• ProQuest Central
• Science And Geography Education (SAGE)
• Tourism, Hospitality and Leisure

In addition, grey literature were also sourced from key organisation websites including the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), the International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS), the International Centre for the Study of the Preservation and Restoration of Cultural Property (ICCROM), the International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development (ICIMOD), the International Council of Museums (ICOM), the United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), the United Nations World Tourism Organisation (UNWTO) and the Smithsonian Institution.

Where the full texts of included articles could not be accessed, corresponding authors were contacted via e-mail or other means of communication (e.g., ResearchGate) to obtain a copy. A further search of the bibliographical references of all retrieved articles and articles’ citation tracking using Google Scholar was conducted to capture relevant articles that might have been missed during the initial search but that meet the inclusion criteria. For the purposes of transparency and accountability, a search log was kept and constantly updated to ensure that newly published articles were captured. To maximise the accuracy of the search, two researchers with extensive knowledge of heritage tourism literature (EW and HS) and two research assistants with backgrounds in public health and social sciences implemented independently the search syntax across the databases and organisations’ websites to ensure no article was missed.

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

Criteria used in this systematic review focused on the types of beneficiaries of heritage tourism, outcomes of interest, as well as the intervention designs. The outcomes of interest were sustainable community development and evidence for the overall health and wellbeing of local host communities. In this systematic review, sustainable community development was defined in terms of its two components: ‘community sustainability’ and ‘development’. Community sustainability was conceptualised as the “long-term durability of a community as it negotiates changing practices and meanings across all the domains of culture, politics, economics and ecology” (pp. 21, 24) [ 23 ].

In contrast, development was conceptualised as “social change—with all its intended or unintended outcomes, good and bad—that brings about a significant and patterned shift in the technologies, techniques, infrastructure, and/or associated life-forms of a place or people” (p. 44) [ 7 ]. To this, we added the question of whether the development was positive or negative. Thus, going beyond the Brundtland definition introduced earlier and once again borrowing from the work of Paul James, positive sustainable development was defined as “practices and meanings of human engagement that make for lifeworlds that project the ongoing probability of natural and social flourishing”, including good health [ 23 ].

Health was defined, using the World Health Organisation (WHO) definition, as “overall well-being” and as including both physical, mental and social health [ 24 ]. While there is no consensus on what wellbeing actually means, there is a general agreement that wellbeing encompasses positive emotions and moods (e.g., contentment, happiness), the absence of negative emotions (e.g., depression, anxiety) as well as satisfaction with life and positive functioning [ 25 ]. Therefore, wellbeing in this systematic review was conceptualised according to Ryff’s multidimensional model of psychological wellbeing, which includes six factors: autonomy; self-acceptance, environmental mastery, positive relationships with others, purpose in life, and personal growth [ 26 ].

In terms of intervention and design, this systematic review included peer-reviewed and grey literature sources of evidence [ 27 , 28 ] from quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods studies. Intervention designs of interest were observational studies (e.g. longitudinal studies, case control and cross-sectional studies) as well as qualitative and mixed-methods studies. The following additional restrictions were used to ensure texts were included only if they were: (i) written in English; (ii) analysed the impact of heritage tourism on sustainable community development and health and/or wellbeing of local host communities; (iii) research papers, dissertations, books, book chapters, working papers, technical reports including project documents and evaluation reports, discussion papers, and conference papers; and (iv) published between January 2000 and March 2021. Studies were excluded if they were descriptive in nature and did not have community development or health and wellbeing indicators as outcome measures.

The year 2000 was selected as the baseline date due to the signing of the United Nations Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) by Member States in September of that year. With the introduction of the MDGs, now superseded by the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), there was an increase in commitment from government and non-governmental organizations to promote the development of responsible, sustainable and universally accessible tourism [ 29 , 30 ]. Editorials, reviews, letter to editors, commentaries and opinion pieces were not considered. Where full text articles were not able to be retrieved despite exhausting all available methods (including contacting corresponding author/s), such studies were excluded from the review. Non-human studies were also excluded.

Study selection and screening

Data retrieved from the various database searches were imported into an EndNote X9 library. A three-stage screening process was followed to assess each study’s eligibility for inclusion. In the EndNote library, stage one involved screening studies by titles to remove duplicates. In stage two, titles and abstracts were manually screened for eligibility and relevance. In the third and final screening stage, full texts of selected abstracts were further reviewed for eligibility. The full study selection process according to PRISMA is summarised in Fig 1 . A total of 5292 articles from 10 databases and multiple sources of grey literature were screened. After removal of duplicates, 4293 articles were retained.

• PPT PowerPoint slide
• PNG larger image
• TIFF original image

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0282319.g001

Titles and abstracts were further screened for indications that articles contain empirical research on the relationship between heritage tourism, sustainable community development and the health and wellbeing of local host communities. This element of the screening process resulted in the exclusion of 2892 articles. The remaining 1401 articles were screened for eligibility: 1299 articles were further excluded, resulting in 102 articles that met our inclusion criteria and were retained for analysis. Study selection was led by two researchers (EW and HS) and one research assistant, who independently double-checked 40% of randomly selected articles (n = 53). Interrater agreement was calculated using a 3-point ordinal scale, with the scoring being ’yes, definitely in’ = 1, ’?’ for unsure = 2, and ’no, definitely out’ = 3. Weighted Kappa coefficients were calculated using quadratic weights. Kappa statistics and percentage of agreement were 0.76 (95%CI: 0.63, 0.90) and 0.90 (95%CI: 0.85, 0.96) respectively, suggesting excellent agreement.

Data extraction

Data extraction was completed using a piloted form and was performed and subsequently reviewed independently by three researchers (AR, EW and HS), all of whom are authors. The extracted data included: study details (author, year of publication, country of research), study aims and objectives, study characteristics and methodological approach (study design, sample size, outcome measures, intervention), major findings, and limitations.

Quality assessment

To account for the diversity in design and dissemination strategies (peer-reviewed vs non-peer-reviewed) of included studies, the (JBI) Joanna Briggs Institute’s Critical Review Tool for qualitative and quantitative studies [ 31 ], mixed methods appraisal Tool (MMAT) for mixed methods [ 32 ], and the AACODS (Authority, Accuracy, Coverage, Objectivity, Date, Significance) checklist for grey literature [ 33 ] were used to assess the quality of included studies. The quality assessment of included studies was led by one researcher (CB), but 40% of the studies were randomly selected and scored by three senior researchers (AR, EM, and HS) to check the accuracy of the scoring. Cohen’s kappa statistic was used to assess the agreement between quality assessment scorers. Kappa statistics and percentage of agreement were 0.80 (95%CI: 0.64, 0.96) and 0.96 (95%CI: 0.93, 0.99) respectively, suggesting excellent interrater agreement. The quality assessment scales used different numbers of questions and different ranges, hence they were all rescaled/normalised to a 100 point scale, from 0 (poor quality) to 100 (high quality) using the min-max scaling approach. Scores were stratified by tertiles, being high quality (>75), moderate quality (50–74), or poor quality (<50).

Data synthesis

Due to the heterogeneity and variation of the studies reviewed (study methods, measurements, and outcomes), a meta-analysis was not possible. Campbell and colleagues (2020) [ 34 ] recognise that not all data extracted for a systematic review are amenable to meta-analysis, but highlight a serious gap in the literature: the authors’ lack of or poor description of alternative synthesis methods. The authors described an array of alternative methods to meta-analysis. In our study we used a meta-ethnography approach to articulate the complex but diverse outcomes reported in included studies [ 35 ]. Increasingly common and influential [ 36 ], meta-ethnography is an explicitly interpretative approach to the synthesis of evidence [ 36 , 37 ] that aims to develop new explanatory theories or conceptualisations of a given body of work on the basis of reviewer interpretation [ 37 ]. It draws out similarities and differences at the conceptual level between the findings of included studies [ 37 ], with the foundational premise being the juxtaposition and relative examination of ideas between study findings [ 37 ]. Resulting novel interpretations are then considered to transcend individual study findings [ 36 ].

Originating with sociologists Noblit and Hare [ 36 , 38 ], and adopted and expanded upon by other researchers [ 36 , 37 ], meta-ethnography involves a 7-stage process of evidence synthesis and concludes with the translation and synthesis of studies [ 38 ]. The approach centres around the emergence of concepts and themes from included studies that are examined in relation to each other and used to synthesise and communicate primary research findings. In meta-ethnography, the diversity of studies such as the heterogeneity and variation of included studies in the present review, is considered an asset opposed to an issue in synthesis or translation of research findings [ 37 ].

Common threads, themes and trends were identified and extracted from both qualitative and quantitative narratives to generate insight on the impact of heritage tourism on sustainable community development and health. In order to increase reproducibility and transparency of our methods and the conclusions drawn from the studies, the narrative synthesis adhered to the “Improving Conduct and Reporting of Narrative Synthesis of Quantitative Data” protocol for mixed methods studies [ 39 ]. One of the primary researchers (CB) summarised the study findings and narrated the emerging themes and subthemes. The emerging themes were discussed with all authors for appropriateness of the content as well as for consistency. All studies were included in the synthesis of evidence and emergence of themes. The meta-ethnographic approach involved the following processes:

Identifying metaphors and themes.

Included studies were read and reviewed multiple times to gain familiarity and understanding with the data and identify themes and patterns in each study. As noted above, data was extracted from each study using a piloted template to remain consistent across all studies. The aims and/or objectives of each study was revisited regularly to validate any extracted data and remain familiar with the purpose of the study. Themes and, where relevant, sub-themes were identified, usually in the results and discussion section of included studies.

Determining how the studies were related.

Studies were grouped according to WHO regions (see Table 1 ). Thematic analysis was compared across all included studies regardless of region to identify common themes and/or sub-themes to determine how studies were related to one another. Although this review included a widely varied and large number of studies (n = 102), the findings of each study nonetheless had a common underpinning theme of heritage-based tourism. This enabled the identification of communal categories across the studies indicating their relatedness. For example, there were common themes of socio-cultural, socio-economic, community health, wellbeing, and empowerment factors and so on.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0282319.t001

Translation and synthesis of studies.

Themes and, where relevant, sub-themes within each study were considered and compared to the next study in a process repeated for all included studies. Such translation of studies compares and matches themes across a corpus of material, and usually involves one or more of three main types of synthesis: reciprocal translation, refutational translation, and line of argument [ 37 ]. Themes were condensed and streamlined into main thematic areas, in addition to outlining common topics within those thematic areas. The primary researcher (CB) undertook this process with discussion, validation and confirmation of themes and topics from three other researchers (EW, HS and AR). Translation between studies and the resulting synthesis of research findings followed the process of the emergence of new interpretations and conceptualisation of research themes. A line of argument was also developed, and a conceptual model produced to describe the research findings, which is shown in Fig 2 . Both the line of argument and conceptual model were agreed upon by all authors.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0282319.g002

A total of 102 studies were included in the analysis. Of these, 25 studies were conducted in the Western Pacific region, 23 in the African region, 20 in the Region of the Americas, 17 in the South-East Asia region, 12 in the European region, and 1 in the Eastern Mediterranean region. The remaining 4 studies reported on multiple regions. This may at first seem surprising given the prominence of European cultural heritage on registers such as the World Heritage List, which includes 469 cultural sites located Europe (equivalent to 47.19% of all World Heritage Properties that are recognised for their cultural values). However, any studies focusing on Europe that did not also examine sustainable community development and the overall health and wellbeing of local host communities were screened out of this systematic review in accordance with the abovementioned inclusion and exclusion criteria. Results of the data extraction and quality assessment across all included studies are presented in Table 1 . Of the included studies, 24 used a mixed methods design, 22 studies were qualitative, 36 were quantitative and 20 were grey literature (see Table 1 for more detail regarding the type of methods employed). Of these, 48 studies were assessed as high quality (>75), 32 as moderate quality (50–74) and 22 as poor quality (<50).

The major health and wellbeing determinant themes emerging from the included studies were grouped according to social, cultural, economic, and ecological health determinants. Fig 3 presents the proportion of included studies that investigated each of the four health determinants when assessed by WHO region. A large proportion of economic studies was shown across all regions, although this focus was surpassed by the social health determinant in the South-East Asia region ( Fig 3 ). Studies on the social health determinant also yielded a strong proportion of studies across most other regions, although notably not in the African region. This was closely followed by an ecological focus among the Americas, South-East Asia and Western Pacific regions. The Americas had the highest proportion of cultural studies, with the European region being the lowest proportionally ( Fig 3 ).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0282319.g003

More specifically, for studies focused on Africa, 100% of the publications included in this review explicitly investigated the economic benefits of tourism on wellbeing (74% of them exclusively), with European-focused studies reflecting a similarly high interest in economic wellbeing (91% of publications). Across the Americas, economic determinants of wellbeing were investigated in 86% of publications and in the Western Pacific, methods to investigate this variable were built into 80% of included studies. By comparison, this research demonstrates that only just over two thirds of articles reporting on the South-East Asia region shared this focus on economic determinants (65% of publications). Instead, social determinants of wellbeing form a stronger component of the research agenda in this region, with 76% of publications investigating this theme in studies that also tended to consider multiple drivers of health. For example, in 47% of publications reporting on the South-East Asia context, at least three themes were integrated into each study, with particular synergies emerging between social, economic and ecological drivers of wellbeing and their complex relationships.

Similarly, 47% of publication reporting on the Americas also included at least three health determinants. Research outputs from these two regions demonstrated the most consistently holistic approach to understanding wellbeing compared to other regions. In Africa, only 13% of the papers reviewed incorporated three or more themes; in the Western Pacific, this figure is 32% and in Europe only 8% of research outputs attempted to incorporate three or more themes. It seems unlikely that the multidimensional relationship between socio-economic and ecological sustainability that is always in tension could be adequately explored given the trend towards one-dimensional research in Africa, the Western Pacific and particularly Europe.

The associated positive and negative impacts of heritage tourism on each of the health and wellbeing determinants are then presented in Table 2 , along with the considered policy implications. Some of the identified positive impacts included improved access to education and social services, greater opportunities for skill development and employment prospects, preservation of culture and traditions, increased community livelihood and greater awareness of environmental conservation efforts. Negative impacts of tourism on host communities included forced displacement from homes, environmental degradation and over-usage of natural resources, barriers to tourism employment and reliance on tourism industry for income generation and economic stability, dilution and loss of cultural values and practices, civil unrest and loss of social stability, increased rates of crime and disease and lack of direct benefit to local communities. Both positive and negative impacts across each health and wellbeing determinant had acknowledged implications on policy development, many of which revolved around governance and ownership of tourist activities, participation of the local community in tourism sectors and active management of environmental protection programs. Such themes are shown in Table 2 .

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0282319.t002

Recent thematic trends can be observed in Table 3 , whereby the percentage of research outputs that investigate economic drivers of health and wellbeing produced since 2019 are shown. In Africa, Europe and the Americas, the proportion of outputs investigating economic health determinants since 2019 is the smallest ( Table 3 ), being 17% in Africa and the Americas, and 36% in Europe, respectively. On the contrary, 50% of Western Pacific region studies since 2019 had research focused on the economic drivers of wellbeing in relation to heritage tourism. Moreover, 65% of studies included economy-focused research in South-East Asia, with more than half of those outputs produced in the last two years ( Table 3 ).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0282319.t003

The proportion of research outputs where local community members were asked to give their opinions as participants is presented in Table 4 , where they were invited to co-lead the research but were excluded from data production. In the Western Pacific region, there was a relative lack of participation (either as researchers or stakeholders) by local communities in the studies included in this review. Meaningful modes of community participation in the South-East Asian region can be calculated to 65%, more closely in line with Africa, Europe and the Americas ( Table 4 ).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0282319.t004

This systematic review is the first of its kind to explicitly consider the relationships between heritage tourism and host communities; specifically, the impact of tourism on host communities’ capacity to flourish and support long-term health and wellbeing. Such impacts were found to be both positive and negative, with either direct or indirect consequences on the development of local governance policies. Our synthesis revealed that there are important regional variations in the way that determinants of health–social, cultural, economic or ecological–drive tourism research agendas. They commonly included considerations of social dynamics, access and health of the local community, empowerment and participation of host communities in tourism-based activities and governance, employment opportunities, preservation or erosion of culture, and environmental influences due to tourism promotion or activity.

Economic impacts represented the strongest focus of the studies include in this review, often to the detriment of other cultural or environmental considerations. With the exception of South-East Asia, studies focused on all other WHO regions (Africa, Europe, the Americas and the Western Pacific) were overwhelmingly built around attempts to understand economic variables as determinants of health and wellbeing, and in some instances were likely to focus on economic variables in lieu of any other theme. Given the steady growth of an interest in economic variables in South-East Asia since 2019, it is plausible that this will soon represent the largest concentration of studies in that region, too.

This trend towards emphasis on economic influences is problematic given that some of the emerging impacts from tourism-related practices identified in this review were found to be common across multiple determinants of health and thus not limited to economic health alone. For example, the limitation placed on access to prime grazing land for cattle belonging to local residents was perceived to be a negative impact both ecologically and economically [ 60 , 141 ]. This may be considered detrimental from an environmental standpoint due to the alteration of the local ecosystem and destruction of natural resources and wildlife habitat, such as the building of infrastructure to support the development of tourist accommodation, transport, and experiences.

Economically, the loss of grazing land results in reduced food sources for cattle and consequently a potential reliance on alternative food sources (which may or may not be accessible or affordable), or in the worst-case scenario death of cattle [ 92 ]. In turn, this loss of cattle has an adverse impact on the financial livelihood of host communities, who may rely on their cattle as a sole or combined source of income. Considered in isolation or combination, this single negative impact of tourism–reduced grazing access–has flow-on effects to multiple health determinants. Therefore, it is important to consider the possible multifactorial impacts of tourism, heritage or otherwise, on the host communities involved (or at least affected) given they may have a profound and lasting impact, whether favourable or not.

The potential interrelationships and multifactorial nature of heritage tourism on the health and wellbeing of host communities were also identified among a number of other studies included in this review. For example, a study from the Western Pacific Region explored connections between the analysis of tourism impacts, wellbeing of the host community and the ‘mobilities’ approach, acknowledging the three areas were different in essence but converging areas in relation to tourism sustainability [ 125 ]. That said, the cross-over between social determinants was not always observed or presented as many studies primarily focused on a single health domain [ 43 – 51 , 53 , 55 – 57 , 59 , 61 , 71 , 74 , 86 – 90 , 103 , 104 , 108 – 110 , 118 , 130 , 134 – 136 , 138 – 140 ]. Some studies, for instance, focused on poverty reduction and/or alleviation [ 134 , 135 ], while others focused solely on cultural sustainability or sociocultural factors [ 109 , 110 , 118 ], and others delved only into the ecological or environmental impacts of tourism [ 86 , 89 ]. As noted above, the majority of studies that focused on a single health determinant considered economic factors.

A common theme that spanned multiple health domains was the threat of relocation. Here, local communities represented in the reviewed studies were often at risk of being forced to relocate from their ancestral lands for tourism and/or nature conservation purposes [ 41 , 60 , 80 , 131 ]. This risk not only threatens their way of life and livelihood from an economic perspective, but will also have social implications, jeopardising the sustainability and longevity of their cultural traditions and practices on the land to which they belong [ 41 , 60 , 80 , 131 ]. Moreover, it may have ongoing implications for the displacement of family structures and segregation of local communities.

Importantly, this systematic review revealed that cultural determinants of health and wellbeing were the least explored in every region and were in many instances entirely omitted. This is at odds with the increasingly prevalent advice found in wider heritage and tourism academic debates, where it is argued that cultural institutions such as museums and their objects, for example, may contribute to health and wellbeing in the following ways: promoting relaxation; providing interventions that affect positive changes in physiology and/or emotions; supporting introspection; encouraging public health advocacy; and enhancing healthcare environments [ 142 – 144 ]. Likewise, Riordan and Schofield have considered the cultural significance of traditional medicine, citing its profound importance to the health and wellbeing of the communities who practice it as well as positioning it as a core element of both local and national economies [ 145 ].

Of greater concern is the finding of this review that of the relatively small number of papers investigating cultural health determinants, many recorded profoundly negative and traumatising outcomes of tourism development, such as a rise of ethnoreligious conflict, loss of ancestral land, a dilution of cultural practices to meet tourist demands, and a loss of cultural authenticity [ 41 ]. Consequently, comparative studies that focus on cultural determinants, in addition to economic and environmental determinants, are currently lacking and should therefore be prioritised in future research. In fact, only one fifth of those papers included in this review adopted the qualitative approach needed to probe the socio-cultural dimensions of health. Novel qualitative research methods to investigate community health are therefore a major research lacuna.

Just as solely equating community health and wellbeing with economic flourishing is problematic, so too is assuming that health is reducible only to clinical care and disease [ 146 ], given that "[i]deas about health … are cultural” [ 146 ]. Early indications of an acceptance that culture and heritage might be central to community health and wellbeing can be found in UNESCO’s 1995 report, Our Creative Diversity : Report of the World Commission on Culture and Development [ 147 ]. More recently, this notion is evidenced in the 2019 Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention [ 148 ] and the 2020 Operational Directives for UNESCO’s Convention for the Safeguarding of Intangible Cultural Heritage [ 149 ], both of which indicate the need for a major shift in research foci towards cultural determinants of health and wellbeing if research is to keep pace with assumptions now operating within international policy [ 148 , 149 ].

Although Africa, Europe and the Americas are the three regions with the highest proportion of papers investigating the economic benefits of tourism on health and wellbeing, these regions are also the most responsive to the above recommended changes in policy and debate (see Table 3 ). In these three regions, the proportion of outputs investigating economic health determinants since 2019 is the smallest, demonstrating a recent decline in research that is persuaded by the a priori assumption that economic wellbeing automatically equates to cultural wellbeing. Despite demonstrating the most holistic approach to understanding health and wellbeing across all the themes, an upwards trend in economy-focused research was identified in South-East Asia, since more than half of the economic outputs were produced in the last two years. Such a trend is potentially problematic for this region because it may reinforce the notion that the main benefits of tourism are direct and financial, rather than refocusing on the tension created by indirect effects of tourism on quality of life and community wellbeing.

Conversely, this review demonstrates that the Western Pacific region has persisted with research focused on the economic drivers of wellbeing in relation to heritage tourism (see Table 3 ). This persistence may be explained by the relative lack of participation (either as researchers or stakeholders) by local communities in any of the studies included in this review (see Table 4 ). Indeed, the Western Pacific had the lowest occurrence of community participation and/or consultation in establishing indicators of wellbeing and health and/or opinions about the role of tourism in promoting these.

On the contrary, while seemingly demonstrating the second highest proportion of exclusionary research methods as discussed above, South-East Asia remains the only region where any attempts were made to ensure community members were invited to design and co-lead research (see Table 4 ). Nonetheless, meaningful modes of participation in this region were found to be more closely in line with the deficits found in Africa, Europe, and the Americas. This lack of approaches aimed at including affected communities as researchers in all but one instance in South-East Asia is an important research gap in tourism studies’ engagement with health and wellbeing debates.

Importantly, this failure to adequately engage with affected communities is at odds with the depth of research emanating from a range of health disciplines, such as disability studies, occupational therapy, public health, and midwifery, where the slogan ‘nothing about us without us’, which emerged in the 1980s, remains prominent. Coupled with a lack of focus on cultural determinants of health, this lack of participation and community direction strongly indicates that research studies are being approached with an a priori notion about what ‘wellbeing’ means to local communities, and risks limiting the relevance and accuracy of the research that is being undertaken. Problematically, therefore, there is a tendency to envisage a ‘package’ of wellbeing and health benefits that tourism can potentially bring to a community (regardless of cultural background), with research focusing on identifying the presence or absence of elements of this assumed, overarching ‘package’.

Interestingly, along with the paucity of full and meaningful collaboration with local community hosts in tourism research, there were no instances across the systematic review where a longitudinal approach was adopted. This observation reinforces the point that long-term, collaborative explorations of culturally specific concepts including such things as ‘welfare’, ‘benefit’, ‘healthfulness’ and ‘flourishing’, or combinations of these, are lacking across all regions. To bring tourism research more in line with broader debates and international policy directions about wellbeing, it is important for future research that the qualities of health and wellbeing in a particular cultural setting are investigated as a starting point, and culturally suitable approaches are designed (with local researchers) to best examine the effects of tourism on these contingent notions of wellbeing.

Importantly, a lack of longitudinal research will lead to a gap in our understanding about whether the negative impacts of tourism increase or compound over time. Adopting these ethnographies of health and wellbeing hinges upon long-term community partnerships that will serve to redress a research gap into the longevity of heritage tourism impacts. Furthermore, of those papers that asked local community members about their perceptions of heritage tourism across all regions, a common finding was the desire for greater decision-making and management of the enterprises as stakeholders. It seems ironic, therefore, that research into heritage tourism perceptions itself commonly invites the bare minimum of collaboration to establish the parameters of that research.

In a small number of papers that invited community opinions, local stakeholders considered that the tourism ‘benefits package’ myth should be dispelled, and that responsible tourism development should only happen as part of a wider suite of livelihood options, such as agriculture, so that economic diversity is maintained. Such a multi-livelihood framework would also promote the accessibility of benefits for more of the community, and this poses a significant new direction for tourism research. For example, an outcome of the review was the observation that infrastructure development is often directed towards privileged tourism livelihood options [ 150 ], but a more holistic framework would distribute these sorts of benefits to also co-develop other livelihoods.

Although there is a clear interest in understanding the relationship between heritage, tourism, health and wellbeing, future research that explores the intersections of heritage tourism with multiple health domains, in particular social and cultural domains, is critical. Indeed, the frequency with which the negative impacts of heritage tourism were reported in the small number of studies that engaged local community participants suggests that studies co-designed with community participants are a necessary future direction in order for academics, policymakers and professionals working in the field of heritage tourism to more adequately address the scarce knowledge about its socio-cultural impacts. The accepted importance of community researchers in cognate fields underscores that the knowledge, presence and skills of affected communities are vital and points to the need for similar studies in heritage tourism.

Conclusions

There are five main findings of this systematic review, each of which is a critical gap in research that should be addressed to support the health and wellbeing in local communities at tourism destinations. Firstly, whilst one of the primary findings of this systematic review was the increase in employment opportunities resulting from tourism, this disclosure arose because of a strong–in many cases, exclusive–methodological focus on economic indicators of health and wellbeing. Such research reveals that heritage tourism may significantly reduce poverty and may be used as a poverty-reducing strategy in low-income countries. However, the assumption underlying this focus on the economic benefits of tourism for health and wellbeing is that economic benefits are a proxy for other determinants of health, e.g., cultural, social, environmental, etc., which are otherwise less systematically explored. In particular, the ways in which combinations of environmental, social, cultural, and economic determinants on wellbeing interact is an area requires considerable future research.

Secondly, whilst economic drivers of wellbeing were the most common area of research across all regions, the impacts of tourism on cultural wellbeing were the least explored. Moreover, in many publications culture was entirely omitted. This is perhaps one of the most troubling outcomes of this systematic review, because in the relatively small number of papers that did investigate the cultural impacts of tourism, many reported traumatising consequences for local communities, the documentation of which would not be recorded in the majority of papers where cultural wellbeing was absent. Tourism’s profoundly damaging consequences included reports of a rise in ethnoreligious violence, loss of ancestral land and the threat of forced relocation, not to mentioned extensive reports of cultural atrophy.

Linked to this lack of understanding about the cultural impacts of tourism on wellbeing, the third finding of this review is that there are far fewer studies that incorporate qualitative data, more suited to document intangible cultural changes, whether positive or negative. Furthermore, more longitudinal research is also needed to address the subtle impacts of tourism acting over longer timescales. The systematic review revealed a lack of understanding about how both the negative and positive outcomes of heritage tourism change over time, whether by increasing, ameliorating, or compounding.

The fourth finding of this research is that, to a degree and in certain regions of the world, research is responding to international policy. This review has illustrated that, historically, Africa, Europe and the Americas prioritised research that measured the economic effects of tourism on health and wellbeing. However, after 2019 a shift occurred towards a growing but still under-represented interest in social-cultural wellbeing. We propose that this shift aligns with recommendations from UNESCO’s 2019 Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention [ 148 ] and the 2020 Operational Directives for UNESCO’s Convention for the Safeguarding of Intangible Cultural Heritage [ 149 ]. The exception to this shift is the Western Pacific region, where the economic impacts of tourism are increasingly prioritised as the main indicator of wellbeing. Given the overall efficacy of policy for steering towards ethical and culturally-grounded evaluations of the impacts of tourism, we would urge heritage policymakers to take account of our recommendations ( Table 2 ).

The policy implications emerging from this review are the fifth finding and can be distilled into a few key propositions. There is a need for meaningful decolonising approaches to heritage tourism. More than half of the negative consequences of heritage tourism for health and wellbeing could be mitigated with policy guidance, contingent cultural protocols and anti-colonial methods that foreground the rights of local (including Indigenous) communities to design, govern, lead, and establish the terms of tourism in their local area. Although ‘participation’ has become a popular term that invokes an idea of power symmetries in tourism enterprises, it is clear from this systematic review that the term leaves too much latitude for the creep of poor-practice [ 151 ] that ultimately erodes community autonomy and self-determination. Participation is not enough if it means that there is scope for governments and foreign investors to superficially engage with community wellbeing needs and concerns.

Furthermore, calls for ‘capacity-building’ that effectively re-engineer the knowledges of local communities are fundamentally problematic because they presuppose a missing competency or knowledge. This is at odds with impassioned anti-colonial advocacy [ 152 ] which recognises that communities hold a range of knowledges and cultural assets that they may, and should be legally protected to, deploy (or not) as a culturally-suitable foundation that steers the design of locally-governed tourism enterprises. In short, to maximise and extend the benefits of heritage tourism and address major social determinants of health, host communities’ presence in heritage tourism governance, decision making processes, and control of and access to the resultant community resources and programs must be a priority. Future policymakers are encouraged to make guidance more explicit, enforceable and provision avenues for feedback from local communities that offers the protections of transparency. It is also imperative that researchers involve and empower local community groups as part of studies conducted in relation to their health and wellbeing. If current practices remain unchanged, the primary benefit of tourism could easily be rendered inaccessible through lack of education and/or appropriate training which was frequently identified as a barrier to community participation.

Supporting information

S1 checklist. prisma 2009 checklist..

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0282319.s001

Acknowledgments

We wish to acknowledge Della Maneze (DM) and Nidhi Wali (NW) for their contributions to the literature search and initial data extraction.

Declarations

The authors hereby declare that the work included in this paper is original and is the outcome of research carried out by the authors listed.

• 1. World Tourism Organization. International Tourism Highlights, 2020 Edition. UNWTO, Madrid. 2021. https://doi.org/10.18111/9789284422456.2021
• 2. World Tourism Organization. The T4SDG Platform Madrid, Spain. 2022 [cited 2022 October 11]. Available from: https://tourism4sdgs.org/the-platform/ .
• 3. UNESCO World Heritage Centre. Sustainable Tourism: UNESCO World Heritage and Sustainable Tourism Programme. 2021 [cited 2021 June 20]. Available from: https://whc.unesco.org/en/tourism/ .
• View Article
• Google Scholar
• 5. Leaver B. Delivering the social and economic benefits of heritage tourism. 2012 [cited 2021 June 28]. Available from: https://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/pages/f4d5ba7d-e4eb-4ced-9c0e-104471634fbb/files/essay-benefits-leaver.pdf .
• 7. James P. Creating capacities for human flourishing: an alternative approach to human development. In: Spinozzi P, Mazzanti M, editors. Cultures of Sustainability and Wellbeing: Theories, Histories and Policies; 2018. p. 23–45.
• 9. Paul-Andrews L. Tourism’s impact on the environment: a systematic review of energy and water interventions [Thesis]. Christchurch: University of Canterbury; 2017. Available from: https://ir.canterbury.ac.nz/handle/10092/13416 .
• PubMed/NCBI
• 31. Joanna Briggs Institute. Joanna Briggs Institute reviewers’ manual: 2014 edition. The Joanna Briggs Institute [Internet]. 2014. Available from: https://nursing.lsuhsc.edu/JBI/docs/ReviewersManuals/Economic.pdf .
• 33. Tyndall J. AACODS checklist. Flinders University [Internet]. 2010. Available from: http://dspace.flinders.edu.au/dspace/ .
• 38. Noblit GW, Hare RD, Hare RD. Meta-ethnography: Synthesizing qualitative studies: Sage; 1988.
• 52. Emptaz-Collomb J-GJ. Linking tourism, human wellbeing and conservation in the Caprivi strip (Namibia) [Ph.D Thesis]: University of Florida; 2009. Available from: https://www.proquest.com/docview/848632295?pq-origsite=gscholar&fromopenview=true .
• 56. Lepp AP. Tourism in a rural Ugandan village: Impacts, local meaning and implications for development [Ph.D. Thesis]: University of Florida; 2004. Available from: https://search.proquest.com/docview/305181950?accountid=36155 , https://ap01.alma.exlibrisgroup.com/view/uresolver/61UWSTSYD_INST/openurl?frbrVersion=2&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_id=10_1&ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com&req_id=&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:&rft.genre=article&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournalrft.issn=&rft.title=&rft.atitle=&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.date=2004 .
• 58. Mosetlhi BBT. The influence of Chobe National Park on people’s livelihoods and conservation behaviors [Ph.D. Thesis]: University of Florida; 2012. Available from: https://search.proquest.com/docview/1370246098?accountid=36155 , https://ap01.alma.exlibrisgroup.com/view/uresolver/61UWSTSYD_INST/openurl?frbrVersion=2&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_id=10_1&ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com&req_id=&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:&rft.genre=article&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournalrft.issn=&rft.title=&rft.atitle=&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.date=2012 .
• 60. Stone MT. Protected Areas, Tourism and Rural Community Livelihoods in Botswana [Ph.D. Thesis]: Arizona State University; 2013. Available from: https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/79567367.pdf .
• 61. Lyon A. Tourism and sustainable development: active stakeholder discourses in the waterberg biosphere reserve, South Africa [Ph.D. Thesis]: The University of Liverpool; 2013. Available from: https://livrepository.liverpool.ac.uk/14953/4/LyonAnd_Dec2013_14953.pdf .
• 62. DeLuca LM. Tourism, conservation, and *development among the Maasai of Ngorongoro District, Tanzania: Implications for political ecology and sustainable livelihoods [Ph.D. Thesis]: University of Colorado; 2002. Available from: https://search.library.wisc.edu/catalog/999942945102121 .
• 69. Chazapi K, Sdrali D. Residents perceptions of tourism impacts on Andros Island, Greece. SUSTAINABLE TOURISM 2006: WIT Press; 2006. p. 10.
• 70. Ehinger LT. Kyrgyzstan’s community-based tourism industry: A model method for sustainable development and environmental management? [M.A. Thesis]: University of Wyoming; 2016. Available from: https://search.proquest.com/docview/1842421616?accountid=36155 , https://ap01.alma.exlibrisgroup.com/view/uresolver/61UWSTSYD_INST/openurl?frbrVersion=2&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_id=10_1&ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com&req_id=&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:&rft.genre=article&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournalrft.issn=&rft.title=&rft.atitle=&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.date=2016 .
• 74. Labadi S. Evaluating the socio-economic impacts of selected regenerated heritage sites in Europe: European Cultural Foundation; 2011. 129 p.
• 75. McDonough R. Seeing the people through the trees: Conservation, communities and ethno-ecotourism in the Bolivian Amazon Basin [Thesis]: Georgetown University 2009. Available from: https://repository.library.georgetown.edu/bitstream/handle/10822/558153/McDonough_georgetown_0076M_10335.pdf;sequence=1 .
• 81. Slinger VAV. Ecotourism in a small Caribbean island: Lessons learned for economic development and nature preservation [Ph.D. Thesis]: University of Florida; 2002. Available from: https://www.proquest.com/docview/304798500?pq-origsite=gscholar&fromopenview=true .
• 86. Barthel DJ. Ecotourism’s Effects on Deforestation in Colombia [M.A. Thesis]: Northeastern Illinois University; 2016. Available from: https://www.proquest.com/docview/1793940414?pq-origsite=gscholar&fromopenview=true .
• 89. Lottig KJ. Modeling resident attitudes on the environmental impacts of tourism: A case study of O’ahu, Hawai’i [M.S. Thesis]: University of Hawai’i; 2007. Available from: https://search.proquest.com/docview/304847568?accountid=36155 , https://ap01.alma.exlibrisgroup.com/view/uresolver/61UWSTSYD_INST/openurl?frbrVersion=2&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_id=10_1&ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com&req_id=&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:&rft.genre=article&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournalrft.issn=&rft.title=&rft.atitle=&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.date=2007 .
• 91. Raschke BJ. Is Whale Watching a Win-Win for People and Nature? An Analysis of the Economic, Environmental, and Social Impacts of Whale Watching in the Caribbean [Ph.D. Thesis]: Arizona State University; 2017. Available from: https://keep.lib.asu.edu/_flysystem/fedora/c7/187430/Raschke_asu_0010E_17442.pdf .
• 94. Bennett N. Conservation, community benefit, capacity building and the social economy: A case study of Łutsël K’e and the proposed national park [M.E.S. Thesis]: Lakehead University (Canada); 2009. Available from: https://search.proquest.com/docview/725870968?accountid=36155 , https://ap01.alma.exlibrisgroup.com/view/uresolver/61UWSTSYD_INST/openurl?frbrVersion=2&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_id=10_1&ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com&req_id=&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:&rft.genre=article&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournalrft.issn=&rft.title=&rft.atitle=&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.date=2009 .
• 104. Rahman M. Exploring the socio-economic impacts of tourism: a study of cox’s bazar, bangladesh [Ph.D. Thesis]: Cardiff Metropolitan University; 2010. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/344518546_Exploring_the_Socio-economic_Impacts_of_Tourism_A_Study_of_Cox’s_Bazar_Bangladesh .
• 109. Anggraini LM. Place Attachment, Place Identity and Tourism in Jimbaran and Kuta, Bali [Ph.D. Thesis]: University of Western Sydney; 2015. Available from: https://researchdirect.westernsydney.edu.au/islandora/object/uws:32139 .
• 111. Vajirakachorn T. Determinants of success for community-based tourism: The case of floating markets in Thailand [Ph.D. Thesis]: Texas A&M University; 2011. Available from: https://oaktrust.library.tamu.edu/handle/1969.1/ETD-TAMU-2011-08-9922 .
• 118. Suntikul W. Linkages between heritage policy, tourism and business. ICOMOS 17th General Assembly; Paris, France 2011. p. 1069–76.
• 119. Suntikul W. The Impact of Tourism on the Monks of Luang Prabang. 16th ICOMOS General Assembly and International Symposium: ‘Finding the spirit of place–between the tangible and the intangible’; Quebec, Canada 2008. p. 1–14.
• 127. Murray AE. Footprints in Paradise: Ethnography of Ecotourism, Local Knowledge, and Nature Therapies in Okinawa: Berghahn Books; 2012. 186 p.
• 132. Yang JYC, Chen YM. Nature -based tourism impacts in I -Lan, Taiwan: Business managers’ perceptions [Ph.D. Thesis]: University of Florida; 2006. Available from: https://search.proquest.com/docview/305330231?accountid=36155 , https://ap01.alma.exlibrisgroup.com/view/uresolver/61UWSTSYD_INST/openurl?frbrVersion=2&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_id=10_1&ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com&req_id=&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:&rft.genre=article&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournalrft.issn=&rft.title=&rft.atitle=&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.date=2006 .
• 137. Refaat H, Mohamed M. Rural tourism and sustainable development: the case of Tunis village’s handicrafts, Egypt". X International Agriculture Symposium "AGROSYM 2019"; 3–6 October 2019; Bosnia and Herzegovina 2019. p. 1670–8.
• 141. Thinley P. Empowering People, Enhancing Livelihood, and Conserving Nature: Community Based Ecotourism in JSWNP, Bhutan and TMNP, Canada [M.Phil. Thesis]: University of New Brunswick; 2010. Available from: https://search.proquest.com/docview/1027149064?accountid=36155 , https://ap01.alma.exlibrisgroup.com/view/uresolver/61UWSTSYD_INST/openurl?frbrVersion=2&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_id=10_1&ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com&req_id=&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:&rft.genre=article&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournalrft.issn=&rft.title=&rft.atitle=&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.date=2010 .
• 147. World Commission on Culture and Development. Our creative diversity: report of the World Commission on Culture and Development. Paris: UNESCO: 1995.
• 148. UNESCO World Heritage Centre. Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention. Paris: UNESCO: 2019.
• 149. UNESCO. Operational Directives for the Implementation of the Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage. Paris: UNESCO: 2020.

• Research article
• Open access
• Published: 15 August 2023

People’s perspectives on heritage conservation and tourism development: a case study of Varanasi

• Ananya Pati 1 &
• Mujahid Husain 2  

Built Heritage volume  7 , Article number:  17 ( 2023 ) Cite this article

2910 Accesses

1 Altmetric

Metrics details

The conservation of heritage and heritage-based tourism are interrelated activities in which the development in one can lead to the growth of the other and vice versa. In recent years, people have become increasingly aware of the importance of heritage and the necessity of its conservation. People’s knowledge and preservation of their roots and emotional attachments to traditions and places are beneficial for heritage conservation activities. Heritage places are also considered a growth point for the tourism industry that supports small- and medium-scale industries as well as numerous cottage industries. However, with the development of tourism and related industries in heritage areas, the local community may face difficulties in performing their day-to-day activities in the area. In many cases, local communities need to relocate and people must leave their residences due to the demand for tourism development. A case study of Varanasi City was conducted to obtain a detailed understanding of the impact of a recent tourism development programme (the Kashi Vishwanath Corridor Project) and people’s perception of it through a review of newspaper articles. It was found that people had mixed reactions regarding the development programme. The immediate residents of the area who were directly affected by the process in terms of emotional, economic and social loss were opposed to the project, while tourists and other residents of the city were pleased with the development activities. This paper attempts to identify the changes that occurred in the area due to the project and to capture people’s perspectives regarding the corridor project of Varanasi.

1 Introduction

The heritage of a country is a symbol of its national pride and produces cohesiveness and unity among the people. The importance of heritage and culture has increased significantly in recent years, particularly in the tourism sector. According to the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO), ‘Cultural heritage is, in its broadest sense, both a product and a process, which provides societies with a wealth of resources that are inherited from the past, created in the present and bestowed for the benefit of future generations’ (UNESCO 2014 ). Most importantly, it includes not only tangible but also natural and intangible heritage. As Our Creative Diversity notes, however, these resources are a ‘fragile wealth’. As such, they require policies and development models that preserve and respect their diversity and uniqueness since they are ‘nonrenewable’ once lost. Modernisation and urbanisation spread rapidly worldwide during the past century, but people are now leaning towards their heritage to maintain the individuality and uniqueness of their communities and to present this uniqueness to the otherwise modern and developed world (Napravishta 2018 ). People have recognised the enormous potential of heritage and culture in the tourism industry and for economic and social development. Numerous industries consider heritage and culture to be a significant growth point for development and economic benefits (Xing et al. 2013 ). Although the growth of tourism may be considered beneficial for selected groups, in many cases, development and changes made with the goal of tourism development create significant negative effects on the host community, its culture and the heritage itself (Erbas  2018 ). The concept of heritage is based on its historical architecture and monuments, but it is also the heritage values and culture of the residents that have become part of their daily life. This combination of tangible and intangible heritage, called ‘fields of heritage’, is considered a capital stock worthy of conservation (Al-hagla 2010 ). In several cases, excessive tourist influx forces the local community to change its way of life and disrupts the day-to-day activities of the community. In other cases, a complete change of landscape due tourism development creates environmental and cultural degradation. One of the problems of tourism development is that it fails to maintain a balance between the goal of achieving an increased number of tourists and its impact on the existing heritage and the community (Erbas  2018 ). In planning for heritage cities, urban development dynamics and tourism development are equally important factors. In areas with historical backgrounds, the conservation of the existing environment must be the primary concern (Erbas  2018 ).

1.1 Aim and objective

This paper conducts a study of the Kashi Vishwanath Temple Corridor project using an analysis of culture-led tourism and heritage conservation. The Kashi Vishwanath temple corridor project is considered a perfect case study to analyse conflicts between the host community (local dwellers) of the city and the development programme aimed towards the betterment of the pilgrims and tourists who come to the heritage city. The main objective of the study is to assess the perspective of the local community on tourism-led development. A second objective is to understand the pros and cons of tourism-led developments in a heritage city.

While the case study in this paper is based on a recent occurrence, there has been little research on the effects of the Kashi Vishwanath Corridor Project. Although this development project affects only a small portion of the city, the area is heavily populated; therefore, the effects on the locals are significant. This situation must be addressed from the perspectives of the diverse groups who benefited or were harmed by the development initiative.

1.2 The project details

The project of the Kashi Vishwanath temple corridor aimed to connect the Vishwanath Temple with the Ghats of Ganges. The pathway would connect the Manikarnika and Lalita ghat to the temple (Fig.  1 ), and the temple would be visible from the river front (Singh 2018 ). The temple, which is located 400 m from the ghats, was accessible to visitors only by narrow lanes (gali) through a crowded neighbourhood. The project mainly focused on building a wider and cleaner road and stairs with bright lights from the ghats to the temple. Because tourists and pilgrims come to Varanasi mainly to visit the older part of the city (i.e., the ghats of Ganges and the Vishwanath Temple), a connecting corridor would be of great use to them. By making the temple accessible to pilgrims and tourists through waterways, tourists could reach the temple ghat from the Khidkiya ghat and Raj ghat via a boat ride. The project also aimed to build stairways and escalators to reach the temple (Pandey and Jain 2021 ). This major makeover of the Vishwanath temple was the first since 1780. The Maratha queen of Indore, Ahilyabai Holker, renovated the Vishwanath temple and its surroundings, but no major changes have occurred in this area since then.

Kashi Vishwanath Corridor after Completion, 12 December 2021 (Source: NDTV.com)

The project was launched in 2018, and the work was initiated in March 2019. The project known as Kashi Vishwanath Mandir Vistarikaran-Sundarayakaran Yojana (Kashi Vishwanath Temple extension and beautification plan) was estimated at Rs. 400 crore. According to the plan for redevelopment, an area of 43,636 sq. m was cleared by demolishing all the construction between the river and the ancient shrine (Ghosh 2018 ). A development board was created to accomplish the plan. To create this huge space, 314 properties were bought and demolished by the board. A total of Rs. 390 crore was spent to acquire the properties that were selected for the project in the area. Of this Rs. 390 crore, a sum of Rs. 70 crore was allotted for the rehabilitation of the 1,400 people living in this area, who were mainly encroachers, vendors and shopkeepers (Tiwari 2021 ).

The narrow lanes and the surroundings that were demolished for the project were known as Lahoritola, Neelkanth and Brahamanal (Singh 2018 ). The neighbourhood of Lahoritola is one of the oldest parts of Varanasi City. The first settlers migrated to this place from Lahore during the reign of Maharaja Ranjit Singh. Currently, the sixth generation of the original settlers are living in this area, but as the area was cleared for the project, they had no other option but to settle somewhere else (Ghosh 2018 ). The project has specific planning for people affected by it. According to the authorities, rehabilitation houses are to be built at Ramnagar on eight acres of government land. Shopkeepers affected by the process are to be allotted shops near the temple after the completion of the project (Singh 2018 ).

The project aims not only to create a wide corridor connecting the temple to the ghat but also to develop several buildings for various tourism purposes. The Kashi Vishwanath temple complex will have 23 new structures after the completion of the plan. Along with the construction of a new temple chowk, these structures will include a tourist information centre, salvation house, city gallery, guest house, multipurpose hall, locker room, bhog shala, tourist facilitation centre, Mumukshu Bhaban, vedic kendra, city museum, food court, viewing gallery, and restroom (Tiwari 2021 ). The Ganga View gallery will provide a clear panoramic view for tourists. According to officials, the Mandir Chawk will be a place for pilgrims to relax and meditate (Pandey and Jain 2021 ). After the completion of the corridor and other proposed buildings, the temple complex will have 50,000 sq. ft. of space, which is approximately 200 times larger than the previous area of the temple complex. According to authorities, the space of the entire temple complex will be able to manage 50,000 to 75,000 pilgrims at a time, compared to a few hundred previously. The project has also considered the importance of green cover, and it was decided that 70% of the total 5.50 lakh sq. ft. will be green (Tiwari 2021 ). With the completion of the project, it is believed that there will be a boost in tourism, and the attraction of the heritage of the city will increase substantially.

2 Literature review

Since the 1980s, sustainable development has become an important concept worldwide. In the case of heritage tourism, Sustainable Tourism Development (STD) has become an important issue. STD includes developmental policies and the protection of the local environment. The common dilemma faced by all interested parties in tourism development is finding a sustainable tourism development plan that will conserve heritage while influencing the positive growth of tourism and tourism-related economic activities (Xing et al. 2013 ). When discussing sustainable tourism, the main focus is economic and environmental sustainability. The issue of social sustainability is overlooked, although it should be considered with equal importance. Exponential growth in a tourism location does not ensure the betterment of the local community, the prevention of community migration, or tangible benefits from tourism (Sirima and Backman 2013 ).

The tourism development process has both negative and positive impacts on heritage cities. While the negative impacts regarding the conservation of the area are concerning, the positive impacts of tourism cannot be ignored. The present-day commodification of heritage assets poses a serious question regarding the extent to which the development and modification of heritage areas is sustainable. Increased tourism activities and an influx of national and international tourists may expand the economy of the area and create job opportunities, but in the commodification of tourism, the heritage site may lose its aesthetic value and become artificial, and its originality may fade (Al-hagla 2010 ). In many cases, the benefits received by heritage locations through increased tourism activities may eventually be overshadowed by the negative long-term effects of the process (Benur and Bramwell 2015 ). To ensure that future generations inherit a resource base that is sufficient to fulfil their needs and wants, sustainability necessitates that such assets be prudently managed. The goal of this paper is to investigate how sustainability principles might be used most effectively in the context of heritage tourism with a focus on the administration of historic homes and gardens (Fyall and Garrod 1998 ).

‘Over tourism’ is defined as ‘destinations where hosts or guests, locals or visitors, feel that there are too many visitors and that the quality of life in the area or the quality of the experience has deteriorated unacceptably’. The condition of ‘over tourism’ is the opposite of the expected condition of ‘responsible tourism’. Responsible tourism is a tourism practice by which the tourism destination ascends to a better condition that benefits both the host and the tourists (Goodwin 2017 ). When tourism-related changes are introduced by persons external to the local community, the possibility of social conflict arises because of the fluctuating relationship between the stakeholder authorities and the host community (Yang et al. 2013 ).

Studies on the entangled relationships between stakeholders are just as important as studies ofthe growth of historic tourism, which have also been the subject of research. Conflicts of interest arise when the local community participates in the tourism development process without being guaranteed equitable involvement by the stakeholders. These complex scenarios must be studied to fully comprehend the implications of heritage site development initiatives (Li et al. 2020 ). The aim of using a cultural heritage space in a consumer-dominant space may lead to the complete commercialisation or ‘touristification’ of the area (Nasser 2003 ). This term is used to describe the particular forms and functions that take place due to the increased growth of tourism activity. The effect of ‘touristification’ is particularly prominent in the parts of historical cities that tourists use most (historic tourist cities) (Hernández et al. 2017 ). Developmental activities in heritage cities may lead to conflicts regarding land acquisition if the local community does not participate in planning (Porter and Salazar 2005 ). To prevent potential conflicts, it is imperative to focus on the interests, needs, and concerns of the local community at all phases of decision-making (Erbas  2018 ). The host community of the location must be included in planning for tourism development; otherwise, it will lead to ‘zoo syndrome’, where the local community is negatively affected by the development plans (De Ascaniis et al. 2018 ). Bill Bramwell and Bernard Lane ( 1993 ) attempted to explain the connection between the interpretation and sustainable development of natural and heritage sites of the world. According to these authors, the host community’s involvement in interpreting and promoting cultural heritage is beneficial for sustainable tourism development. The paper also suggests that ‘historic and natural features [are] to be retained wherever possible, not swept away by new developments’. Tourism in urban areas has started to create different types of problems in local communities (Hernández et al. 2017 ).

The influx of tourists has recently increased at a spectacular rate, particularly in urban tourist destinations. A study by María García-Hernández noted that historic urban landscapes are more affected by being tourism destinations (García-Hernández et al. 2017 ). Tourism development in these places is only sustainable when socioeconomic, physical and cultural characteristics are unharmed in the tourism process. The tourism development planning of a historic city must be based on the ‘historic urban landscape approach’. To address community aspects, the development needs to be comprehensive and must address different perspectives with sincerity and humanity. In addition to the physical conservation and protection of the heritage, the social and economic aspects of the preservation and conservation area are equally important (Al-hagla 2010 ). An essential component of the growth of the tourism industry is the preservation of a heritage site's aesthetic value. A site's high aesthetic value may be a major factor in the growth of the tourism business, particularly in developing nations, and the tourism sector can convert this aesthetic value into economic benefit. In contrast, a site's deteriorating aesthetic value will worsen the quality of life for the people who live there. At the Rio meeting, more than 20 nations agreed that maintaining heritage sites’ aesthetic value is crucial for sustainable development (Zhang et al. 2023 ). Because the locations were regarded as the core or centre of the cultural area, contemporary developments were prevented in several areas of the old heritage towns. For millennia, the unique social structures, customary pastimes, and street layouts of these areas remained unaltered. The heart of the cultural areas consists of a uniform collection of tangible and intangible assets. Several cities throughout North Africa and the Middle East have such examples. These ancient cities have not changed since the Arab civilisation's Middle Ages. These cultural centres, which include religious structures, paths, and gathering places, frequently serve as a main attraction for tourists, gathering places for pilgrims, and a source of revenue for nearby businesses (Bigio and Licciardi 2010 ).

At the UNESCO world heritage site Hampi in India, conflicts between the local community and the authorities pose challenges to the overall growth of the tourist site. A lack of communication between the government and locals, negligence in community involvement and participation and inequality in power distribution hinder the social sustainability of the heritage site (Nair et al. 2022 ). Similar features can be found in the older parts of Varanasi, where the ghat area, narrow alleys and surroundings of the Kashi Vishwanath Temple have remained unchanged for centuries. Thus, sudden reconstruction in the long-unchanged part of the city will have a significant impact on the neighbourhood.

Several regions of the world have conducted heritage reconstruction projects similar to the corridor project. The ancient town of Skopje in Macedonia, also known as the Old Bazaar, which consists of small stores, streets, independent businesses, and historic cultural establishments, has descended into social instability and dire economic conditions. To improve the condition of the area, a project was started in 2010. The project's primary goal was to implement better amenities and commercial development, which would in turn contribute to improved citizen livelihoods and improved tourism activity. According to the study, since the beginning of the project, the number of business establishments in the Old Bazaar has increased by 50% and its daily revenue has grown by 80%. Furthermore, the daily number of tourists increased by approximately 90% in the city. Jordan offers another illustration of this sort. The artistic mosaic creations have made Madaba, an ancient city with a rich heritage and culture, particularly well known. To address the city’s physical deterioration, population growth and encroachment, and poor maintenance, the World Bank launched a redevelopment project in the city of Madaba. After the project was finished, the city saw a significant rise in tourists within a period of two to three years (Throsby 2015 ).

The physical and socioeconomic regeneration of urban areas is prominent after tourism development. The assimilation of the local community in the process, as a source of heritage value and the inheritors of the heritage space, can result in sustainable tourism development.

2.1 Methodology

Each historically significant building has value or cultural heritage significance, and different stakeholders have varied perspectives on what those values are. Currently, determining the historical relevance of a site depends not only on professionals but also on the public at large. The need for public participation in cultural conservation initiatives is widely acknowledged in the literature (Bakri et al. 2015 ). The information for this study was gathered from newspaper articles published between 2018 and 2022 during the demolition of houses and the construction of new structures according to the Kashi Vishwanath Temple Corridor Project plans. The newspapers used for this study were in English and were published in digital media. The source of the newspapers was reliable national news agencies. Thirteen such articles were used for this study, and nine of them are cited in this article.

In addition to news articles, Google Earth Pro software was used to evaluate change detection within the study area. Google Earth Pro software has very fine resolution and is regularly used in research papers on urban development. To show the urban sprawl and changes over time, Google Earth Time Series Images were used, and area delineation was performed using the polygon tool in ArcMap software (Boussema et al. 2020 ).

In this paper, the polygon creation method was used to demarcate the study area within which the demolition of old structures and development of new structures have occurred. A landscape change analysis was performed using Google Earth images from three different years. The Google Earth images of different stages of the project provide a visual understanding of the changes that occurred in only 5 years. This paper includes images of the area before the commencement of the project (2018), during the project (2019) and after the completion of the project (2022). Following flow chart explains the various materials and methodology used in the present study (Fig.  2 ).

Research Methodology Flow Chart (Source: the author)

2.2 The heritage of Varanasi

The city of Varanasi, popularly known as Varanasi or Kashi, is situated on the left bank of the mighty Ganges in the district of Uttar Pradesh. The city has been a centre of religious practices and devotion and a pilgrimage site. Varanasi or Kashi is one of the oldest living cities in the world. Varanasi recorded its first human settlement in approximately 1000 BCE (before the Christian Era), although the city mainly developed during the 18th century. Other ancient cities worldwide have hardly survived after imperial and colonial forays, whereas the city of Varanasi continued to thrive through the ages. The city has successfully retained its ancient charms and rich culture even in the era of modernisation. During the 8th century, Adi Shankara started the worship of Shiva in this place. Later, in 1780, the temple of Kashi Vishwanath was built by queen Ahilyabai Holkar of Indore. This is also known as the golden temple and is one of the most famous temples of Varanasi.

The main iconic attraction of Varanasi City is its riverbanks and ghats with stairways. The riverfront heritage area spreads approximately 200 m inwards from the river and 6.8 km along the Ganges River. This heritage part of the Ganges Riverbank has a crescent shape and is located between the confluence of Ashi Nala in the south and Varana River in the north. A total of 84 ghats are located within this inherited river front. The ghats are overlooked by enormous old buildings, shrines and temples built mainly under the patronage of kings and lords between the 18th and 20th centuries. The ghats of Varanasi hold a special significance as they connect heritage with everyday life. Centuries-old ghats and neighbouring monuments are part of the everyday life of local residents as well as tourists and pilgrims. The river front also serves as an intangible part of cultural heritage as it is a necessary part of every ritual and festival of the city. All rituals start at the ghats with a sacred bath in the Ganges River. Although the city of Varanasi is not yet inscribed as a world heritage site, ‘ The Riverfront and Old City Heritage Zone of Varanasi ’ is being presented to UNESCO as a potential world heritage site (Singh and Rana 2015 ). Another creative proposal has recently been revealed for the renovation and rebuilding of the Kashi ghats, known as the River Front Development Project. The riverfronts and ghat areas are projected to undergo significant modification as a result of this project. On the other side of the river from the ghats, the project includes a four-lane elevated road that will be eight kilometres long. According to the project, three additional bridges will be constructed. It is anticipated that after this project is finished, tourism will flourish (Seth 2022 ).

2.3 The landscape change

As discussed earlier, an area of 43,636 sq. m. was selected, and the existing properties were demolished. The clearance of the area was planned to make space for building up the new structures decided according to the project. This particular area has experienced a significant change in landscape within a couple of years. From being a congested agglomeration of houses, shops and unplanned built-ups to narrow lanes filled with tourists, pilgrims and locals, it turned into a clean modern wide-spaced corridor. Modern construction also contains new buildings to facilitate tourists.

Google Earth images were taken in different years to compare the landscape changes that took place in the area of the project. Three images were selected: November 2018 (Fig.  3 ), November 2019 (Fig.  4 ), and January 2022 (Fig.  5 ).

The original settlement pattern around the temple, November 2018 (Source: Google Earth)

a The project area (cyan colour boundary) after demolishing the settlements, November 2019 (Source: Google Earth). b Demolition work in full swing for the Kashi Vishwanath Temple Project, 20 January 2019 (Source: the Hindu). c Properties being demolished for the project, 8 March 2019 (Source: the wire). d Temples amidst destruction, 13 May 2021 (Source: the Print)

The project area (orange colour boundary) after the construction of new structures, January 2022 (Source: Google Earth)

The first figure (Fig.  3 ) was selected from the time when the area was unchanged, and all the existing built-ups were intact. It is clear from the image that the Kashi Vishwanath Temple was surrounded by closely spaced compact settlements, and the only way to access the temple was through narrow alleys. Varanasi is particularly famous for these old narrow alleys, through which one could reach the ghats of Ganges and the Vishwanath Temple. Some of these alleyways were also market areas with numerous shops. The range of goods sold in those areas ranges from religious goods and decorative items to food stalls. This area, known as Lahori Tola, is a residential area with numerous shops and businesses.

The figure (Fig.  4 ) was selected from 2019, when the whole area under project was cleared by demolishing the properties. The barren land in the image clearly shows the parts where complete demolition has been done. The space between the Vishwanath Temple and the Ghat of Ganges appeared to be unhindered and waiting to be transformed into a tourism-based landscape.

In the third and final figure of 2022 (Fig.  5 ), the new constructions are visible, which were built according to the Kashi Vishwanath Temple extension and beautification plan. The whole area has changed from a compact residential space to a space for tourists and pilgrims within a couple of years. The existing properties were mostly private properties, temples, and shops. Although the private properties were demolished, the temples remained unharmed.

2.4 People’s perspectives

2.4.1 perspective of the residents.

The opinion of the public regarding the project is divided. Despite the restoration of religious glory and decongestion of the surroundings of the Kashi Vishwanath Temple, the situation of the locals who have lost their homes is painful and devastating. The locals of the area have discussed their loss and destruction with news reporters (Press Trust of India- PTI 2021 ). The people who were living in the area have clearly expressed their anguish about losing their homes and businesses. People have voiced their disagreement regarding the amount of compensation paid to them and have stated that the close proximity of their homes to the temple was an additional advantage that they lost due to this project. The locals stated that this tourism project has significantly affected them, not only economically but also emotionally (Ghosh 2018 ). Many people who had homes in the area selected for the corridor project recalled memories of their homes and the old neighbourhood. While many of the residents of Varanasi were enthusiastic about the ambitious project of redevelopment, many others grieved the loss of their family homes, where their families had lived for more than a hundred years. Many stated that extended families living in these old houses were broken up after the property was demolished. Family members became segregated and began living separately in different places in Varanasi (PTI 2021 ).

2.4.2 Perspective of shop owners

All the businesses operating in the area have been closed (Ghosh 2018 ). Many people who had shops in the area face the loss of their businesses due to complete demolition and relocation as shifting shops does not shift customers to new locations (PTI 2021 ). Several residents of the area had shops on the ground floor of the houses, and they lost their shops along with their residential properties during the demolition.

2.4.3 Perspective of the authorities

In an interview with the chief executive officer (CEO) of Shri Kashi Viswanath Temple Trust, Vishal Singh, who was in charge of implementing the project on the ground, the perspective of the stockholders was showcased more clearly. When he was asked about the disruption caused by the corridor project and how the people’s displeasure was handled, he replied that the clearance of the temple area was envisaged for 10 − 15 years, but the plan was implemented very recently. The problems faced by pilgrims were the key consideration in planning. Providing ‘Suraksha aur Suvidha’ (security and facilities) to pilgrims is the main focus of the corridor project. When asked about the residents of the area who had to leave due to the project and how they were compensated, he said, ‘We have paid every family, every household living here, including tenants. We have paid every single person who has been shifted out of this place’ (Basu 2019 ).

According to the authorities, the main reason behind the planning of the expansion of the temple complex was to provide facilities to tourists and pilgrims. On special occasions, the temple expects 4–5 lakh visitors in a day, and pilgrims must wait in a long queue, sometimes for more than a day. The aim of developing an extended temple complex was to provide basic amenities such as toilets, drinking water, first aid and medical care to visitors in need (Basu 2019 ). The authorities of the project applied a positive perspective to the situation and confirmed that every problem associated with the evacuation of the area was treated with a humanitarian approach (Basu 2019 ). According to the authorities, rehabilitation and compensation were not only for real owners of the area; other permanent settlers, such as tenants and people living illegally, were also included in the planning (Tiwari 2021 ).

Many people stated their opinions in support of the development project. Many supported the decision to remove the temple area encroachment. In some people’s opinions, most of the rightful owners of the neighbourhood in question did not live there. The people who were displaced due to the project were mostly tenants or had unauthorised occupancy (Ghosh 2018 ). According to the authorities, the process of purchasing property from the owners was the most difficult task. The real owners of the area were descendants of the kings or wealthy people of the past. Most of the properties were given to the shebait or caretakers, who looked after the property and temples. The shebait of the properties started to expand the buildings using every kind of construction, some of which were illegal and unsafe. Shebait began renting the rooms to tenants. Finally, when the properties were bought and vacated, the authorities had to compensate the real owners of the property, the shebait who looked after the property, the tenants and some illegal encroachers (Basu 2019 ).

Despite all the disputes regarding the acquisition of the properties, there is no pending case in the court (Tiwari 2021 ). The CEO of Shri Kashi Vishwanath Temple Trust has confirmed that Rs. 262 crore was paid to the owners of the property, and another Rs. 16.54 crore was paid to the tenants, including illegal encroachers (Basu 2019 ).

2.4.4 Perspective of the Tourists

The experiences of the tourists and pilgrims who visited Vishwanath Temple in its previous condition were not very positive. Slow-moving traffic around the temple and a long queue to enter the temple were regular affairs. Due to overcrowding, people could obtain only a glimpse of the deity before being forced to move ahead even after waiting in the queue for hours or days. It is expected that after the completion of the project, this situation will improve (Pandey and Jain 2021 ). Tourists visiting Kashi again after several years are surprised by the changed landscape of the temple. A visitor from Kolkata who was visiting Kashi after seven years was astonished by the wide space at the entrance of the temple instead of narrow and cramped lanes. The visitor shared his experience from his last visit when he had a ‘tough time’ reaching the temple through a narrow, crowded lane (Pandey 2019 ). The tour companies shared great joy in the news reports about the completion of the corridor project as they predicted an enormous increase in tourism business in Kashi. According to the president of a tour company, they had already witnessed a 10% increase in travellers interested in travelling Kashi. According to another president of a renowned tour company, along with the increased interest in visiting the Kashi temple, tourists show interest in visiting Sarnath Temple and river cruises (Bhuniya 2022 ). It can be inferred that with the rejuvenation of the Vishwanath temple, other surrounding attractions of Kashi will also benefit from the tourism business.

2.4.5 Other perspectives

According to historians, some parts of the neighbouring area of the temple that were demolished for the new construction were as old as the temple itself (Ghosh 2018 ). Families have stated that they had their own temples at their family homes that were also old and had beautiful carvings, but those too were demolished along with the remaining property. Structures that were demolished for the project, such as old family temples, houses and dharamshalas, were 250–300 years old. The locals stated that these structures were equally important parts of the heritage of the old city, but they are now lost due to the tourism development project. A police officer who chose to remain anonymous shared his grief regarding the destruction of heritage buildings for the project. According to this officer, some of the iconic buildings of the area were destroyed in the process. Although he admitted that the new structure looked beautiful, the loss of old stone carvings and structures was absolutely tragic. He stated that development at the cost of heritage is never acceptable (PTI 2021 ). Demolition for the Kashi Vishwanath corridor has disrupted the balanced harmony that existed between the Vishwanath Temple and the Gayan Vapi Mosque: ‘Such exposure, and particularly the haunting sight of the object remains – detritus, scraps of the city’s fabric and broken deities – led to protest and debates…’. The residents of the area have also stated their powerlessness in fighting the government project and saving the neighbourhood from destruction (Lazzaretti 2021 ) .

3 Implication: rediscovering the ancient temples

Conservation of the ancient temples can be considered one of the positive aspects of the corridor project (Singh 2018 ). While clearing the settlements for the projected corridor, more than 40 ancient temples were rediscovered. These temples were surrounded by dense settlements; in some cases, they were completely engulfed and new settlements were built around them, covering the ancient temples. The Archaeological Survey of India has confirmed that none of the temples that were found during the destruction of personal and commercial properties along the project site were older than the 17th century (PTI 2021 ). According to the architect of the project, the goal was to increase facilities for tourists by connecting the temple with the ghat of Ganges without changing the existing formation of the temple. The architect also stated that the aim was not to tamper with the original structure of the temple and to maintain it as it was. According to Atul Tripathi of Banaras Hindu University, ‘The corridor will give glimpses of the sculptural art and architectural history of temples over 300 years because the 41 temples, which were found among the buildings purchased and demolished, have been preserved’ (Indo-Asian News Service—(IANS), 2023 ).

Rediscovering the ancient temples on which illegal construction was performed has become one of the important reasons for many people to support the project (Ghosh 2018 ). During the demolition of houses in the area, numerous old temples were found inside the properties. Religious sentiment was given priority in this case, and the temples were not demolished. The plan of the project was revised due to the discovery of the old temples. The location of the guest house and the Vedic centre were changed to accommodate these temples within the temple complex. All the temples were incorporated into the plan and restored to their former glory (Tiwari 2021 ).

4 Discussion and conclusion

A limitation of this study is that a field survey would have enhanced the quality of the work. Unfortunately, when the project was in progress, there were several restrictions due to the COVID-19 pandemic, and the chance of possible health risks from a field survey were also considered. There is future potential to continue this work by interviewing the affected residents and obtaining a broader perspective of how their lives changed after the completion of the project.

The case study of Varanasi City with regard to the newly developed Kashi Vishwanath Corridor Project provides a clear view of the existing conflicts between heritage conservation planning and the affected community. The opinions of the people are clearly divided based on their gains or losses from the development project. Temple-centric tourism development, increased facilities and amenities for tourists and pilgrims have pleased a great number of devotees. Larger space around the temple, less congestion, and the elimination of long queues to visit the deity have created a positive effect, especially for pilgrims and tourists as well as many other residents of Varanasi. For visitors, this development project will help to provide a better experience while visiting the holy temple, but outsiders will not realise the actual effect resulting from the redevelopment of the area. The complete demolition of private properties and the loss of businesses and means of income will no doubt cause socioeconomic damage to the people of the area. Although the people received compensation for their loss, several reports have confirmed the locals’ disappointment as the sum was not sufficient to compensate what they lost. In addition to the socioeconomic damage, the loss of heritage that took place in the process is undeniable. The area was one of the oldest parts of Varanasi and was part and parcel of the Kashi Vishwanath Temple. The locals, along with many others around the country, have revealed their anguish about losing heritage in the name of tourism development. Some damages are measurable in terms of economic value, whereas some damages are completely unfathomable. The emotional and sentimental loss suffered by the residents due to their attachment to this area cannot be compensated.

Varanasi, now known as Kashi, is a city of incredible heritage value and is one of the oldest living cities in the world. The importance of heritage in Kashi cannot be confined to heritage structures; it spreads to the people, culture, and values of the place. The area that was demolished was considered a residential area, and the properties were not declared heritage buildings or may not have contained significant heritage monuments or architecture, but the heritage value of the space was undeniable. Areas with various historical, architectural, local, artistic and aesthetic characteristics incorporated into natural urban landscapes, when taken collectively, are more valuable than their individual values. The clustering of various aspects of tangible and intangible heritage value existing in the area that was lost in the process of tourism development is the only drawback for the otherwise ambitious project.

Availability of data and materials

Not applicable.

Abbreviations

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation

Sustainable Tourism Development

Before the Christian Era

Press Trust of India

Chief Executive Officer

Indo-Asian News Service

Al-hagla, K.S. 2010. Sustainable urban development in historical areas using the tourist trail approach: A case study of the Cultural Heritage and Urban Development (CHUD) project in Saida. Lebanon. Cities 27 (4): 234–248.

Article   Google Scholar  

Bakri, A. F., N. Ibrahim, S. S. Ahmad, and N. Q. Zaman. 2015. Public perception on the cultural significance of heritage buildings in Kuala Lumpur. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences 202: 294–302.

Basu, J. 2019. Vishwanath Corridor will be ready by June 2021: CEO of Kashi Temple Trust. e-paper The Sunday Guardian .

Benur, A. M., and B. Bramwell. 2015. Tourism product development and product diversification in destinations. Tourism Management 50: 213–224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2015.02.005 .

Bhuniya, A. 2022. Tourists flock to Kashi Vishwanath Corridor . New Delhi: The Media India.

Google Scholar  

Bigio, A. G., and G. Licciardi. 2010. The urban rehabilitation of medinas: the World Bank experience in the Middle East and North Africa . Washington: The World Bank.  https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/21285a69-9361-5d55-8a31-bc9e2e8b810c/content .

Boussema, S. B. F., F. K. Allouche, A. Bekaoui, Y. Khalifa, and H. M’Sadak. 2020. Using Google Earth™ And Geographical Information System data as method to detect Urban Sprawl and Green Spaces for better wellbeing case of a coastal landscape. International Journal of Research 8 (9): 266–276.

De Ascaniis, S., M. Gravari-Barbas, and L. Cantoni. 2018. Tourism Management at UNESCO world heritage sites. ISBN 978-88-6101-018-5

Erbas, A. E. 2018. Cultural Heritage Conservation And Culture-Led Tourism Conflict Within The Historic Site In Beyoğlu, Istanbul. WIT Transactions on Ecology and the Environment  217: 647–659. https://doi.org/10.2495/SDP180551 .

Fyall, A., and B. Garrod. 1998. Heritage tourism: At what price? Managing Leisure 3 (4): 213–228.

García-Hernández, María, Manuel De la Calle-Vaquero, and Claudia Yubero. 2017. Cultural Heritage and Urban Tourism: Historic City Centres under Pressure. Sustainability 9 (8): 1346. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9081346 .

Ghosh, B. 2018. Beautification plan destroys oldest neighbourhoods in Varanasi. The Hindu , December 9.

Goodwin, H. 2017. The challenge of overtourism. Responsible Tourism Partnership 4: 1–19.

IANS. 2023. Varanasi's corridor of change seamlessly merges past with future. Indo-Asian News Service. https://ians.in/index.php/iansin/d2J0bg .

Lane, B. B. 1993. Interpretation and Sustainable Tourism: The Potential and the Pitfalls. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 1: 2.

Lazzaretti, V. 2021. The boundary within: Demolitions, dream projects and the negotiation of Hinduness in Banaras. In  Spaces of Religion in Urban South Asia ,edited by István Keul. London: Routledge.

Li, Y., C. Lau, and P. Su. 2020. Heritage tourism stakeholder conflict: A case of a World Heritage Site in China. Journal of Tourism and Cultural Change 18: 267–287. https://doi.org/10.1080/14766825.2020.1722141 .

Nair, B. B., S. Sinha, M. R. Dileep. 2023. Who Owns the Heritage? Power and Politics of Heritage Site Management in Tourism, Hampi, India. Archaeologies 19: 276–298. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11759-022-09459-w .

Napravishta, F. 2018. The Fragility of Cultural Heritage in the Era of Globalization: Skanderbeg Square Modernization. Paper presented at IFAU 2018 - 2nd International Forum on Architecture and Urbanism, Pescara, Italy, November 8–10.

Nasser, N. 2003. Planning for Urban Heritage Places: Reconciling Conservation, Tourism, and Sustainable Development. Journal of Planning Literature 17 (4): 467–479.

Pandey, N. and J. Parveen. 2021. Kashi Vishwanath makeover races to meet Nov Dadeline, blending heritage with the modern. The Print .

Pandey, S. 2019. Corridor for Kashi tourists proves a bane for locals . Varanashi: The Deccan Herald.

Porter, B. W., and N. B. Salazar. 2005. Heritage Tourism, Conflicts and the Public Interest : An Introduction. International Journal of Heritage Studies 11: 361–370.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13527250500337397 .

PTI. 2021. Kashi corridor: Section of locals unhappy over 'lost homes', demolition of iconic buildings e-paper. The Indian Express . https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/lucknow/ .

Seth, M. 2022. An 8-km elevated road, 3 ‘finger bridges’ to ghats: UP govt comes up with plan to transform Ganga riverfront . Lucknow: The Indian Express.

Singh, R. P. 2015. Varanasi, the Cultural Capital of India: Visioning Cultural Heritage and Planning. SANDHI, A Journal of Interfacing Science-Heritage and Technology-Tradition of India IIT Kharagpur, India 1 (1): 100–122.

Singh, S. 2018. Kashi Vishwanath Pathway: over 100 houses to be demolished, rehabilitation in Ramnagar. The Economic Times .

Sirima, A., and K. F. Backman. 2013. Communities’ displacement from national park and tourism development in the Usangu Plains.  Current Issues in Tourism  16 (7–8): 719–735. https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2013.785484 .

Throsby, D. 2015. Investment in urban heritage conservation in developing countries: Concepts, methods and data , 1–6. City: Culture and Society.

Tiwari, O. M. 2021. Marvel of Kashi Vishwanath Corridor: 314 buildings acquired, Rs 390 crore paid to owners, but zero litigation. News Nine .

UNESCO. 2014. UNESCO Culture for Development Indicators: Methodology Manual . Paris: UNSCO. www.unesco.org/creativity/cdis .

Xing, H., A. Marzuki, and A.A. Razak. 2013. Conceptualizing a Sustainable Development Model For Cultural Heritage Tourism in Asia. Theoretical and Empirical Researches in Urban Management 8 (1): 51–66.

Yang, J., C. Ryan, and L. Zhang. 2013. Social conflict in communities impacted by tourism. Tourism Management 35: 82–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2012.06.002 .

Zhang, S., K. Xiong, G. Fei, H. Zhang, and Y. Chen. 2023. Aesthetic value protection and tourism development of the world natural heritage sites: A literature review and implications for the world heritage karst sites. Heritage Science  11: 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40494-023-00872-0 .

Download references

Acknowledgements

Authors are very thankful to the Google Earth Pro for providing the open access to download the real time satellite imageries.

No fund received during this research work.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Geography, Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi, 110025, India

Ananya Pati

BIM Plus Plus Project Consultants L.L.C, Lynx Tower, Dubai Silicon Oasis, 341041, Dubai, United Arab Emirates

Mujahid Husain

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

First author’s contribution: writing Abstract, Literature review, Discussion and conclusion. Second Author’s contribution: Modification/Rewrite Abstract and literature review. News agencies’ reporting photos of study area. Study area Google Earth Pro work, Study area delineation and calculation in ArcMap software. Common work: Throughout the communication with the editor of the Journal Built Heritage . Both authors did revision of manuscript with discussion and common understanding in every suggestion that were received from the reviewers. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mujahid Husain .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, 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 licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence 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. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Pati, A., Husain, M. People’s perspectives on heritage conservation and tourism development: a case study of Varanasi. Built Heritage 7 , 17 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s43238-023-00098-w

Download citation

Received : 25 November 2022

Accepted : 23 July 2023

Published : 15 August 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s43238-023-00098-w

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Conservation
• Development

• Open access
• Published: 29 June 2023

Research on global cultural heritage tourism based on bibliometric analysis

• Sunbowen Zhang   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-3859-8592 1 ,
• Jingxuan Liang 2 ,
• Xinwei Su   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-0218-5910 3 , 4 ,
• Youcheng Chen   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-9323-7386 1 &

Heritage Science volume  11 , Article number:  139 ( 2023 ) Cite this article

4852 Accesses

5 Citations

Metrics details

Cultural heritage is the sum of material wealth and spiritual wealth left by a nation in the past. Because of its precious and fragile characteristics, cultural heritage protection and tourism development have received extensive global academic attention. However, application visualization software is still underused, and studies are needed that provide a comprehensive overview of cultural heritage tourism and prospects for future research. Therefore, this research employs the bibliometric method with CiteSpace 5.8. R2 software to visualize and analyze 805 literature items retrieved from the SSCI database between 2002 and 2022. Results show, first, scholars from China, Spain, Italy have published the most articles, and Italian scholars have had the most influence. Second, Hong Kong Polytech University, the Chinese Academy of Sciences, Jinan University have had significant influence on cultural heritage tourism research. Third, Annals of Tourism Research is the most cited journal in the field. Influenced by politics, culture, and technology, sustainable development and consumer behavior have become key topics in this field over the past 21 years. Fourth, tourist satisfaction, rural development, cultural heritage management are the key research frontiers. Fifth, in future, cultural heritage tourism should pay more attention to micro-level research, using quantitative methods to integrate museums, technology, and cultural heritage into consumer research. The results offer a deeper understanding of the development and evolution of the global cultural heritage tourism field from 2002 to 2022. At the same time, our findings have provided a new perspective and direction for future research on global cultural heritage tourism among scholars.

Introduction

Cultural heritage is shared wealth with outstanding universal value, the precious wealth left by human ancestors to future generations, and a non-renewable precious resource [ 1 ]. The year 2022 marks the 50th anniversary of the implementation of the World Heritage Convention, which UNESCO adopted in 1972 to protect, utilize, and inherit cultural heritage under the UNESCO World Heritage Committee, and to make positive contributions to the protection and restoration of the common heritage of all mankind. Cultural heritage is of two types: tangible and intangible. As of February 2022, there are 897 cultural heritage sites in 167 countries on five continents. As countries around the world pay more and more attention to cultural heritage, cultural heritage protection in connection with tourism development has become a new area of concern for scholars all over the world. The year 2002 saw the publication of the first study in the field of cultural heritage tourism [ 2 ]. At this point, a review of the research on cultural heritage tourism published over the past 21 years will help us to understand and grasp the overall trends in global cultural heritage tourism development.

Cultural heritage embodies the wisdom and crystallization of human development, carrying the genes and bloodline of human civilization, which need to be protected, displayed, and disseminated for their cultural value. From a fundamental perspective, cultural heritage tourism is a form of tourism that transforms historic and cultural assets into commodities in order to attract tourists [ 3 ]. Since 1970, European and American countries have continuously innovated cultural heritage tourism activity models, promoting it as a popular mode of tourism, while also driving research into cultural heritage tourism [ 4 , 5 ]. As one of the most vital topics in cultural heritage research, cultural heritage tourism has gradually diversified from the perspective of studying visitors and local residents of heritage sites [ 6 , 7 ]. Moreover, from a research methods standpoint, qualitative and quantitative methodologies coexist [ 8 , 9 ] and have progressed towards incorporating mixed research methods as a new trend [ 10 ]. In addition, cultural heritage tourism practice mainly includes two aspects: dynamic protection of cultural heritage [ 11 ] and tourism development [ 12 ]. Although current research provides useful guidance for informing cultural heritage tourism development and preservation, there is still a lack of an overall review of current cultural heritage tourism related research. Nevertheless, scholars have suggested that analyzing and reviewing existing literature can provide insights into the hotspots and trends within a research field. This not only serves as a reference for related studies [ 13 ], but also provides guidance for practical applications [ 14 ]. It can be seen that conducting a comprehensive review of cultural heritage tourism is of great importance.

With the growing number of studies and expanding research areas in cultural heritage tourism, existing literature reviews on this topic face difficulties in objectively and comprehensively reflecting the trends and shifts in research focus. Therefore, this study used the CiteSpace 5.8.R2 visual analysis software. It can be used to visualize knowledge structure, research hotspots, and the evolution of research topics, thereby helping researchers to obtain an overview of a field, find its classic literature, explore its research frontiers, and explain the evolution of its trends [ 15 ]. Through comparing with similar studies by other scholars, we found that most of the research on this topic focuses on the following questions [ 13 , 16 , 17 ].: (1) which literature has been groundbreaking and landmark, (2) which literature has played a key role in the advancement of the field, (3) which themes are dominant in the entire research area, and (4) what is the knowledge base of the field and how has the forefront of research evolved. Therefore, to better address these four key areas of literature review, this study obtained data on the literature related to cultural heritage tourism from 2002 to 2022 from the Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI) database. The data was then subjected to visual analysis using CiteSpace 5.8.R2 software, which enabled the objective review of a field's knowledge structure, research status, and trends by drawing knowledge maps. This study is committed to achieving the following four research objectives in order to address the aforementioned issues: (1) to establish the number of representative publications on cultural heritage tourism; (2) to explain the distribution and co-citation of authors and research institutions; (3) to identify current research hotspots in the field of cultural heritage tourism and trace their evolution from 2002 to 2022; and (4) to determine the frontiers and trends of cultural heritage tourism research. The results reveal future research prospects for cultural heritage tourism and will provide a reference for the construction of a theoretical system in the field of cultural heritage tourism [ 18 ].

Current state of research

Cultural heritage tourism relies on the unique historical architecture, religious beliefs, traditional cuisine and other cultural characteristics of the destination to attract tourists for sightseeing and experience. It has become one of the fastest-growing and most ideal forms of modern tourism. Meanwhile, cultural heritage tourism has gradually become an interdisciplinary field of psychology, economics, management, etc. [ 19 , 20 , 21 ], demonstrating a good academic ecology of mutual integration and development. Current research in cultural heritage tourism mainly revolves around research perspectives, methods, and cultural heritage preservation and tourism development.

Cultural heritage tourism research perspectives

From the perspective of researching cultural heritage tourism, it can generally be divided into two views: that of tourists and that of residents of the heritage sites. On one hand, tourists are the participants of tourism activities and have always been a focus of research in academia. As DallenJ explained the four forms of heritage experience and proposed personalized heritage tourism for tourists with great potential in future [ 22 ]. Meanwhile, Yaniv et al. challenged the notion that heritage tourism is only represented by visitors to heritage sites, pointing out the necessity to pay attention to the perception of tourists and conduct studies on their behavior [ 6 ]. On the other hand, the positive actions of residents living in heritage areas contribute to the sustainable development of cultural heritage tourism [ 7 ]. The perception of tourists impact on residents plays an important mediating role in shaping community attachment, environmental attitudes, and supporting economic benefits from tourism development [ 23 ].

Research methods of cultural heritage tourism

From the perspective of research methods in cultural heritage tourism, the measurement methods and models used vary depending on the researcher's perspective. Existing literature on cultural heritage tourism-related research methods can generally be divided into quantitative research methods, qualitative research methods, and mixed research methods. Firstly, quantitative research methods play an important role in current cultural heritage tourism-related research. Existing studies have used research methods such as SEM [ 24 , 25 ], cluster analysis [ 26 ], experimental method [ 27 ], meta-analysis, etc. to conduct a large amount of research on cultural heritage tourism. Secondly, with the interdisciplinary integration, qualitative research methods have also been introduced into the field of cultural heritage tourism research. Qualitative research methods such as textual analysis [ 9 ], case study [ 28 , 29 ], grounded theory analysis [ 8 ], QCA research method [ 30 ], etc. have conducted in-depth analysis of the field of cultural heritage tourism. In addition, to promote further in-depth research on cultural heritage tourism, mixed research methods have gradually become a hot topic of concern for scholars. For example, Rasoolimanesh et al. adopted a mixed research method combining PLS-SEM and fsQCA to conduct in-depth analysis of cultural heritage tourism driving behavior intention [ 10 ].

Research on cultural heritage protection and tourism development

With the attention paid to cultural heritage, its economic value, cultural value and social value have been widely paid attention to, which also makes cultural heritage protection and tourism development research become the current research focus. On the one hand, live protection of cultural heritage. Antonio et al. took Venice, a water city in Italy, as the research object and, relying on the vicious cycle model of tourism development, pointed out that with the development of tourist destinations, emerging groups keen on hiking have a great impact on the weakening of the city's attraction [ 31 ]. However, van et al. took World heritage cities as research objects and pointed out that when costs exceed benefits, tourism development is no longer sustainable, so it is necessary to intervene [ 32 ]. In addition, Christina et al. proposed five levels of heritage protection and development through the analysis of stakeholders [ 11 ]. On the other hand, cultural heritage tourism development. By studying tourism development cases of cultural heritage, Esteban et al. pointed out the influence of community role on tourism development and concluded the mutual influence between community identity and tourism [ 12 ]. At the same time, Arwel and Joan et al. discussed the tourism potential of the mining area, proposed that it should be included in the category of heritage tourism, and actively participated in the development of industrial heritage tourism sites [ 33 ]. Antonio et al. pointed out through empirical analysis that the basis for effective development of tourist destinations is whether tourism products can hit the softest places in tourists' hearts and whether they have internal accessibility [ 34 ].

Materials and methods

This section explains the selection of the research tools, analysis of the data sources, and main research methods used in this study.

Selection of research tools

This study used the CiteSpace 5.8.R2 visual analysis software developed by the team of Professor Chen Chaomei of Drexel University. The software, which was developed by drawing on scientometrics and knowledge visualization, is capable of processing large amounts of scientific literature data objectively [ 35 , 36 , 37 ]. To date, CiteSpace has been used by users in more than 100 countries and regions around the world, and has published more than 28,000 related academic papers. Researchers can use the CiteSpace software to perform co-citation analysis, co-occurrence analysis, cluster analysis, and keywords burst analysis for scientific research purposes [ 37 ]. In addition, it can be used to visualize knowledge structure, research hotspots, and the evolution of research topics, thereby helping researchers to obtain an overview of a field, find its classic literature, explore its research frontiers, and explain the evolution of its trends [ 37 ].

Analysis of data sources

Table 1 summarizes the data collection procedure for this study. The data were retrieved from the Web of Science SSCI on January 26, 2022. They cover all the relevant literature on cultural heritage tourism from January 1, 2002, to January 26, 2022. There were two main reasons for selecting the literature in SSCI as the data source: (1) SSCI’s authority as the most authoritative database in the field of global social sciences, and (2) SSCI’s extensiveness, with more than 3,200 papers from authoritative academic journals of in 56 disciplines in the field of social sciences. The year 2002 was chosen as the starting point for this study because the first academic paper in the field of global cultural heritage tourism was published in SSCI in that year.

The retrieval criteria for this study were based on subject-word retrieval, with topic = “Cultural Heritage” + “Tourism”, and a total of 825 related items of literature were obtained. A total of 20 book reviews, conference proceedings, and editorial materials were excluded from the data, yielding a set of 805 papers as the research object (Additional file 1 and 2 ). To ensure the accuracy of the data, the titles and abstracts of all the articles were reviewed individually to confirm that the data met the requirements of the study. The article data were stored in plain text format (full records and cited references) for subsequent data analysis.

Main research methods

The bibliometric method was used to conduct scientific research cooperation analysis on the literature. This took the form of analysis of cooperation between publishing authors, publishing institutions, and countries (regions); co-citation analysis, including citation analysis of documents, authors, and journals; and cluster analysis of the literature and keywords.

Collaborative analysis focuses on how researchers work together to produce new scientific knowledge [ 38 ]. A bibliometric approach analyzes joint research in a research field in terms of collaborative networks among authors, institutions, and countries.

Co-citation analysis [ 39 ] involves comparing lists of citations in the SSCI and counting the entries to determine the co-citation frequency of two scientific papers. This generates a network of co-cited papers for specific scientific disciplines. Clusters of co-cited papers provide new ideas for the professional structure of research science and new methods for index and SDI configuration file creation.

Co-occurrence analysis quantifies information in various information carriers, and is generally used to reveal the hidden meaning of the co-occurrence of keywords and topics. Keyword co-occurrence analysis can clarify the structure of scientific knowledge and is an effective way to identify research hotspots and discover researchtrends [ 17 ].

Cluster analysis depends on clustering, the process of dividing a set of objects into groups. Each element in a cluster has a high degree of similarity, whereas the degree of difference between different clusters is high [ 35 ]. Professor Chen has pointed out that in CiteSpace, the cluster labels are all from the document where the citation is located, and the extraction is performed by extracting the title or abstract or keyword in the cited document [ 40 ].

This section considers three topics: (1) publishing volume analysis, to better understand the number of published articles; (2) collaboration analysis, to identify relationships among authors, academic institutions, and countries; and (3) co-citation analysis, to determine which scholars and academic journals are most influential.

Publishing volume analysis

To gain a preliminary understanding of the overall development trend in cultural heritage tourism from 2002 to 2022, we searched SSCI for cultural heritage tourism publications in the past 21 years. The search results are shown in Fig.  1 . The literature on global cultural heritage tourism shows that over the period the number of publications followed an upward trend with slight fluctuations. In 2002, only one article on cultural heritage tourism was published; it took the form of an empirical study of the willingness to protect and develop cultural heritage sites in western Kenya, with an exploration of how to develop and plan cultural heritage tourism [ 41 ]. Subsequent international cultural heritage tourism research can be divided into three phases. The first phase, from 2002 to 2007, is one of slow growth. Although the number of published papers was relatively low, with four papers or fewer each year, the overall trend was on the rise. Reflecting the fact that global cultural heritage tourism research was still in its infancy at this stage, only scholars in a small number of countries with substantial cultural heritage carried out research. The second stage, from 2008 to 2016, was one of stable growth. The number of articles published continued to increase, indicating that researchers around the world were beginning to realize the importance of developing cultural heritage tourism for economic growth and cultural protection, and beginning to get involved in cultural heritage tourism research. The third stage, from 2014 to 2022, was one of rapid growth, with 173 research papers published in 2021 alone. This indicates that cultural heritage tourism is receiving the attention of global researchers from different disciplinary backgrounds and different perspectives.

Annual distribution of cultural heritage tourism research publications from 2002 to 2022

Cooperation analysis

Authors and author collaboration.

The number of papers published by an author in a research field reflects that author’s core position in the field. The co-occurrence of the co-authors of a paper reflects the strength of their cooperation in the research field. By selecting the node type column of the CiteSpace 5.8.R2 software, the time period 2002–2022, and the “go” cluster, we obtained a map of collaborations between authors. Taking into account the overall publication volume of cultural heritage tourism, according to Price’s law, the core authors in the field of cultural heritage tourism should have at least the number of publications. The calculation formula is as follows:

where N1 is the minimum number of papers that the core author should publish, and Nmax is the number of papers published by the author with the most papers in this research field [ 42 ]. According to the search, the author with the largest number of papers in the field of cultural heritage tourism is Zhang Mu, with a total of seven papers (N1 = 0.749*(7)1/2 = 1.982), and the number of publications by the core authors in cultural heritage tourism is two or more. A total of 51 authors published two or more papers, yielding 122 papers and accounting for 16.05% of the papers published in the field of cultural heritage tourism. Comparison with the core author group, which should account for 50% of the total published papers in the research field, indicates that there is still a big gap. Thus, the results show that global cultural heritage tourism research has begun to take shape but that a stable core author group has not yet formed.

The most authors have conducted academic research independently and have weak cooperative relationships. Nevertheless, small cooperative groups can be identified. For example, Zhang Mu has cooperated with Rob Law on a number of articles (including “Using Content Analysis to Probe the Cognitive Image of Intangible Cultural Heritage Tourism: An Exploration of Chinese Social Media”; “From Religious Belief to Intangible Cultural Heritage Tourism: A Case Study of Mazu Belief”; “Resident-Tourist Value Co-Creation in the Intangible Cultural Heritage Tourism Context: The Role of Residents’ Perception of Tourism Development and Emotional Solidarity”; and “Sustainability of Heritage Tourism: A Structural Perspective from Cultural Identity and Consumption Intention”), which indicates a relatively close partnership [ 42 , 44 , 45 , 46 ]. The relationship between authors in such cases is usually a teacher–student relationship, but may also be a relationship of belonging to the same institution.

The greater the betweenness centrality of a node in the network, the greater the role it plays in communication among other nodes [ 47 ]. In Table 2 , the centrality of each author in the field of cultural heritage tourism is 0. This confirms that the cooperation between authors in the field of cultural heritage tourism is low and needs to be strengthened [ 48 ].

Issuing organizations

A comprehensive grasp of which institutions are involved in cultural heritage tourism research helps to clarify the general situation of cultural heritage tourism research and international cooperation between institutions. Therefore, this study carried out an institution-based search in CiteSpace 5.8.R2. Taking the institution as the network node, 369 nodes were generated, representing 369 core research institutions in the field of cultural heritage tourism research. These core research institutions feature in many core collaborative networks (Table 3 ).

From 2002 to 2022, the research field of cultural heritage tourism involved 369 major researchinstitutions. Of these institutions, 11 published five or more papers, accounting for 10.68%of the total number of papers published. Hong Kong Polytech University published the largestnumber of papers (1.86% of the total), followed by University of Cordoba, the Chinese Acadmy of Sciences, Kyung Hee University, and University of Extremadura. Three institutions, Hon Kong Polytech University, Jinan University, and Australian National University, had the strongest centrality (0.01), indicating that they have a strong influence in the field of cultural heritage tourism research. Sun Yat Sen University and Griffith University have also published many papers.

Countries and regions

To understand the cooperation between countries and the influence of countries in the field of cultural heritage tourism, this study used the country option through the node type of CiteSpace 5.8.R2 software to obtain the national cooperation map from 2002 to 2022. Using the social network analysis function of CiteSpace software, we explored the social network relationships of different countries and regions, which directly reflects the cooperation between them, and on that basis we identified differences in their degree of influence [ 49 ].

The cluster map reflects structural features, highlighting key nodes and important connections. Each node in the network diagram represents a country (or region), and the connecting line represents the cooperation between two countries; the thicker the line, the closer the cooperation. The size of the annual ring indicates the number of publications; the larger the annual ring, the more publications. The graph generated 84 nodes and 264 connecting lines, indicating that from 2002 to 2022 the authors who published literature related to cultural heritage tourism came from 84 countries. The network density cooperation of different countries on cultural heritage tourism is 0.0757. China is the country that has published the most research papers in the field of cultural heritage (125), accounting for 16.45% of the total number of documents, more than any other country. Spain, Italy, the United States, the United Kingdom, and Australia follow, accounting for 12.50%, 11.84%, 10.00%, 8.68%, and 7.11%, respectively. Centrality refers to the importance of a node in a network (Table 4 ); the higher the correlation between each node, the higher its centrality and the more important the node is in the field. The centrality values for Italy and the United States are 0.34 and 0.26, respectively, indicating that Italy and the United States have had more cooperation with other countries in the field of cultural heritage tourism. Although China had a higher number of papers, its centrality was lower (0.07), which suggests that its cooperation with other countries in cultural heritage tourism research has been relatively weak.

Co-citation analysis

To understand author and journal status systematically, we selected the “cited author” and “cited journal” options in the node type column of CiteSpace 5.8.R2 software and set the time to 2002–2022. We thus obtained the network graphs of cited authors and academic journals summarized in Tables 5 and 6 . Through analysis of journal co-citations, a knowledge base of a research field can be obtained.

The three most cited authors are UNESCO (cited 129 times), E. Cohen (cited 90 times),andRICHARDS G(cited 87 times). The most cited journal is Annals of Tourism Research, with 441 citations and impact factors for 2018, 2019, and 2020 of 5.493, 5.908, and 9.011, respectively. Tourism Management, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, Sustainability, and Journal of Travel Research follow, with 433, 202, 191, and 169 citations, respectively. The specific rankings of different influential authors and journals are given in Tables 5 and 6 .

Keyword co-occurrence analysis

As Professor Chen has pointed out, analyzing keywords is the most suitable means to identify the evolution of this research field and related research hotspots and fronts [ 35 ]. In the following analysis, keywords are analyzed using CiteSpace 5.8.R2 to generate keyword co-occurrence maps, time zone maps, and cluster maps.

Co-occurrence analysis of high-frequency keywords can reveal research hotspots in the field of cultural heritage tourism [ 50 ]. Figure  2 gives the keyword co-occurrence map of cultural heritage tourism research keywords from 2002 to 2022, obtained by merging overlapping keywords while removing search terms. The five most frequent keywords with high centrality are authenticity (frequency = 90, centrality = 0.15), attitude (frequency = 28, centrality = 0.13), conservation (frequency = 57, centrality = 0.08), identity (frequency = 36, centrality = 0.08), and China (frequency = 46, centrality = 0.05). By applying criteria based on frequency and betweenness centrality [ 51 ], five research hotspots were extracted: authenticity, attitude, identity, conservation, and China. The following subsections consider these five hotspots in relation to articles by key scholars around the world.

Co-occurrence map of keywords in cultural heritage tourism research

Authenticity

Authenticity is recognized by a wide range of research scholars as a universal value that drives people to leave familiar regions and travel to far-flung places [ 52 ]. Authenticity research is essential for tourism in general and for heritage tourism in particular [ 53 , 54 ]. The premise of protection is the maintenance of the authenticity of cultural heritage, which means avoiding overemphasis on economic value [ 55 ]. At present, the research hotspots of authenticity in the field of cultural heritage tourism focus on the following two aspects: what authenticity is [ 56 , 57 , 58 ], that is, the basic concept of authenticity, and what effect the authenticity of cultural heritage has on cultural heritage tourism [ 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 ] that is, whether authenticity can promote cultural heritage tourism. Authenticity is a concept that does not appear in UNESCO’s intangible cultural heritage (ICH) discourse, but is emphasized in the official Chinese ICH discourse [ 63 ]. Since authenticity is a complex concept, it has different manifestations [ 64 ], and the inability of heritage managers to adopt a holistic approach to shaping the meaning of authenticity has resulted in inadequate definitions of the concept [ 56 ]. In recent years, some scholars have tried to establish an inclusive and comprehensive concept of authenticity, focusing on the perspective of tourists and on the materiality and immateriality of cultural heritage [ 65 , 66 ]. Other scholars have considered authenticity in terms of subjectivity and objectivity. For example, Junjie Su proposed through empirical research that heritage practitioners describe the ability to create substantial object-related value through subjective authenticity. This approach illustrates how subjective authenticity can overcome the inappropriateness of materialism or objective authenticity [ 57 ]. In terms of the impact of authenticity on heritage tourism, most scholars focus on the psychological perception or behavior of consumers, such as satisfaction, engagement [ 59 ], and perceived value [ 62 ]. In exploring the relationship between authenticity and consumer psychology or behavioral intention, the empirical results show that authenticity has a significant impact on consumers’ psychological perceptions.

Attitude is the psychological perceptions of consumers under the combined action of various internal and external factors such as tourism product quality or the tourism environment, and is an important predictor of behavior. In the field of cultural heritage attitude, the focus of research has been on the effect of individual characteristics on cultural heritage tourism and how to enhance consumer tourism attitudes. Kastenholz et al. identified three categories of outcomes with multiple behavioral attitudes that affect sustainability: in their study, one group showed a greater focus on the environment and cultural heritage, a second group showed the most sustainable behaviors overall, while a third group reported less sustainable behaviors globally [ 67 ]. Some scholars have carried out research from the perspective of residents of cultural heritage tourism destinations, for example by adopting a normative framework of values and beliefs to measure the intentions of Carthaginians to support sustainable cultural heritage tourism [ 68 , 69 ]. In addition, scholars conducting empirical research on the internal and external factors that affect consumers’ tourism attitudes have concluded that perception control, tourism experience, and cultural tourism participation can strengthen tourists’ attitudes to cultural heritage tourism [ 25 ]. Attitude is an important issue for both tourists and residents of heritage sites. The question of how to enhance the attitude of tourists in cultural heritage sites while also strengthening the attachment of the residents to the cultural heritage of their hometown is fundamental to the ongoing protection of cultural heritage [ 70 ].

Conservation

Since the formulation and adoption of the World Heritage Convention in 1972, the protection of cultural heritage has attracted worldwide attention. Cultural heritage conservation can determine the cultural connotation of tourism to a certain extent, and it constitutes the internal demand for the development of in-depth tourism. Given the special role of fragile and non-renewable cultural heritage in modern tourism, there are particular issues facing the protection of cultural heritage [ 71 ]. Since cultural heritage is the vehicle for a deep integration of culture and tourism [ 70 ], it should be afforded special protection.

Current research hotspots can be divided into two categories, the first of which focuses on macro-level cultural heritage protection planning and measures. Snowball and Courtney have argued that protecting cultural heritage is a challenge for developing countries, more and more of which are linking small sites of mainly local significance into a heritage route and selling them as a package. However, this may actually have non-market value in protecting cultural capital, which will not only fail to generate economic value in the short term but may also endanger the sustainability of cultural heritage protection [ 72 ]. In this connection, scholars have taken the Saida Cultural Heritage and Urban Development (CHUD) project in Lebanon as a case study for analyzing the role of the tourism pathway approach in achieving sustainable urban development in historic areas [ 73 ]. The focus of the second category is the construction of cultural heritage evaluation indicators. Against the background of sustainable development, some scholars have drawn on culture-led regeneration projects to propose an evaluation index system capable of assessing the multidimensional benefits of cultural landscape conservation or appreciation, with a focus on the relationship between the tourism sector and climate change [ 74 ]. Other scholars have assessed cultural heritage risks. For example, in view of the risks to cultural and natural heritage, a landscape risk assessment (LRA) model and landscape decision support system (LDSS) have been developed through the MedScapes-ENPI project [ 75 ].

Identity is a research hotspot in the field of cultural heritage because identity can enhance the cultural confidence of heritage residents in cultural heritage, maintain cultural heritage, and promote local social and economic development while enhancing people’s national pride [ 51 ]. This hotspot emphasizes that in the development of cultural heritage tourism, tourists and local residents reach a common cognitive basis for cultural heritage through cultural identity, which guides tourists to consume and promotes national brand building [ 76 ]. For example, to encourage the continuous development of cultural heritage tourism [ 46 ] and to facilitate the formation of identity, Carnegie suggests reenacting cultural historical events [ 77 ]. In recounting the past and present of cultural heritage, it is helpful for the cultural heritage industry and tourists to understand the issues of authenticity and identity in the production and consumption of postmodern cultural heritage attractions [ 77 ]. In addition, Tian found that shaping the identity of tourists to Celadon Town, a classic scenic spot of ICH in Zhejiang Province, China, improved tourist satisfaction and loyalty to the destination [ 78 ].

Since China signed the World Heritage Convention in 1985, its contribution to world heritage has developed rapidly. As of July 25, 2021, the total number of world heritage sites in China had increased to 56, and the number of natural heritage sites had increased to 14. In terms of natural heritage sites, China ranks first in the world, making it a veritable center of heritage. As a result, the types of cultural heritage tourism found in China are diverse [ 79 ], providing research objects for cultural heritage research in different fields. The focus of studies on China has been to seek innovative means of developing high-quality cultural heritage tourism and of leading the development of global cultural heritage tourism [ 80 ]. Wang noted that tourism heritage has been destroyed during urban reconstruction in China [ 81 ], creating an urgent need to identify key stakeholders capable of meeting the responsibility to protect [ 81 ]. However, Yan and Bramwell argued that each country is in a unique position to determine how its cultural heritage should be used for tourism. It follows that, in response to the increasingly tense and unstable relationship between the traditional cultural activities of tourist sites and Chinese society, the Chinese government should streamline administration and delegate power in order to protect the cultural heritage [ 82 ].

Keyword time zone analysis

The time zone map generated by CiteSpace 5.8.R2 software shows the evolution of research hotspots over time. As shown in Fig.  3 , this study divides the evolutionary process of cultural heritage tourism research into three stages, each of which is discussed in conjunction with representative articles and key events of the time.

Time zone perspective of cultural heritage tourism research, 2002 to 2022

First stage (2002–2007)

Cultural Heritage Protection. As Fig.  3 shows, the high-frequency keywords related to the first stage include cultural heritage tourism, sustainable, conflict, authenticity, and China. This indicates that the most obvious features of cultural heritage tourism in this period are cultural heritage protection and sustainable development, an outcome that is jointly determined by a number of factors. First, in 1992, the World Heritage Headquarters was established in Paris to be responsible for the coordination of world heritage-related activities, ensuring the implementation of the Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage and taking urgent action on threatened heritage. Then, on October 17, 2003, the 32nd General Conference of UNESCO adopted the Convention for the Safeguarding of Intangible Cultural Heritage. In the wake of these developments, more and more researchers began to pay attention to the field of cultural heritage [ 51 ], and this marked a new stage in the protection of human cultural heritage. In 2002, the 16th National Congress of the Communist Party of China (16th NCCPC), adopted continuous enhancement of the capacity for sustainable development as part of the overall goal of building a moderately prosperous society in China. Since 2006, the Chinese government has designated the second Saturday of every June as Cultural Heritage Day. In this context, Chinese academia has finally reached a consensus on cultural heritage and sustainable development. Cultural heritage and the natural environment on which it depends are the concentrated carriers of the cultural essence of all ethnic groups in the world, the precious wealth left to people by human ancestors, and a non-renewable precious resource. The development and utilization of cultural heritage by human beings should proceed under the premise of maintaining the authenticity and integrity of that heritage. In order not to damage the ecological balance and sustainable development capacity of the natural system, we must adhere to the path of sustainable development of cultural heritage [ 83 ].

Second stage (2008–2013)

Comprehensive Development of Cultural Heritage. As Fig.  3 shows, the related high-frequency keywords in the second stage include management, ecosystem, policy, landscape, community archaeology, agriculture, climate change, and tourism development. This indicates that the comprehensive development of cultural heritage and tourism industry emerged during the second stage. The present study offers two possible explanations for this emergence. On the one hand, with the development of social economy, environmental problems are becoming more serious, the tide of global warming is surging, and environmental problems are prominent on a global scale. In order to address environmental problems and promote the harmonious coexistence of man and nature, researchers began to explore green development models and paid more and more attention to cultural heritage, especially the economic, social, and ecological value and unity of cultural heritage in agriculture [ 84 ]. At the same time, there were attempts to link ecological structure and function with cultural values and interests through cultural ecosystem services, thereby facilitating communication between scientists and stakeholders [ 85 ]. On the other hand, steps were being taken to use archaeological knowledge to improve people’s attitudes to cultural heritage, to mobilize relevant individuals and groups to protect and preserve the cultural heritage of all mankind, and to understand the value of the past in order to avoid the tragic loss caused by the destruction of cultural heritage resources. As a result, more and more researchers became involved in community archaeology research [ 85 , 86 ] As a new practice of archaeology and a new way of managing cultural heritage, the concept remained original, unbalanced, and pluralistic [ 87 ].

Third stage (2014–Present)

Consumer Behavior in Cultural Heritage Tourism. Figure  3 shows that the high-frequency keywords related to the third stage include behavior, perception value, customer satisfaction, motivation, consumption, place attachment, involvement, and consumer-based model. This reflects the fact that consumer behavior has become the most popular research in the field of cultural heritage tourism, followed by customer satisfaction [ 88 ], perception value [ 89 , 90 ], place attachment [ 91 ], consumer perceived trust [ 92 ], and other psychological perspectives. It is precisely because of the interdisciplinary integration of psychology and management that widespread use has been made of consumer behavior as a perspective on business and tourism research, and that it has also become an important factor in the field of cultural heritage tourism research.

Keyword cluster analysis

Using CiteSpace 5.8.R2 software, the keywords were clustered and divided into topics. Through the CiteSpace clustering function, using keywords to extract information and using the logarithm likelihood ratio statistic (LLR) as the calculation method, 13 valid clustering labels were obtained (Silhouette > 0.5). After removing clusters with the same words as subject headings and a small number of articles, the first five clusters were selected for analysis. The results, which are shown in Fig.  4 and Table 7 , include #0 Tourist satisfaction, #2 Rural development, #3 Cultural heritage management, #5 Stakeholders, and #8 China. The size of each cluster is determined by the number of articles it contains. To better interpret the clustering results, data have been selected at random as examples for each cluster.

Keyword clustering map in cultural heritage tourism research. Note: Q = 0.4552 (> 0.3) indicates that the cluster map is significant. The value of Silhouette = 0.722 (> 0.7) reflects that the results are credible

#0 Tourist satisfaction. As shown in Fig.  4 and Table 7 , tourism satisfaction has attracted the attention of scholars since 2016. Research on tourism satisfaction has focused on the application of empirical analysis methods. For example, in order to explore whether tourism commercialization can have a positive impact on tourists’ perceptions of authenticity and satisfaction in the context of cultural heritage tourism, Zhang et al. used partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) to conduct empirical analysis on 618 valid questionnaires collected to explore the relationship between variables [ 93 ]. To clarify the links between local community participation (LCP), authenticity, access to local products, destination image, tourist satisfaction and tourist loyalty, Jebbouri et al. conducted a survey of 406 respondents who visited Kaiping City, Guangdong Province, China, and tested their hypotheses empirically tested using moment structural analysis [ 94 ].

#2 Rural development. Research on rural development has focused on protection practices in relation to agricultural cultural heritage [ 95 ]. Some scholars have conducted case studies on the impact of cultural heritage on rural development. For example, Egusquiza et al. summarized the results of an analysis of data collected in 20 case studies to develop a multilevel database of best practices for extension in rural areas with common characteristics [ 96 ]. Meanwhile, Sardaro et al. conducted a case study on a collaborative approach to conservation of the most representative historic rural building types in Apulia, southern Italy, to identify successful conservation and management strategies [ 97 ]. Rautio investigated ethnic minority villages in Southwest China that have recently experienced a dramatic increase in cultural heritage. He argued that with the development of China’s new rural development policy and tourism, villages are being transformed into heritage sites that can protect the beauty of the countryside and the nation [ 98 ].

#3 Cultural heritage management. As Fig.  4 and Table 7 show, the theme of cultural heritage management has attracted the attention of scholars since 2016, and has become an important focus of academic research. Some scholars have concluded that a hybrid approach that unifies the fields of heritage management and sustainable tourism can realize the social value of heritage and sustainable tourism [ 99 ]. However, issues of low quality and vaguely defined management of cultural heritage sites persist. In this connection, Carbone et al. explored cultural heritage managers’ perceptions of quality and used a mix of quantitative and qualitative methods to identify four types of cultural heritage managers: reactive, silent, pragmatic, and enthusiastic [ 100 ].

#5 Stakeholders. As Fig.  4 and Table 7 show, the topic of stakeholders has attracted the attention of scholars since 2015. Research on stakeholders has focused on the relationship between people and cultural heritage. For example,Manyane drew on stakeholder theory and sustainability thinking to argue that rethinking the increasingly complex nature of borders and cultural heritage can enrich the supply of eco-culture based on a better understanding of cross-border rural tourism opportunities [ 101 ]. Ji et al. focused on the Grand Canal, which was designated as a World Heritage Site in 2014, applying stakeholder theory to explore how residents and non-residents may have different perceptions of the value and meaning of cultural heritage [ 102 ].

#8 China. As Fig.  4 and Table 7 show, China has become an important research object of cultural heritage tourism research. This is in line with the results of the keyword co-occurrence analysis, and reflects China’s vast and rich historical and cultural heritage [ 103 ]. In recent years, with the improvement of China’s comprehensive strength, the Chinese government has paid more attention to the ongoing protection, development, and utilization of cultural heritage. Cultural heritage protection sites have been established, providing a wide range of research objects for researchers in the field. At the same time, with the rapid development of China’s economy, now the second-largest in the world, the per capita income of Chinese residents has increased significantly, providing more potential customer groups for cultural heritage tourism [ 104 ]. With this rapid development of tourism resources and the tourism economy, the contradiction between economic growth and cultural heritage has become increasingly prominent [ 81 ]. Accordingly, exploring how to maintain China’s economic growth while protecting its cultural heritage is the mainstream of current research.

Trends in cultural heritage tourism research

In CiteSpace, emerging words are keywords that increase rapidly in a given period of time. Research fronts are concepts and research directions that are constantly emerging and that represent frontier issues in the research field. Therefore, in the present study, mutation analysis of cultural heritage tourism keywords is an important indicator of the research frontier of a topic. In general, emerging keywords represent dynamic new directions in cultural heritage tourism research. In order to capture objectively the latest research frontier characteristics of cultural heritage tourism, we used the CiteSpace 5.8.R2 software settings for “keyword” to “node types”. The resulting knowledge map of keyword mutation rates identifies mutated words that began to appear from 2002 to 2022, generating a total of six knowledge maps of cultural heritage tourism keyword sequences. As Fig.  5 shows, these are cultural tourism, tourism development, heritage, museum, technology, and satisfaction.

Top 6 emerging keywords in cultural heritage tourism research, 2002 to 2020

In the field of cultural heritage tourism research, cultural tourism, heritage tourism, and tourism development have long been a focus. Understanding how to promote the experience of local culture in cultural heritage tourism is an important prerequisite for ensuring the long-term healthy development of cultural heritage tourism. In this connection, Chang et al. considered the natural tourist attractions, unique cultural performances, and diverse heritage goods that diverse indigenous communities offer. They applied a model of creative destruction to explore the impact of these developments on the Ainu community in Hokkaido, Japan [ 105 ].

The keywords of cultural heritage tourism changed abruptly in 2016. Museum, technology, and satisfaction became the latest keywords in cultural heritage tourism research. These keywords characterize the cutting-edge research of cultural heritage tourism, which indicates that scholars have been focusing on the impact of museum tourism, technology tourism, and consumer satisfaction on cultural heritage tourism. It also shows that with advances in science and technology, virtual reality technology has received more attention in the field of cultural heritage tourism [ 106 , 107 , 108 ]. Meanwhile, Dominguez-Quintero confirmed the direct and indirect effects of variable authenticity on satisfaction in its dual perspectives (objective and existential authenticity) in the context of cultural heritage tourism [ 61 ]. The present findings also shed light on the mediating role of quality of experience on authenticity and satisfaction.

Discussion and conclusion

In this study, the visual analysis software CiteSpace 5.8.R2 was used to carry out bibliometric analysis. Analysis of 805 papers on cultural heritage tourism research in the Web of Science SSCI from 2002 to 2022 yielded a visual network analysis graph that includes the distribution of published articles, the co-analysis of published authors, publishing institutions and countries, the co-citation analysis of published authors and published journals, keyword co-occurrence analysis, keyword time zone map analysis, keyword clustering graph analysis, and keyword emergence analysis. The conclusions can be grouped into four main themes.

First, in terms of the number of published papers, and according to the changes over time and in the number of publications, international cultural heritage tourism research from 2002 to 2022 falls into three stages: a slow growth stage (2002–2007), a stable growth stage (2008–2016), and a rapid growth stage (2017–2022). The overall trend is upward. This trend also indirectly proves the reliability of Zhang and Xu et al. 's views that cultural heritage tourism, as a typical practice of cultural and tourism integration, has attracted wide attention in recent years [ 109 , 110 ].

Second, in terms of cooperation analysis, there are several main researchers in cultural heritage tourism research; Zhang Mu [ 43 ], Timothy J Lee [ 111 ], LI XI [ 112 ], Jose Alvarez-Garcia [ 113 ], and Rob Law [ 7 ] have played an important role in research on international cultural heritage tourism, although no core network has yet formed. At the level of issuing institutions, a network of research institutions on cultural heritage tourism can be identified. These include Hong Kong Polytech University, the Chinese Academy of Sciences, Jinan University, Sun Yat Sen University, and City University Macau, although no core research network has yet been formed. At the national level, research on cultural heritage tourism has attracted the attention of scholars from all over the world. China, Spain, Italy, the United States, and the United Kingdom have played an important role in the development of cultural heritage tourism research. Although Chinese scholars have published the largest number of papers in the world, their centrality is low. The centrality of Italian scholars, who have published the third-largest number of papers, ranks first in the world. This finding shows indirectly that Chinese scholars in the field of cultural heritage tourism should strengthen their international cooperation and improve their international influence [ 30 ].

Third, in terms of co-citation analysis, since 2002, papers of UNESCO have been cited 129 times, and papers by E Cohen have been cited 90 times. Annals of Tourism Research is the most cited journal, with 441 citations and impact factors of 5.493, 5.908, and 9.011 for the years 2018–2020, respectively. Tourism Management, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, Sustainability, and Journal of Travel Research follow, with 433, 202, 191, and 169 citations respectively. The Research results indirectly indicate that the authors such as UNESCO and journals such as Annals of Tourism Research have made important contributions to the study of rich cultural heritage tourism.

Fourth, in terms of research hotspots, as with most research hotspots, the evolution of cultural heritage tourism research is mainly influenced by politics, culture, ecology and technology. However, this study argues that the question of how to achieve sustainable development has been the central concern of cultural heritage tourism in the past, which can be attributed to the non-renewable nature of cultural heritage. Furthermore, this research result further supports the notion that achieving sustainable development goals is an essential task in tourism studies [ 114 ]. It requires striking a balance between the economic, environmental, and social needs of all stakeholders involved [ 115 ]. In addition, the consumer behavior of cultural heritage tourism is an issue that needs to be further explored in the context of interdisciplinary integration [ 116 ]. Whether it is possible for heritage residents [ 24 ] or tourists [ 117 ] to accept the development and utilization of cultural heritage, and whether they can preserve local culture through cultural heritage tourism experience is an area that needs further in-depth research. A finding that is perhaps surprising is that tourist satisfaction is at the forefront of cultural heritage tourism research [ 92 ]. One explanation is that with improvements in living standards, demand for cultural heritage tourism has gradually increased, which requires corresponding improvements in the provision of quality services within cultural heritage tourism. This echoes the conclusions of Atsbha et al. that heritage tourism should provide a reasonable level of visitor satisfaction and must ensure that it provides them with an important experience [ 53 ]. At the same time, this study finds that rural development [ 95 ], cultural heritage management [ 100 ], and stakeholders [ 102 ] are receiving more and more attention from scholars in the field of cultural heritage tourism. In particular, the countryside has a large amount of cultural heritage [ 118 ]. One focus of current research is how to realize the rational distribution of stakeholders’ resources through effective management methods that take into account the economic, social, cultural, and ecological value of cultural heritage to rural development [ 97 ]. China has more than 5,000 years of history and world-renowned cultural heritage [ 119 ]. How to combine China's economic development with cultural heritage protection is also the mainstream issue of current research [ 87 ]. Another research trend concerns museum tourism and science and technology tourism as new forms of cultural heritage tourism, which indicates that cultural heritage tourism has transformed from traditional tourism to in-depth tourism. At present, with the rapid progress of science and technology, the rise of virtual tourism will open new ideas for cultural heritage tourism [ 120 ]. How to improve tourist satisfaction in cultural heritage tourism is an important new trend in global cultural heritage tourism research; this study suggests that promoting museum tourism and technology tourism can give tourists a better tourism experience, thereby improving consumer satisfaction.

This study provides cultural heritage tourism researchers with a quantitative, bibliometric review of the cultural heritage tourism literature. The results offer a deeper understanding of the development and evolution of the global cultural heritage tourism field from 2002 to 2022. The conclusions are basically consistent with those of other scholars in this field. However, the novelty of this study is threefold: the finding that China is a research object with great research potential and research value; the identification of the deep integration of cultural heritage tourism and technology, as well as cultural heritage tourism and museums, as the main trend in the development of cultural heritage tourism development; and the clarification that consumer behavior will remain the focus of research in the field of cultural heritage tourism for a long time to come. This raises the question of how to enhance the identity and perceived value of heritage residents and tourists by improving the authenticity and sustainability of cultural heritage tourism. The answers lie in providing consumers with satisfying travel experiences, thereby guiding heritage tourism toward a balance of consumption and the protection of the heritage and heritage residents.

This is the first English-language study to analyze cultural heritage tourism systematically and comprehensively using the SSCI database and bibliometric analysis methods. The results provide insights into cultural heritage tourism, giving researchers valuable information and new perspectives on potential collaborators, hotspots, and future research directions. In addition, by emphasizing the importance of cultural heritage tourism as an issue of concern around the world, it provides a more comprehensive perspective from which scholars from all over the world can conduct research into cultural heritage tourism. Its findings can be used as a reference on an international scale, especially in developing countries with rich cultural heritage resources and large populations.

However, this study has some limitations that should be noted. Because the data are taken from the SSCI database, the results apply only to humanities and social sciences research and cannot be generalized to other disciplines, especially science, engineering, and ecology. Different disciplines have their own databases, and it is therefore recommended that further research be conducted to compare and analyze results across disciplines.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets used and analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

UNESCO. UNESCO convention for the protection of the world cultural and natural heritage. Int Leg Mater. 1972;11(6):1358–66.

Article   Google Scholar  

Russo AP. The “vicious circle” of tourism development in heritage cities. Ann Tourism Res. 2002;29(1):28–48.

Lee S, Phau I, Hughes M, Li YF, Quintal V. Heritage tourism in Singapore Chinatown: a perceived value approach to authenticity and satisfaction. J Travel Tour Mark. 2016;33(7):981–98. https://doi.org/10.1080/10548408.2015.1075459 .

Ji F, Wang F, Wu B. How does virtual tourism involvement impact the social education effect of cultural heritage? J Destin Mark Manage. 2023;28:100779. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdmm.2023.100779 .

Edwards JR. The UK heritage coasts: an assessment of the ecological impacts of tourism. Ann Tourism Res. 1987;14(1):71–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/0160-7383(87)90048-X .

Poria Y, Butler R, Airey D. The core of heritage tourism. Ann Tourism Res. 2003;30(1):238–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0160-7383(02)00064-6 .

Lan TN, Zheng ZY, Tian D, Zhang R, Law R, Zhang M. Resident-tourist value co-creation in the intangible cultural heritage tourism context: the role of residents’ perception of tourism development and emotional solidarity. Sustainability-Basel. 2021;13(3):1369. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13031369 .

Gu YQ. Evaluation of agricultural cultural heritage tourism resources based on grounded theory on example of ancient Torreya grandis in Kuaiji mountain. J Environ Prot Ecol. 2018;19(3):1193–9.

Google Scholar  

Gonzalez-Rodriguez MR, Diaz-Fernandez MC, Pino-Mejias MA. The impact of virtual reality technology on tourists’ experience: a textual data analysis. Soft Comput. 2020;24(18):13879–92. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-020-04883-y .

Rasoolimanesh SM, Seyfi S, Rather RA, Hall CM. Investigating the mediating role of visitor satisfaction in the relationship between memorable tourism experiences and behavioral intentions in heritage tourism context. Tour Rev. 2022;77(2):687–709. https://doi.org/10.1108/TR-02-2021-0086 .

Aas C, Ladkin A, Fletcher J. Stakeholder collaboration and heritage management. Ann Tourism Res. 2005;32(1):28–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2004.04.005 .

Ruiz Ballesteros E, Hernández RM. Identity and community—reflections on the development of mining heritage tourism in Southern Spain. Tour Manage. 2007;28(3):677–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2006.03.001 .

Yang C, Liu T. Social media data in urban design and landscape research: a comprehensive literature review. Land. 2022;11(10):1796. https://doi.org/10.3390/land11101796 .

Guo Y, Xu Z, Cai M, Gong W, Shen C. Epilepsy with suicide: a bibliometrics study and visualization analysis via citespace. Front Neurol. 2022;12:823474. https://doi.org/10.3389/fneur.2021.823474 .

Chen C. CiteSpace: a practical guide for mapping scientific literature. New York, NY: Nova Science Publishers; 2016.

Guan H, Huang T, Guo X. Knowledge mapping of tourist experience research: based on citespace analysis. SAGE Open. 2023;13(2):21582440231166844.

Su X, Li X, Kang Y. A bibliometric analysis of research on intangible cultural heritage using citespace. SAGE Open. 2019;9(2):2158244019840119. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244019840119 .

Yang S, Zhang L, Wang L. Key factors of sustainable development of organization: bibliometric analysis of organizational citizenship behavior. Sustainability. 2023;15(10):8261. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15108261 .

Zhang CX, Yang ZP. Coordinated development of cultural heritage protection and tourism development—take xinjiang as an example. Agro Food Industry Hi Tech. 2017;28(1):2851–4.

Dai TC, Zheng X, Yan J. Contradictory or aligned? The nexus between authenticity in heritage conservation and heritage tourism, and its impact on satisfaction. Habitat Int. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2020.102307 .

Su R, Bramwell B, Whalley PA. Cultural political economy and urban heritage tourism. Ann Tourism Res. 2018;68:30–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2017.11.004 .

Timothy DJ. Tourism and the personal heritage experience. Ann Tourism Res. 1997;24(3):751–4. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0160-7383(97)00006-6 .

Gannon M, Rasoolimanesh SM, Taheri B. Assessing the mediating role of residents’ perceptions toward tourism development. J Travel Res. 2021;60(1):149–71. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287519890926 .

Tian D, Wang QY, Law R, Zhang M. Influence of cultural identity on tourists’ authenticity perception, tourist satisfaction, and traveler loyalty. Sustainability-Basel. 2020;12(16):6344. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12166344 .

Jaafar M, Noor SM, Rasoolimanesh SM. Perception of young local residents toward sustainable conservation programmes: a case study of the lenggong world cultural heritage site. Tour Manage. 2015;48:154–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2014.10.018 .

Errichiello L, Micera R, Atzeni M, Del Chiappa G. Exploring the implications of wearable virtual reality technology for museum visitors’ experience: a cluster analysis. Int J Tour Res. 2019;21(5):590–605. https://doi.org/10.1002/jtr.2283 .

Ferretti V, Gandino E. Co-designing the solution space for rural regeneration in a new World Heritage site: a choice experiments approach. Eur J Oper Res. 2018;268(3):1077–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2017.10.003 .

Szromek AR, Herman K, Naramski M. Sustainable development of industrial heritage tourism—a case study of the industrial monuments route in Poland. Tour Manage. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2020.104252 .

Arnaboldi M, Spiller N. Actor-network theory and stakeholder collaboration: the case of cultural districts. Tour Manage. 2011;32(3):641–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2010.05.016 .

Olya HG, Shahmirzdi EK, Alipour H. Pro-tourism and anti-tourism community groups at a world heritage site in Turkey. Curr Issues Tour. 2019;22(7):763–85. https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2017.1329281 .

Gonzalez J, Alonso DO. Sustainable development goals in the Andalusian olive oil cooperative sector: heritage, innovation, gender perspective and sustainability. New Medit. 2022;21(2):31–42. https://doi.org/10.30682/nm2202c .

Russo AP. The “vicious circle” of tourism development in heritage cities. Ann Tourism Res. 2002;29(1):165–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0160-7383(01)00029-9 .

van der Borg J, Costa P, Gotti G. Tourism in European heritage cities. Ann Tourism Res. 1996;23(2):306–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/0160-7383(95)00065-8 .

Edwards JA, Coit JCL. Mines and quarries: industrial heritage tourism. Ann Tourism Res. 1996;23(2):341–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/0160-7383(95)00067-4 .

Russo AP, van der Borg J. Planning considerations for cultural tourism: a case study of four European cities. Tour Manage. 2002;23(6):631–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0261-5177(02)00027-4 .

Chen C. Mapping scientific frontiers: the quest for knowledge visualization. J Doc. 2003;59(3):364.

Chen CM. CiteSpace II: detecting and visualizing emerging trends and transient patterns in scientific literature. J Am Soc Inform Sci Technol. 2006;57(3):359–77. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.20317 .

Li X, Li H. A visual analysis of research on information security risk by using citespace. Ieee Access. 2018;6:63243–57. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2018.2873696 .

Katz JS, Martin BR. What is research collaboration? Res Policy. 1997;26(1):1–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(96)00917-1 .

Henry S. Co-citation in the scientific literature: a new measure of the relationship between two documents. J Am Soc Inform Sci. 1973;24(4):265–9. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.4630240406 .

Ondimu KI. Cultural tourism in Kenya. Ann Tourism Res. 2002;29(4):1036–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0160-7383(02)00024-5 .

Price DJ, Monaghan JJ. An energy-conserving formalism for adaptive gravitational force softening in SPH and N-body codes. Mon Not R Astron Soc. 2006;374(4):1347–58.

Qiu QH, Zhang M. Using content analysis to probe the cognitive image of intangible cultural heritage tourism: an exploration of Chinese social media. Isprs Int J Geo-Inf. 2021. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijgi10040240 .

Yao D, Zhang K, Wang L, Law R, Zhang M. From religious belief to intangible cultural heritage tourism: a case study of Mazu belief. Sustainability-Basel. 2020. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12104229 .

Yang J, Luo JM, Lai I. Construction of leisure consumer loyalty from cultural identity-a case of Cantonese opera. Sustainability-Basel. 2021;13(4):1980. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13041980 .

Zhang GG, Chen XY, Law R, Zhang M. Sustainability of heritage tourism: a structural perspective from cultural identity and consumption intention. Sustainability-Basel. 2020;12(21):9199. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12219199 .

Song HQ, Chen PW, Zhang YX, Chen YC. Study progress of important agricultural heritage systems (IAHS): a literature analysis. Sustainability-Basel. 2021;13(19):10859. https://doi.org/10.3390/su131910859 .

Freeman LC. Centrality in social networks conceptual clarification. Soc Netw. 1978;3(1):215–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-8733(78)90021-7 .

Chen C, Dubin R, Kim MC. Emerging trends and new developments in regenerative medicine: a scientometric update (2000–2014). Expert Opin Biol Th. 2014;14(9):1295.

Adabre MA, Chan A, Darko A. A scientometric analysis of the housing affordability literature. J Hous Built Environ. 2021;36(4):1501–33. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10901-021-09825-0 .

Dang Q, Luo ZM, Ouyang CH, Wang L, Xie M. Intangible cultural heritage in china: a visual analysis of research hotspots, frontiers, and trends using citespace. Sustainability-Basel. 2021;13(17):9865. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13179865 .

Kolar T, Zabkar V. A consumer-based model of authenticity: an oxymoron or the foundation of cultural heritage marketing? Tour Manage. 2010;31(5):652–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2009.07.010 .

Apostolakis A. The convergence process in heritage tourism. Ann Tour Res. 2003;30(4):795–812. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0160-7383(03)00057-4 .

Yeoman I, Brass D, Mcmahon-Beattie U. Current issue in tourism: the authentic tourist. Tour Manage. 2007;28(4):1128–38.

Song J. Cultural production and productive safeguarding of intangible cultural heritage. Cult Herit. 2012;1:5–157.

Farrelly F, Kock F, Josiassen A. Cultural heritage authenticity: a producer view. Ann Tourism Res. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2019.102770 .

Su JJ. Conceptualising the subjective authenticity of intangible cultural heritage. Int J Herit Stud. 2018;24(9):919–37. https://doi.org/10.1080/13527258.2018.1428662 .

Zhang Y, Lee TJ. Alienation and authenticity in intangible cultural heritage tourism production. Int J Tour Res. 2022;24(1):18–32. https://doi.org/10.1002/jtr.2478 .

Shen SY, Guo JY, Wu YY. Investigating the structural relationships among authenticity, loyalty, involvement, and attitude toward world cultural heritage sites: an empirical study of Nanjing Xiaoling tomb. China Asia Pac J Tour Res. 2014;19(1):103–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/10941665.2012.734522 .

Su JJ. A difficult integration of authenticity and intangible cultural heritage? The case of Yunnan, China. China Perspect. 2021;3:29–39.

Dominguez-Quintero AM, Gonzalez-Rodriguez MR, Paddison B. The mediating role of experience quality on authenticity and satisfaction in the context of cultural-heritage tourism. Curr Issues Tour. 2020;23(2):248–60. https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2018.1502261 .

Su X, Li X, Chen W, Zeng T. Subjective vitality, authenticity experience, and intangible cultural heritage tourism: an empirical study of the puppet show. J Travel Tour Mark. 2020;37(2):258–71.

Naqvi M, Jiang YS, Naqvi MH, Miao M, Liang CY, Mehmood S. The effect of cultural heritage tourism on tourist word of mouth: the case of Lok Versa Festival, Pakistan. Sustainability-Basel. 2018;10(7):2391. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10072391 .

Theodossopoulos D. Laying claim to authenticity: five anthropological dilemmas. Anthropol Quart. 2013;86(2):337–60. https://doi.org/10.1353/anq.2013.0032 .

Jones S, Yarrow T. Crafting authenticity: an ethnography of conservation practice. J Mat Cult. 2013;18(1):3–26. https://doi.org/10.1177/1359183512474383 .

Jones S, Jeffrey S, Maxwell M, Hale A, Jones C. 3D heritage visualisation and the negotiation of authenticity: the ACCORD project. Int J Herit Stud. 2018;24(4):333–53. https://doi.org/10.1080/13527258.2017.1378905 .

Kastenholz E, Eusebio C, Carneiro MJ. Segmenting the rural tourist market by sustainable travel behaviour: insights from village visitors in Portugal. J Destin Mark Manage. 2018;10:132–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdmm.2018.09.001 .

Jeon MM, Kang M, Desmarais E. Residents’ perceived quality of life in a cultural-heritage tourism destination. Appl Res Qual Life. 2016;11(1):105–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11482-014-9357-8 .

Shen SY, Schuttemeyer A, Braun B. Visitors’ intention to visit world cultural heritage sites: an empirical study of Suzhou, China. J Travel Tour Mark. 2009;26(7):722–34. https://doi.org/10.1080/10548400903284610 .

Li XY. Advantages and Countermeasures of the Development of China's Food Tourism Industry. In X Chu (Ed.) proceedings of the 2017 4th international conference on education, management and computing technology (ICEMCT 2017). 4th International Conference on Education, Management and Computing Technology (ICEMCT). 2017; 101: pp. 1118–1122.

Guisande AM. Urban impact of cultural tourism. In R Amoeda, S Lira, C Pinheiro (Eds.), Heritage 2010: heritage and sustainable development, VOLS 1 AND 2. 2nd International Conference on Heritage and Sustainable Development. 2010; 1061–1069.

Snowball JD, Courtney S. Cultural heritage routes in South Africa: effective tools for heritage conservation and local economic development? Dev So Afr. 2010;27(4):563–76. https://doi.org/10.1080/0376835X.2010.508589 .

Al-Hagla KS. Sustainable urban development in historical areas using the tourist trail approach: a case study of the cultural heritage and urban development (CHUD) project in Saida, Lebanon. Cities. 2010;27(4):234–48.

Nocca F. The role of cultural heritage in sustainable development: multidimensional indicators as decision-making tool. Sustainability-Basel. 2017;9(10):1882. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9101882 .

Trovato MG, Ali D, Nicolas J, El Halabi A, Meouche S. Landscape risk assessment model and decision support system for the protection of the natural and cultural heritage in the Eastern Mediterranean area. Land. 2017;6(4):76. https://doi.org/10.3390/land6040076 .

Nobre H, Sousa A. Cultural heritage and nation branding—multi stakeholder perspectives from Portugal. J Tour Cult Change. 2022;20(5):699–717. https://doi.org/10.1080/14766825.2021.2025383 .

Carnegie E, Mccabe S. Re-enactment events and tourism: meaning, authenticity and identity. Curr Issues Tour. 2008;11(4):349–68. https://doi.org/10.2167/cit0323.0 .

Tian D, Wang Q, Law R, Zhang M. Influence of cultural identity on tourists’ authenticity perception, tourist satisfaction, and traveler loyalty. Sustainability-Basel. 2020;12(16):6344.

Zhang J, Tang WY, Shi CY, Liu ZH, Wang X. Chinese calligraphy and tourism: from cultural heritage to landscape symbol and media of the tourism industry. Curr Issues Tour. 2008;11(6):529–48. https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500802475836 .

Crang M. Travelling ethics: valuing harmony, habitat and heritage while consuming people and places. Geoforum. 2015;67:194–203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2015.06.010 .

Wang RL, Liu G, Zhou JY, Wang JH. Identifying the critical stakeholders for the sustainable development of architectural heritage of tourism: from the perspective of China. Sustainability-Basel. 2019;11(6):1671. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11061671 .

Yan H, Bramwell B. Cultural tourism, ceremony and the state in China. Ann Tourism Res. 2008;35(4):969–89.

Giliberto F, Labadi S. Harnessing cultural heritage for sustainable development: an analysis of three internationally funded projects in MENA Countries. Int J Herit Stud. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1080/13527258.2021.1950026 .

Daugstad K, Rønningen K, et al. Agriculture as an upholder of cultural heritage? Conceptualizations and value judgements—A Norwegian perspective in international context. J Rural Stud. 2006. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2005.06.002 .

Chirikure S, Pwiti G. Community involvement in archaeology and cultural heritage management—an assessment from case studies in southern Africa and elsewhere. Curr Anthropol. 2008;49(3):467–85. https://doi.org/10.1086/588496 .

Mcgill D. The public’s archaeology: utilizing ethnographic methods to link public education with accountability in archaeological practice. J World Archaeol Congr. 2010;6(3):468–84. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11759-010-9151-7 .

Gheyle W, Dossche R, Bourgeois J, Stichelbaut B, Van Eetvelde V. Integrating archaeology and landscape analysis for the cultural heritage management of a world war I Militarised landscape: the German field defences in Antwerp. Landsc Res. 2014;39(5):502–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/01426397.2012.754854 .

Chung N, Lee H, Kim JY, Koo C. The role of augmented reality for experience-influenced environments: the case of cultural heritage tourism in Korea. J Travel Res. 2018;57(5):627–43. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287517708255 .

Verma A, Rajendran G. The effect of historical nostalgia on tourists’ destination loyalty intention: an empirical study of the world cultural heritage site—Mahabalipuram, India. Asia Pac J Tour Res. 2017;22(9):977–90. https://doi.org/10.1080/10941665.2017.1357639 .

Dieck M, Jung TH. Value of augmented reality at cultural heritage sites: a stakeholder approach. J Destin Mark Manage. 2017;6(2):110–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdmm.2017.03.002 .

Buonincontri P, Marasco A, Ramkissoon H. Visitors’ experience, place attachment and sustainable behaviour at cultural heritage sites: a conceptual framework. Sustainability-Basel. 2017;9(7):1112. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9071112 .

Taheri B, Gannon MJ, Kesgin M. Visitors’ perceived trust in sincere, authentic, and memorable heritage experiences. Serv Ind J. 2020;40(9–10):705–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/02642069.2019.1642877 .

Zhang TH, Yin P, Peng YX. Effect of commercialization on tourists’ perceived authenticity and satisfaction in the cultural heritage tourism context: case study of Langzhong Ancient city. Sustainability-Basel. 2021;13(12):6847. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13126847 .

Jebbouri A, Zhang HQ, Wang L, Bouchiba N. Exploring the relationship of image formation on tourist satisfaction and loyalty: evidence from China. Front Psychol. 2021;12:748534. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.748534 .

de Luca C, Lopez-Murcia J, Conticelli E, Santangelo A, Perello M, Tondelli S. Participatory process for regenerating rural areas through heritage-led plans: the RURITAGE community-based methodology. Sustainability-Basel. 2021;13(9):5212. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13095212 .

Egusquiza A, Zubiaga M, Gandini A, de Luca C, Tondelli S. Systemic innovation areas for heritage-led rural regeneration: a multilevel repository of best practices. Sustainability-Basel. 2021;13(9):5069. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13095069 .

Sardaro R, La Sala P, De Pascale G, Faccilongo N. The conservation of cultural heritage in rural areas: stakeholder preferences regarding historical rural buildings in Apulia, southern Italy. Land Use Policy. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lusepol.2021.105662 .

Rautio S. Material compromises in the planning of a ‘traditional village’ in Southwest China. Soc Anal. 2021;65(3):67–87. https://doi.org/10.3167/sa.2021.6503OF2 .

Dans EP, Gonzalez PA. Sustainable tourism and social value at World Heritage Sites: towards a conservation plan for Altamira, Spain. Ann Tourism Res. 2019;74:68–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2018.10.011 .

Carbone F, Oosterbeek L, Costa C, Ferreira AM. Extending and adapting the concept of quality management for museums and cultural heritage attractions: a comparative study of southern European cultural heritage managers’ perceptions. Tour Manag Perspect. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tmp.2020.100698 .

Manyane RM. Rethinking trans-boundary tourism resources at the Botswana-North West Province border. S Afr Geogr J. 2017;99(2):134–51. https://doi.org/10.1080/03736245.2016.1208579 .

Ji SY, Choi Y, Lee CK, Mjelde JW. Comparing willingness-to-pay between residents and non-residents using a contingent valuation method: case of the Grand Canal in China. Asia Pac J Tour Res. 2018;23(1):79–91. https://doi.org/10.1080/10941665.2017.1399919 .

Liu X, Zhu WS. Sustainability approaches to Chinese landscape architecture. Interdiscipl Sci Rev. 2021;46(4):689–702. https://doi.org/10.1080/03080188.2021.1897748 .

To WM, Lee P. China’s maritime economic development: a review, the future trend, and sustainability implications. Sustainability-Basel. 2018;10(12):4844. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10124844 .

Chang J, Su WY, Chang CC. The Creative Destruction of Ainu Community in Hokkaido, Japan. Asia Pac J Tour Res. 2011;16(5):505–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/10941665.2011.597576 .

Trunfio M, Campana S. A visitors’ experience model for mixed reality in the museum. Curr Issues Tour. 2020;23(9):1053–8. https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2019.1586847 .

Vu HQ, Luo JM, Ye B, Li G, Law R. Evaluating museum visitor experiences based on user-generated travel photos. J Travel Tour Mark. 2018;35(4):493–506. https://doi.org/10.1080/10548408.2017.1363684 .

Serravalle F, Ferraris A, Vrontis D, Thrassou A, Christofi M. Augmented reality in the tourism industry: a multi-stakeholder analysis of museums. Tour Manag Perspect. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tmp.2019.07.002 .

Zhang HS, Cheng ZF, Chen X. How destination social responsibility affects tourist citizenship behavior at cultural heritage sites? Mediating roles of destination reputation and destination identification. Sustainability-Basel. 2022;14(11):6772. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14116772 .

Xu YF, Zhang HL, Tian Y, Xia XY, Chen X, Yang Y, et al. When technology meets heritage: a moderated mediation of immersive technology on the constraint-satisfaction relationship. Curr Issues Tour. 2022;25(4):632–49. https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2021.1895728 .

Kim EG, Chhabra D, Timothy DJ. Towards a creative MICE tourism destination branding model: integrating heritage tourism in New Orleans, USA. Sustainability-Basel. 2022;14(24):16411. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142416411 .

Zhang T, Wen HJ, Li X. A tourist-based model of authenticity of heritage sporting events: the case of Naadam. Sustainability-Basel. 2019;11(1):108. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11010108 .

Maldonado-Erazo CP, Alvarez-Garcia J, Rio-Rama M, Duran-Sanchez A. Scientific mapping on the impact of climate change on cultural and natural heritage: a systematic scientometric analysis. Land. 2021;10(1):76. https://doi.org/10.3390/land10010076 .

Zhu XY, Chiou SC. A study on the sustainable development of historic district landscapes based on place attachment among tourists: a case study of Taiping old street, Taiwan. Sustainability-Basel. 2022;14(18):11755. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141811755 .

Rasoolimanesh SM, Ramakrishna S, Hall CM, Esfandiar K, Seyfi S. A systematic scoping review of sustainable tourism indicators in relation to the sustainable development goals. J Sustain Tour. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2020.1775621 .

de Rojas C, Camarero C. Visitors’ experience, mood and satisfaction in a heritage context: evidence from an interpretation center. Tour Manage. 2008;29(3):525–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2007.06.004 .

Asmelash AG, Kumar S. The structural relationship between tourist satisfaction and sustainable heritage tourism development in Tigrai, Ethiopia. Heliyon. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2019.e01335 .

Topole M, Pipan P, Gasperic P, Gersic M, Kumer P. Culinary events in the Slovenian countryside: visitors’ motives, satisfaction, and views on sustainability. Acta Geogr Slov. 2021;61(1):107–25. https://doi.org/10.3986/AGS.7617 .

Yang CH, Lin HL, Han CC. Analysis of international tourist arrivals in China: the role of World Heritage Sites. Tour Manage. 2010;31(6):827–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2009.08.008 .

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Marasco A, Buonincontri P, van Niekerk M, Orlowski M, Okumus F. Exploring the role of next-generation virtual technologies in destination marketing. J Destin Mark Manage. 2018;9:138–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdmm.2017.12.002 .

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the Ministry of agriculture and rural affairs of the people’s republic of China and Department of Finance of Fujian Province for their financial support. We gratefully thank the Heritage Science journal and the journal Academic Editor, for their helpful input and feedback on the content of this manuscript.

This research was funded by the project of “construction of modern agricultural and industrial park for Anxi County in Fujian Province, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, China (KMD18003A)”, Fujian Provincial Department of Finance entrusted project (KLE21002A): Research on the development path of strong towns with agricultural characteristic industries under the background of rural revitalization.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

College of Digital Economy, Fujian Agriculture and Forestry University, East Second Ring Road, Anxi County, Quanzhou, 362400, China

Sunbowen Zhang, Youcheng Chen & Qi Wei

College of Humanities & Social Development, Nanjing Agricultural University, Weigang Road, Xuanwu District, Nanjing, 210095, China

Jingxuan Liang

International College, Krirk University, No.3 soi Ramintra 1,Ramintra Road, Bangkok, 10220, Thailand

School of Tourism, Liming Vocational University, No. 298, Tonggang West Street, Fengze District, 362000, Quanzhou, China

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

Conceptualization, SBWZ and JXL; methodology, SBWZ; software, SBWZ; validation, SBWZ, JXL and YCC; formal analysis, SBWZ, XWS and YCC; investigation, SBWZ; resources, JXL; data curation, JXL; writing—original draft preparation, JXL; writing—review and editing, SBWZ and XWS; visualization, QW; supervision, SBWZ; project administration, JXL; funding acquisition, XWS and YCC. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Xinwei Su or Youcheng Chen .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

All authors approved the final manuscr and the submiss to this journal.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1., additional file 2., rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, 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 licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence 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. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Zhang, S., Liang, J., Su, X. et al. Research on global cultural heritage tourism based on bibliometric analysis. Herit Sci 11 , 139 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40494-023-00981-w

Download citation

Received : 11 April 2023

Accepted : 17 June 2023

Published : 29 June 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s40494-023-00981-w

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Cultural heritage tourism
• Research hotspots
• Research fronts
• Research trends