trends in heritage tourism

Cutting Edge | Bringing cultural tourism back in the game

The growth of cultural tourism

People have long traveled to discover and visit places of historical significance or spiritual meaning, to experience different cultures, as well as to learn about, exchange and consume a range of cultural goods and services. Cultural tourism as a concept gained traction during the 1990s when certain sub-sectors emerged, including heritage tourism, arts tourism, gastronomic tourism, film tourism and creative tourism. This took place amidst the rising tide of globalization and technological advances that spurred greater mobility through cheaper air travel, increased accessibility to diverse locations and cultural assets, media proliferation, and the rise of independent travel. Around this time, tourism policy was also undergoing a shift that was marked by several trends. These included a sharper focus on regional development, environmental issues, public-private partnerships, industry self-regulation and a reduction in direct government involvement in the supply of tourism infrastructure. As more cultural tourists have sought to explore the cultures of the destinations, greater emphasis has been placed on the importance of intercultural dialogue to promote understanding and tolerance. Likewise, in the face of globalization, countries have looked for ways to strengthen local identity, and cultural tourism has also been engaged as a strategy to achieve this purpose. Being essentially place-based, cultural tourism is driven by an interest to experience and engage with culture first-hand. It is backed by a desire to discover, learn about and enjoy the tangible and intangible cultural assets offered in a tourism destination, ranging from heritage, performing arts, handicrafts, rituals and gastronomy, among others.

Cultural tourism is a leading priority for the majority of countries around the world -featuring in the tourism policy of 90% of countries, based on a 2016 UNWTO global survey . Most countries include tangible and intangible heritage in their definition of cultural tourism, and over 80% include contemporary culture - film, performing arts, design, fashion and new media, among others. There is, however, greater need for stronger localisation in policies, which is rooted in promoting and enhancing local cultural assets, such as heritage, food, festivals and crafts. In France, for instance, the Loire Valley between Sully-sur-Loire and Chalonnes , a UNESCO World Heritage site, has established a multidisciplinary team that defends the cultural values of the site, and advises the authorities responsible for the territorial development of the 300 km of the Valley.

While cultural tourism features prominently in policies for economic growth, it has diverse benefits that cut across the development spectrum – economic, social and environmental. Cultural tourism expands businesses and job opportunities by drawing on cultural resources as a competitive advantage in tourism markets. Cultural tourism is increasingly engaged as a strategy for countries and regions to safeguard traditional cultures, attract talent, develop new cultural resources and products, create creative clusters, and boost the cultural and creative industries. Cultural tourism, particularly through museums, can support education about culture. Tourist interest can also help ensure the transmission of intangible cultural heritage practices to younger generations.

StockSnap, Pixabay

Cultural tourism can help encourage appreciation of and pride in local heritage, thus sparking greater interest and investment in its safeguarding. Tourism can also drive inclusive community development to foster resiliency, inclusivity, and empowerment. It promotes territorial cohesion and socioeconomic inclusion for the most vulnerable populations, for example, generating economic livelihoods for women in rural areas. A strengthened awareness of conservation methods and local and indigenous knowledge contributes to long-term environmental sustainability. Similarly, the funds generated by tourism can be instrumental to ensuring ongoing conservation activities for built and natural heritage.

The growth of cultural tourism has reshaped the global urban landscape over the past decades, strongly impacting spatial planning around the world. In many countries, cultural tourism has been leveraged to drive urban regeneration or city branding strategies, from large-sized metropolises in Asia or the Arab States building on cultural landmarks and contemporary architecture to drive tourism expansion, to small and middle-sized urban settlements enhancing their cultural assets to stimulate local development. At the national level, cultural tourism has also impacted planning decisions, encouraging coastal development in some areas, while reviving inland settlements in others. This global trend has massively driven urban infrastructure development through both public and private investments, impacting notably transportation, the restoration of historic buildings and areas, as well as the rehabilitation of public spaces. The expansion of cultural city networks, including the UNESCO World Heritage Cities programme and the UNESCO Creative Cities Network, also echoes this momentum. Likewise, the expansion of cultural routes, bringing together several cities or human settlements around cultural commonalities to stimulate tourism, has also generated new solidarities, while influencing economic and cultural exchanges between cities across countries and regions.

Despite tourism’s clear potential as a driver for positive change, challenges exist, including navigating the space between economic gain and cultural integrity. Tourism’s crucial role in enhancing inclusive community development can often remain at the margins of policy planning and implementation. Rapid and unplanned tourism growth can trigger a range of negative impacts, including pressure on local communities and infrastructure from overtourism during peak periods, gentrification of urban areas, waste problems and global greenhouse gas emissions. High visitor numbers to heritage sites can override their natural carrying capacity, thus undermining conservation efforts and affecting both the integrity and authenticity of heritage sites. Over-commercialization and folklorization of intangible heritage practices – including taking these practices out of context for tourism purposes - can risk inadvertently changing the practice over time. Large commercial interests can monopolize the benefits of tourism, preventing these benefits from reaching local communities. An excessive dependency on tourism can also create localized monoeconomies at the expense of diversification and alternative economic models. When mismanaged, tourism can, therefore, have negative effects on the quality of life and well-being of local residents, as well as the natural environment.

These fault lines became more apparent when the pandemic hit – revealing the extent of over-dependence on tourism and limited structures for crisis prevention and response. While the current situation facing tourism is unpredictable, making it difficult to plan, further crises are likely in the years to come. Therefore, the pandemic presents the opportunity to experiment with new models to shape more effective and sustainable alternatives for the future.

hxdyl, Getty Images Pro

Harnessing cultural tourism in policy frameworks

From a policy perspective, countries around the world have employed cultural tourism as a vehicle to achieve a range of strategic aims. In Panama, cultural tourism is a key component of the country’s recently adopted Master Plan for Sustainable Tourism 2020-2025 that seeks to position Panama as a worldwide benchmark for sustainable tourism through the development of unique heritage routes. Cultural tourism can be leveraged for cultural diplomacy as a form of ‘soft power’ to build dialogue between peoples and bolster foreign policy. For instance, enhancing regional cooperation between 16 countries has been at the heart of UNESCO’s transnational Silk Roads Programme, which reflects the importance of culture and heritage as part of foreign policy. UNESCO has also partnered with the EU and National Geographic to develop World Heritage Journeys, a unique travel platform that deepens the tourism experience through four selected cultural routes covering 34 World Heritage sites. Also in Europe, cultural tourism has been stimulated through the development of cultural routes linked to food and wine , as well as actions to protect local food products, such as through labels and certificates of origin. The Emilia-Romagna region in Italy, for example, produces more origin-protected food and drink than any other region in the country. One of the regions' cities Parma - a UNESCO Creative City (Gastronomy) and designated Italian Capital for Culture (2020-2021) - plans to resume its cultural activities to boost tourism once restrictions have eased. Meanwhile, Spain has recently taken steps to revive its tourism industry through its cities inscribed on the UNESCO World Heritage List . In this regard, the Group of the 15 Spanish World Heritage Cities met recently to discuss the country's Modernization and Competitiveness Plan for the tourism sector. Cultural tourism has progressively featured more prominently in the policies of Central Asian and Eastern European countries, which have sought to revive intangible heritage and boost the creative economy as part of strategies to strengthen national cultural identity and open up to the international community. In Africa, cultural tourism is a growing market that is driven by its cultural heritage, crafts, and national and regional cultural events. Major festivals such as Dak-Art in Senegal, Bamako Encounters Photography Biennial in Mali, Sauti za Busara in United Republic of Tanzania, Pan-African Festival of Cinema and Television of Ouagadougou in Burkina Faso, and Chale Wote Street Art Festival in Ghana are just a handful of vibrant and popular platforms in the continent that share cultural expressions, generate income for local economies and strengthen Pan-African identity.

Countries are increasingly seeking alliances with international bodies to advance tourism. National and local governments are working together with international entities, such as UNESCO, UNWTO and OECD in the area of sustainable tourism. In 2012, UNESCO’s Sustainable Tourism Programme was adopted, thereby breaking new ground to promote tourism a driver for the conservation of cultural and natural heritage and a vehicle for sustainable development. In 2020, UNESCO formed the Task Force on Culture and Resilient Tourism with the Advisory Bodies to the 1972 World Heritage Convention (ICOMOS, IUCN, ICCROM) as a global dialogue platform on key issues relating to tourism and heritage management during and beyond the crisis. UNESCO has also collaborated with the UNWTO on a set of recommendations for inclusive cultural tourism recovery from the COVID-19 crisis. In response to the crisis, the Namibian Government, UNESCO and UNDP are working together on a tourism impact study and development strategy to restore the tourism sector, especially cultural tourism.

UNESCO has scaled up work in cultural tourism in its work at field level, supporting its Member States and strengthening regional initiatives. In the Africa region, enhancing cultural tourism has been reported as a policy priority across the region. For example, UNESCO has supported the Government of Ghana in its initiative Beyond the Return, in particular in relation to its section on cultural tourism. In the Pacific, a Common Country Assessment (CCA) has been carried out for 14 SIDS countries, with joint interagency programmes to be created building on the results. Across the Arab States, trends in tourism after COVID, decent jobs and cultural and creative industries are emerging as entry points for different projects throughout the region. In Europe, UNESCO has continued its interdisciplinary work on visitor centres in UNESCO designated sites, building on a series of workshops to strengthen tourism sustainability, community engagement and education through heritage interpretation. In the Latin America and the Caribbean region, UNESCO is working closely with Member States, regional bodies and the UN system building on the momentum on the International Year of Creative Economy for Sustainable Development, including through Creative Cities, and the sustainable recovery of the orange economy, among others.

BS1920, Pixabay

In the context of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, tourism has the potential to contribute, directly or indirectly, to all of the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Tourism is directly mentioned in SDGs 8, 12 and 14 on inclusive and sustainable economic growth, sustainable consumption and production (SCP) and the sustainable use of oceans and marine resources, respectively. This is mirrored in the VNRs put forward by countries, who report on cultural tourism notably through the revitalization of urban and rural areas through heritage regeneration, festivals and events, infrastructure development, and the promotion of local cultural products. The VNRs also demonstrate a trend towards underlining more sustainable approaches to tourism that factor in the environmental dimensions of tourism development.

Several countries have harnessed cultural tourism as a policy panacea for economic growth and diversification. As part of Qatar's National Vision 2030 strategy, for example, the country has embarked on a development plan that includes cultural tourism through strengthening its culture-based industries, including calligraphy, handicrafts and living heritage practices. In the city of Abu Dhabi in the UAE, cultural tourism is part of the city’s plan for economic diversification and to steer its domestic agenda away from a hydrocarbon-based economy. The Plan Abu Dhabi 2030 includes the creation of a US$27 billion cultural district on Saadiyat Island, comprising a cluster of world-renowned museums, and cultural and educational institutions designed by international star architects to attract tourism and talent to the city. Since 2016, Saudi Arabia has taken decisive action to invest in tourism, culture and entertainment to reduce the country’s oil dependency, while also positioning the country as a global cultural destination. Under the 2020 G20 Saudi Presidency, the UNWTO and the G20 Tourism Working Group launched the AlUla Framework for Inclusive Community Development through Tourism to better support inclusive community development and the SDGs. The crucial role of tourism as a means of sustainable socio-economic development was also underlined in the final communique of the G20 Tourism Ministers in October last.

Siem Reap, Cambodia by nbriam

On the other hand, cultural tourism can catalyse developments in cultural policy. This was the case in the annual Festival of Pacific Arts (FestPac) that triggered a series of positive policy developments following its 2012 edition that sought to strengthen social cohesion and community pride in the context of a prolonged period of social unrest. The following year, Solomon Islands adopted its first national culture policy with a focus on cultural industries and cultural tourism, which resulted in a significant increase in cultural events being organized throughout the country.

When the pandemic hit, the geographic context of some countries meant that many of them were able to rapidly close borders and prioritize domestic tourism. This has been the case for countries such as Australia and New Zealand. However, the restrictions have been coupled by significant economic cost for many Small Island Developing States (SIDS) whose economies rely on tourism and commodity exports. Asia Pacific SIDS, for example, are some of the world’s leading tourist destinations. As reported in the Tracker last June , in 2018, tourism earnings exceeded 50% of GDP in Cook Islands, Maldives and Palau and equaled approximately 30% of GDP in Samoa and Vanuatu. When the pandemic hit in 2020, the drop in British tourists to Spain’s Balearic Islands resulted in a 93% downturn in visitor numbers , forcing many local businesses to close. According to the World Economic Outlook released last October, the economies of tourism-dependent Caribbean nations are estimated to drop by 12%, while Pacific Island nations, such as Fiji, could see their GDP shrink by a staggering 21% in 2020.

Socially-responsible travel and ecotourism have become more of a priority for tourists and the places they visit. Tourists are increasingly aware of their carbon footprint, energy consumption and the use of renewable resources. This trend has been emphasized as a result of the pandemic. According to recent survey by Booking.com, travelers are becoming more conscientious of how and why they travel, with over two-thirds (69%) expecting the travel industry to offer more sustainable travel options . Following the closures of beaches in Thailand, for example, the country is identifying ways to put certain management policies in place that can strike a better balance with environmental sustainability. The  UNESCO Sustainable Tourism Pledge  launched in partnership with Expedia Group focuses on promoting sustainable tourism and heritage conservation. The pledge takes an industry-first approach to environmental and cultural protection, requiring businesses to introduce firm measures to eliminate single-use plastics and promote local culture. The initiative is expanding globally in 2021 as a new, more environmentally and socially conscious global travel market emerges from the COVID-19 context.

Senja, Norway by Jarmo Piironen

Climate change places a heavy toll on heritage sites, which exacerbates their vulnerability to other risks, including uncontrolled tourism. This was underlined in the publication “World Heritage and Tourism in a Changing Climate” , published by UNESCO, UNEP and the Union of Concerned Scientists, which analyses the consequences of climate change on heritage, and its potential to permanently change or destroy a site’s integrity and authenticity. Extreme weather events, safety issues and water shortages, among others, can thwart access to sites and hurt the economic livelihoods of tourism service providers and local communities. Rising sea levels will increasingly impact coastal tourism, the largest component of the sector globally. In particular, coral reefs - contributing US$11.5 billion to the global tourism economy – are at major risk from climate change.

Marine sites are often tourist magnets where hundreds of thousands of annual visitors enjoy these sites on yachts and cruise ships. In the case of UNESCO World Heritage marine sites – which fall under the responsibility of governments - there is often a reliance on alternative financing mechanisms, such as grants and donations, and partnerships with non-governmental organizations and/or the private sector, among others. The West Norwegian Fjords – Geirangerfjord and Nærøyfjord in Norway derives a substantial portion of its management budget from sources other than government revenues. The site has benefited from a partnership with the private sector company Green Dream 2020, which only allows the “greenest” operators to access the site, and a percentage of the profits from tours is reinjected into the long-term conservation of the site. In iSimangaliso in South Africa, a national law that established the World Heritage site’s management system was accompanied by the obligation to combine the property’s conservation with sustainable economic development activities that created jobs for local people. iSimangaliso Wetland Park supports 12,000 jobs and hosts an environmental education programme with 150 schools. At the Great Barrier Reef in Australia, where 91% of all local jobs are linked to the Reef, the Coral Nurture Programme undertakes conservation through planting coral, and promotes local stewardship and adaptation involving the whole community and local tourist businesses.

Grafner, Getty Images

With borders continuing to be closed and changeable regulations, many countries have placed a focus on domestic tourism and markets to stimulate economic recovery. According to the UNWTO, domestic tourism is expected to pick up faster than international travel, making it a viable springboard for economic and social recovery from the pandemic. In doing so it will serve to better connect populations to their heritage and offer new avenues for cultural access and participation. In China, for example, the demand for domestic travel is already approaching pre-pandemic levels. In Russian Federation, the Government has backed a programme to promote domestic tourism and support small and medium-sized enterprises, as well as a cashback scheme for domestic trips, which entitles tourists to a 20% refund for their trip. While supporting domestic tourism activities, the Government of Palau is injecting funds into local businesses working in reforestation and fishing in the spirit of building new sustainable models. The measures put in place today will shape the tourism to come, therefore the pandemic presents an opportunity to build back a stronger, more agile and sustainable tourism sector.

Local solutions at the helm of cultural tourism

While state-led policy interventions in cultural tourism remain crucial, local authorities are increasingly vital stakeholders in the design and implementation of cultural tourism policies. Being close to the people, local actors are aware of the needs of local populations, and can respond quickly and provide innovative ideas and avenues for policy experimentation. As cultural tourism is strongly rooted to place, cooperating with local decision-makers and stakeholders can bring added value to advancing mutual objectives. Meanwhile, the current health crisis has severely shaken cities that are struggling due to diminished State support, and whose economic basis strongly relies on tourism. Local authorities have been compelled to innovate to support local economies and seek viable alternatives, thus reaffirming their instrumental role in cultural policy-making.

Venice, Oliver Dralam/Getty Images

Cultural tourism can be a powerful catalyst for urban regeneration and renaissance, although tourism pressure can also trigger complex processes of gentrification. Cultural heritage safeguarding enhances the social value of a place by boosting the well-being of individuals and communities, reducing social inequalities and nurturing social inclusion. Over the past decade, the Malaysian city of George Town – a World Heritage site – has implemented several innovative projects to foster tourism and attract the population back to the city centre by engaging the city’s cultural assets in urban revitalization strategies. Part of the income generated from tourism revenues contributes to conserving and revitalizing the built environment, as well as supporting housing for local populations, including lower-income communities. In the city of Bordeaux in France , the city has worked with the public-private company InCité to introduce a system of public subsidies and tax exemption to encourage the restoration of privately-owned historical buildings, which has generated other rehabilitation works in the historic centre. The city of Kyoto in Japan targets a long-term vision of sustainability by enabling local households to play an active role in safeguarding heritage by incrementally updating their own houses, thus making the city more resilient to gentrification. The city also actively supports the promotion of its intangible heritage, such as tea ceremonies, flower arrangement, seasonal festivals, Noh theatre and dance. This year marks the ten-year anniversary of the adoption of the UNESCO Recommendation on the Historic Urban Landscape (HUL). The results of a UNESCO survey carried out among Member States in 2019 on its implementation show that 89% of respondents have innovative services or tourism activities in place for historic areas, which demonstrates a precedence for countries to capitalize on urban cultural heritage for tourism purposes.

Cultural tourism has been harnessed to address rural-urban migration and to strengthen rural and peripheral sub-regions. The city of Suzhou – a World Heritage property and UNESCO Creative City (Crafts and Folk Art) - has leveraged its silk embroidery industry to strengthen the local rural economy through job creation in the villages of Wujiang, located in a district of Suzhou. Tourists can visit the ateliers and local museums to learn about the textile production. In northern Viet Nam, the cultural heritage of the Quan họ Bắc Ninh folk songs, part of the Representative List of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity, is firmly rooted in place and underlined in its safeguarding strategies in 49 ancient villages, which have further inspired the establishment of some hundreds of new Quan họ villages in the Bắc Ninh and Bắc Giang provinces.

Many top destination cities are known for their iconic cultural landmarks. Others create a cultural drawcard to attract visitors to the city. France, the world's number one tourist destination , attracts 89 million visitors every year who travel to experience its cultural assets, including its extensive cultural landmarks. In the context of industrial decline, several national and local governments have looked to diversify infrastructure by harnessing culture as a new economic engine. The Guggenheim museum in Bilbao in Spain is one such example, where economic diversification and unemployment was addressed through building a modern art museum as a magnet for tourism. The museum attracts an average of 900,000 visitors annually, which has strengthened the local economy of the city. A similar approach is the Museum of Old and New Art (MONA), established in 2011 by a private entrepreneur in the city of Hobart in Australia, which has catalysed a massive increase of visitors to the city. With events such as MONA FOMA in summer and Dark MOFO in winter, the museum staggers visitor volumes to the small city to avoid placing considerable strain on the local environment and communities. Within the tourism sector, cultural tourism is also well-positioned to offer a tailored approach to tourism products, services and experiences. Such models have also supported the wider ecosystems around the iconic cultural landmarks, as part of “destination tourism” strategies.

Destination tourism encompasses festivals, live performance, film and festive celebrations as drawcards for international tourists and an economic driver of the local economy. Over the past three decades, the number of art biennials has proliferated. Today there are more than 300 biennials around the world , whose genesis can be based both on artistic ambitions and place-making strategies to revive specific destinations. As a result of COVID-19, many major biennials and arts festivals have been cancelled or postponed. Both the Venice Architecture and Art Biennales have been postponed to 2022 due to COVID-19. The Berlin International Film Festival will hold its 2021 edition online and in selected cinemas. Film-induced tourism - motivated by a combination of media expansion, entertainment industry growth and international travel - has also been used for strategic regional development, infrastructure development and job creation, as well to market destinations to tourists. China's highest-grossing film of 2012 “Lost in Thailand”, for example, resulted in a tourist boom to Chiang Mai in Thailand, with daily flights to 17 Chinese cities to accommodate the daily influx of thousands of tourists who came to visit the film’s location. Since March 2020, tourism-related industries in New York City in the United States have gone into freefall, with revenue from the performing arts alone plunging by almost 70%. As the city is reliant on its tourism sector, the collapse of tourism explains why New York’s economy has been harder hit than other major cities in the country. Meanwhile in South Africa, when the first ever digital iteration of the country’s annual National Arts Festival took place last June, it also meant an estimated US$25.7 million (R377 million) and US$6.4 million (R94 million) loss to the Eastern Cape province and city of Makhanda (based on 2018 figures), in addition to the US$1.4 million (R20 million) that reaches the pockets of the artists and supporting industries. The United Kingdom's largest music festival, Glastonbury, held annually in Somerset, recently cancelled for the second year running due to the pandemic, which will have ripple effects on local businesses and the charities that receive funding from ticket sales.

Similarly, cancellations of carnivals from Santa Cruz de Tenerife in the Canary Islands to Binche in Belgium has spurred massive losses for local tourism providers, hotels, restaurants, costume-makers and dance schools. In the case of the Rio de Janeiro Carnival in Brazil, for instance, the city has amassed significant losses for the unstaged event, which in 2019 attracted 1.5 million tourists from Brazil and abroad and generated revenues in the range of US$700 million (BRL 3.78 billion). The knock-on effect on the wider economy due to supply chains often points to an estimated total loss that is far greater than those experienced solely by the cultural tourism sector.

Guggenheim Museum Bilbao, Spain by erlucho

Every year, roughly 600 million national and international religious and spiritual trips take place , generating US$18 billion in tourism revenue. Pilgrimages, a fundamental precursor to modern tourism, motivate tourists solely through religious practices. Religious tourism is particularly popular in France, India, Italy and Saudi Arabia. For instance, the Hindu pilgrimage and festival Kumbh Mela in India, inscribed in 2017 on the UNESCO Representative List of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity, attracts over 120 million pilgrims of all castes, creeds and genders. The festival is held in the cities of Allahabad, Haridwar, Ujjain and Nasik every four years by rotation. Sacred and ceremonial sites have unique significance for peoples and communities, and are often integral to journeys that promote spiritual well-being. Mongolia, for example, has around 800 sacred sites including 10 mountains protected by Presidential Decree, and lakes and ovoos, many of which have their own sutras. In the case of Mongolia, the environmental stewardship and rituals and practices connected with these sacred places also intersects with longstanding political traditions and State leadership.

Cities with a vibrant cultural scene and assets are not only more likely to attract tourists, but also the skilled talent who can advance the city’s long-term prospects. Several cities are also focusing on developing their night-time economies through the promotion of theatre, concerts, festivals, light shows and use of public spaces that increasingly making use of audio-visual technologies. Situated on Chile’s Pacific coast, the city of Valparaíso, a World Heritage site, is taking steps to transform the city’s night scene into a safe and inclusive tourist destination through revitalizing public spaces. While the economies of many cities have been weakened during the pandemic, the night-time economy of the city of Chengdu in China, a UNESCO Creative City for Gastronomy, has flourished and has made a significant contribution to generating revenue for the city, accounting for 45% of citizen’s daily expenditure.

The pandemic has generated the public’s re-appropriation of the urban space. People have sought open-air sites and experiences in nature. In many countries that are experiencing lockdowns, public spaces, including parks and city squares, have proven essential for socialization and strengthening resilience. People have also reconnected with the heritage assets in their urban environments. Local governments, organizations and civil society have introduced innovative ways to connect people and encourage creative expression. Cork City Council Arts Office and Creative Ireland, for example, jointly supported the art initiative Ardú- Irish for ‘Rise’ – involving seven renowned Irish street artists who produced art in the streets and alleyways of Cork.

Chengdu Town Square, China by Lukas Bischoff

Environment-based solutions support integrated approaches to deliver across the urban-rural continuum, and enhance visitor experiences by drawing on the existing features of a city. In the city of Bamberg, a World Heritage site in Germany, gardens are a key asset of the city and contribute to its livability and the well-being of its local population and visitors. More than 12,000 tourists enjoy this tangible testimony to the local history and environment on an annual basis. Eighteen agricultural businesses produce local vegetables, herbs, flowers and shrubs, and farm the inner-city gardens and surrounding agricultural fields. The museum also organizes gastronomic events and cooking classes to promote local products and recipes.

In rural areas, crafts can support strategies for cultural and community-based tourism. This is particularly the case in Asia, where craft industries are often found in rural environments and can be an engine for generating employment and curbing rural-urban migration. Craft villages have been established in Viet Nam since the 11th century, constituting an integral part of the cultural resources of the country, and whose tourism profits are often re-invested into the sustainability of the villages. The craft tradition is not affected by heavy tourist seasons and tourists can visit all year round.

Indigenous tourism can help promote and maintain indigenous arts, handicrafts, and culture, including indigenous culture and traditions, which are often major attractions for visitors. Through tourism, indigenous values and food systems can also promote a less carbon-intensive industry. During COVID-19, the Government of Canada has given a series of grants to indigenous tourism businesses to help maintain livelihoods. UNESCO’s Intergovernmental Committee for the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions announced that it will grant, through the International Fund for Creative Diversity (IFCD), US$70,000 dollars to Mexican indigenous cultural enterprises, which will support indigenous enterprises through training programmes, seed funding, a pre-incubation process and the creation of an e-commerce website.

Tourism has boosted community pride in living heritage and the active involvement of local communities in its safeguarding. Local authorities, cultural associations, bearers and practitioners have made efforts to safeguard and promote elements as they have understood that not only can these elements strengthen their cultural identity but that they can also contribute to tourism and economic development. In recent years, there has been a growing interest in the role of intellectual property and in the regulation of heritage. In the field of gastronomy, a lot of work has been done in protecting local food products, including the development of labels and certification of origin. Member States are exploring the possibilities of geographical indication (GI) for cultural products as a way of reducing the risk of heritage exploitation in connection to, for example, crafts, textiles and food products, and favouring its sustainable development.

The pandemic has brought to the forefront the evolving role of museums and their crucial importance to the life of societies in terms of health and well-being, education and the economy. A 2019 report by the World Health Organization (WHO) examined 3,000 studies on the role of the arts in improving health and well-being, which indicated that the arts play a major role in preventing, managing and treating illness. Over the past decade the number of museums has increased by 60%, demonstrating the important role that museums have in national cultural policy. Museums are not static but are rather dynamic spaces of education and dialogue, with the potential to boost public awareness about the value of cultural and natural heritage, and the responsibility to contribute to its safeguarding.

Data presented in UNESCO's report "Museums Around the World in the Face of COVID-19" in May 2020 show that 90% of institutions were forced to close, whereas the situation in September-October 2020 was much more variable depending on their location in the world. Large museums have consistently been the most heavily impacted by the drop in international tourism – notably in Europe and North America. Larger museums, such as Amsterdam’s Rijksmuseum and Vienna’s Kunsthistorisches Museum have reported losses between €100,000 and €600,000 a week. Smaller museums have been relatively stable, as they are not as reliant on international tourism and have maintained a closer connection to local communities. In November, the Network of European Museum Organisations (NEMO) released the results of a survey of 6,000 museums from 48 countries. Of the responding museums, 93% have increased or started online services during the pandemic. Most larger museums (81%) have increased their digital capacities, while only 47% of smaller museums indicated that they did. An overwhelming majority of respondents (92.9%) confirm that the public is safe at their museum. As reported in the Tracker last October, the world’s most visited museum, the Louvre in France (9.3 million visitors annually) witnessed a ten-fold increase in traffic to its website. Yet while digital technologies have provided options for museums to remain operational, not all have the necessary infrastructure, which is the case for many museums in Africa and SIDS.

New technologies have enabled several new innovations that can better support cultural tourism and digital technologies in visitor management, access and site interpretation. Cultural tourists visiting cultural heritage sites, for example, can enjoy educational tools that raise awareness of a site and its history. Determining carrying capacity through algorithms has helped monitor tourist numbers, such as in Hạ Long Bay in Viet Nam. In response to the pandemic, Singapore’s Asian Civilizations Museum is one of many museums that has harnessed digital technologies to provide virtual tours of its collections, thus allowing viewers to learn more about Asian cultures and histories. The pandemic has enhanced the need for technology solutions to better manage tourism flows at destinations and encourage tourism development in alternative areas.

Shaping a post-pandemic vision : regenerative and inclusive cultural tourism

As tourism is inherently dependent on the movement and interaction of people, it has been one of the hardest-hit sectors by the pandemic and may be one of the last to recover. Travel and international border restrictions have led to the massive decline in tourism in 2020, spurring many countries to implement strategies for domestic tourism to keep economies afloat. Many cultural institutions and built and natural heritage sites have established strict systems of physical distancing and hygiene measures, enabling them to open once regulations allow. Once travel restrictions have been lifted, it will enable the recovery of the tourism sector and for the wider economy and community at large.

While the pandemic has dramatically shifted the policy context for cultural tourism, it has also provided the opportunity to experiment with integrated models that can be taken forward in the post-pandemic context. While destinations are adopting a multiplicity of approaches to better position sustainability in their plans for tourism development, there is no one-size-fits-all solution.

A comprehensive, integrated approach to the cultural sector is needed to ensure more sustainable cultural tourism patterns. Efforts aimed at promoting cultural tourism destinations should build on the diversity of cultural sub-sectors, including cultural and heritage sites, museums, but also the creative economy and living heritage, notably local practices, food and crafts production. Beyond cultural landmarks, which act as a hotspot to drive the attractiveness of tourism destinations, and particularly cities, cultural tourism should also encompass other aspects of the cultural value chain as well as more local, community-based cultural expressions. Such an integrated approach is likely to support a more equitable distribution of cultural tourism revenues, also spreading tourism flows over larger areas, thus curbing the negative impacts of over-tourism on renowned cultural sites, including UNESCO World Heritage sites. This comprehensive vision also echoes the growing aspiration of visitors around the world for more inclusive and sustainable tourism practices, engaging with local communities and broadening the understanding of cultural diversity.

As a result of the crisis, the transversal component of cultural tourism has been brought to the fore, demonstrating its cross-cutting nature and alliance with other development areas. Cultural tourism – and tourism more broadly – is highly relevant to the 2030 for Sustainable Development and its 17 SDGs, however, the full potential of cultural tourism for advancing development – economic, social and environmental - remains untapped. This is even though cultural tourism is included in a third of all countries’ VNRs, thus demonstrating its priority for governments. Due the transversal nature of cultural tourism, there is scope to build on these synergies and strengthen cooperation between ministries to advance cooperation for a stronger and more resilient sector. This plays an integral role in ensuring a regenerative and inclusive cultural tourism sector. Similarly, tourism can feature as criteria for certain funding initiatives, or as a decisive component for financing cultural projects, such as in heritage or the cultural and creative industries.

Houses in Amsterdam, adisa, Getty, Images Pro

Several countries have harnessed the crisis to step up actions towards more sustainable models of cultural tourism development by ensuring that recovery planning is aligned with key sustainability principles and the SDGs. Tourism both impacts and is impacted by climate change. There is scant evidence of integration of climate strategies in tourism policies, as well as countries’ efforts to develop solid crisis preparedness and response strategies for the tourism sector. The magnitude and regional variation of climate change in the coming decades will continue to affect cultural tourism, therefore, recovery planning should factor in climate change concerns. Accelerating climate action is of utmost importance for the resilience of the sector.

The key role of local actors in cultural tourism should be supported and developed. States have the opportunity to build on local knowledge, networks and models to forge a stronger and more sustainable cultural tourism sector. This includes streamlining cooperation between different levels of governance in the cultural tourism sector and in concert with civil society and private sector. Particularly during the pandemic, many cities and municipalities have not received adequate State support and have instead introduced measures and initiatives using local resources. In parallel, such actions can spur new opportunities for employment and training that respond to local needs.

Greater diversification in cultural tourism models is needed, backed by a stronger integration of the sector within broader economic and regional planning. An overdependence of the cultural sector on the tourism sector became clear for some countries when the pandemic hit, which saw their economies come to a staggering halt. This has been further weakened by pre-existing gaps in government and industry preparedness and response capacity. The cultural tourism sector is highly fragmented and interdependent, and relies heavily on micro and small enterprises. Developing a more in-depth understanding of tourism value chains can help identify pathways for incremental progress. Similarly, more integrated – and balanced – models can shape a more resilient sector that is less vulnerable to future crises. Several countries are benefiting from such approaches by factoring in a consideration of the environmental and socio-cultural pillars of sustainability, which is supported across all levels of government and in concert with all stakeholders.

abhishek gaurav, Pexels

Inclusion must be at the heart of building back better the cultural tourism sector. Stakeholders at different levels should participate in planning and management, and local communities cannot be excluded from benefitting from the opportunities and economic benefits of cultural tourism. Moreover, they should be supported and empowered to create solutions from the outset, thus forging more sustainable and scalable options in the long-term. Policy-makers need to ensure that cultural tourism development is pursued within a wider context of city and regional strategies in close co-operation with local communities and industry. Businesses are instrumental in adopting eco-responsible practices for transport, accommodation and food. A balance between public/ private investment should also be planned to support an integrated approach post-crisis, which ensures input and support from industry and civil society.

The COVID-19 crisis has highlighted the essential role of museums as an integral component of societies in terms of well-being, health, education and the economy. Digitalization has been a game-changer for many cultural institutions to remain operational to the greatest extent possible. Yet there are significant disparities in terms of infrastructure and resources, which was underscored when the world shifted online. Museums in SIDS have faced particular difficulties with lack of access to digitalization. These imbalances should be considered in post-crisis strategies.

The pandemic presents an occasion to deeply rethink tourism for the future, and what constitutes the markers and benchmarks of “success”. High-quality cultural tourism is increasingly gaining traction in new strategies for recovery and revival, in view of contributing to the long-term health and resilience of the sector and local communities. Similarly, many countries are exploring ways to fast track towards greener, more sustainable tourism development. As such, the pandemic presents an opportunity for a paradigm shift - the transformation of the culture and tourism sectors to become more inclusive and sustainable. Moreover, this includes incorporating tourism approaches that not only avoid damage but have a positive impact on the environment of tourism destinations and local communities. This emphasis on regenerative tourism has a holistic approach that measures tourism beyond its financial return, and shifts the pendulum towards focusing on the concerns of local communities, and the wellbeing of people and planet.

Entabeni Game Reserve in South Africa by SL_Photography

Related items

More on this subject.

Other recent news

Take advantage of the search to browse through the World Heritage Centre information.

Sustainable Tourism

UNESCO World Heritage and Sustainable Tourism Programme

The UNESCO World Heritage and Sustainable Tourism Programme represents a new approach based on dialogue and stakeholder cooperation where planning for tourism and heritage management is integrated at a destination level, the natural and cultural assets are valued and protected, and appropriate tourism developed.

World Heritage and tourism stakeholders share responsibility for conservation of our common cultural and natural heritage of Outstanding Universal Value and for sustainable development through appropriate tourism management.

Facilitate the management and development of sustainable tourism at World Heritage properties through fostering increased awareness, capacity and balanced participation of all stakeholders in order to protect the properties and their Outstanding Universal Value.

Focus Areas

Policy & Strategy

Sustainable tourism policy and strategy development.

Tools & Guidance

Sustainable tourism tools

Capacity Building

Capacity building activities.

Heritage Journeys

Creation of thematic routes to foster heritage based sustainable tourism development

A key goal of the UNESCO WH+ST Programme is to strengthen the enabling environment by advocating policies and frameworks that support sustainable tourism as an important vehicle for managing cultural and natural heritage. Developing strategies through broad stakeholder engagement for the planning, development and management of sustainable tourism that follows a destination approach and focuses on empowering local communities is central to UNESCO’s approach.

Supporting Sustainable Tourism Recovery

Enhancing capacity and resilience in 10 World Heritage communities

Supported by BMZ, and implemented by UNESCO in collaboration with GIZ, this 2 million euro tourism recovery project worked to enhance capacity building in local communities, improve resilience and safeguard heritage.

Policy orientations

Defining the relationship between world heritage and sustainable tourism

Based on the report of the international workshop on Advancing Sustainable Tourism at Natural and Cultural Heritage Sites (Mogao, China, September 2009), the World Heritage Committee at its 34th session adopted the policy orientations which define the relationship between World Heritage and sustainable tourism ( Decision 34 COM 5F.2 ).

World Heritage and Tourism in a Changing Climate

Providing an overview of the increasing vulnerability of World Heritage sites to climate change impacts and the potential implications for and of global tourism.

Sustainable Tourism Tools

Manage tourism efficiently, responsibly and sustainably based on the local context and needs

People Protecting Places is the public exchange platform for the World Heritage and Sustainable Tourism Programme, providing education and information, encouraging support, engaging in social and community dialogue

The ' How-To ' guides offer direction and guidance to managers of World Heritage tourism destinations and other stakeholders to help identify the most suitable solutions for circumstances in their local environments and aid in developing general know-how.

English French Russian

Helping site managers and other tourism stakeholders to manage tourism more sustainably

Capacity Building in 4 Africa Nature Sites

A series of practical training and workshops were organized in four priority natural World Heritage sites in Africa (Lesotho, Malawi, South Africa, Tanzania, Zambia and Zimbabwe) with the aim of providing capacity building tools and strategies for site managers to help them manage tourism at their sites more sustainably.

Learn more →

15 Pilot Sites in Nordic-Baltic Region

The project Towards a Nordic-Baltic pilot region for World Heritage and Sustainable Tourism (2012-2014) was initiated by the Nordic World Heritage Foundation (NWHF). With a practical approach, the project has contributed to tools for assessing and developing sustainable World Heritage tourism strategies with stakeholder involvement and cooperation.

Supporting Community-Based Management and Sustainable Tourism at World Heritage sites in South-East Asia

Entitled “The Power of Culture: Supporting Community-Based Management and Sustainable Tourism at World Heritage sites in South-East Asia", the UNESCO Office in Jakarta with the technical assistance of the UNESCO World Heritage and Sustainable Tourism Programme and the support from the Government of Malaysia is spearheading the first regional effort in Southeast Asia to introduce a new approach to sustainable tourism management at World Heritage sites in Malaysia, the Philippines and Indonesia.

Cultural tourism is one of the largest and fastest-growing global tourism markets. Culture and creative industries are increasingly being used to promote destinations and enhance their competitiveness and attractiveness.

Many locations are now actively developing their cultural assets as a means of developing comparative advantages in an increasingly competitive tourism marketplace, and to create local distinctiveness in the face of globalization.

UNESCO will endeavour to create networks of key stakeholders to coordinate the destination management and marketing associated with the different heritage routes to promote and coordinate high-quality, unique experiences based on UNESCO recognized heritage. The goal is to promote sustainable development based on heritage values and create added tourist value for the sites.

UNESCO World Heritage Journeys of the EU

Creating heritage-based tourism that spurs investment in culture and the creative industries that are community-centered and offer sustainable and high-quality products that play on Europe's comparative advantages and diversity of its cultural assets.

World Heritage Journeys of Buddhist Heritage Sites

UNESCO is currently implementing a project to develop a unique Buddhist Heritage Route for Sustainable Tourism Development in South Asia with the support from the Korea International Cooperation Agency (KOICA). South Asia is host to rich Buddhist heritage that is exemplified in the World Heritage properties across the region.

Programme Background

In 2011 UNESCO embarked on developing a new World Heritage and Sustainable Tourism Programme.

The aim was to create an international framework for the cooperative and coordinated achievement of shared and sustainable outcomes related to tourism at World Heritage properties.

The preparatory work undertaken in developing the Programme responded to the decision 34 COM 5F.2 of the World Heritage Committee at its 34th session in Brasilia in 2010, which requested

“the World Heritage Centre to convene a new and inclusive programme on World Heritage and Sustainable Tourism, with a steering group comprising interested States Parties and other relevant stakeholders, and also requests the World Heritage Centre to outline the objectives and approach to the implementation of this programme".

The Steering Group was comprised of States Parties representatives from the six UNESCO Electoral Groups (Germany (I), Slovenia (II), Argentina (III), China (IV), Tanzania (Va), and Lebanon (Vb)), the Director of the World Heritage Centre, the Advisory Bodies (IUCN, ICOMOS and ICCROM), the United Nations World Tourism Organization (UNWTO) and the Swiss Government as the donor agency.

The Government of Switzerland has provided financial support for specific actions to be undertaken by the Steering Group. To coordinate and support the process, the World Heritage Centre has formed a small Working Group with the support of the Nordic World Heritage Foundation, the Government of Switzerland and the mandated external consulting firm MartinJenkins.

The World Heritage Committee directed that the Programme take into account:

• the recommendations of the evaluation of the concluded tourism programme ( WHC-10/34.COM/INF.5F.3 )
• the policy orientation which defines the relationship between World Heritage and sustainable tourism that emerged from the workshop Advancing Sustainable Tourism at Natural and Cultural Heritage Sites (Mogao, China, September 2009) ( WHC-10/34.COM/INF.5F.1 )

Overarching and strategic processes that the new World Heritage and Sustainable Tourism Programme will be aligned with include the Strategic Objectives of the World Heritage Convention (the five C's) ( Budapest Declaration 2002 ), the ongoing Reflections on the Future of the World Heritage Convention ( WHC-11/35.COM/12A ) and the Strategic Action Plan for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention 2012-2022 ( WHC-11/18.GA/11 ), the Relationship between the World Heritage Convention and Sustainable Development (WHC-10/34.COM/5D), the World Heritage Capacity Building Strategy ( WHC-10/34.COM/5D ), the Global Strategy for a Representative, Balanced and Credible World Heritage List (1994), and the Evaluation of the Global Strategy and PACT initiative ( WHC-11/18.GA/8 - 2011 ).

In addition, the programme development process has been enriched by an outreach to representatives from the main stakeholder groups including the tourism sector, national and local governments, site practitioners and local communities. The programme design was further developed at an Expert Meeting in Sils/Engadine, Switzerland October 2011. In this meeting over 40 experts from 23 countries, representing the relevant stakeholder groups, worked together to identify the overall strategic approach and a prioritised set of key objectives and activities. The proposed Programme was adopted by the World Heritage Committee in 2012 at its 36th session in St Petersburg, Russian Federation .

International Instruments

International Instruments Relating to Sustainable Development and Tourism.

Resolutions adopted by the United Nations, charters adopted by ICOMOS, decisions adopted by the World Heritage Committee, legal instruments adopted by UNESCO on heritage preservation.

Resolutions adopted by the United Nations

• Report by the Department of Economics and Social Affairs: Tourism and Sustainable Development: The Global Importance of Tourism at the United Nations’ Commission on Sustainable Development 7th Session (1999)
• Resolution A/RES/56/212 and the Global Code of Ethics for Tourism adopted by the United Nations World Tourism Organization (1999)

Charters adopted by ICOMOS

• The ICOMOS International Cultural Tourism Charter (1999)
• The ICOMOS Charter for the Interpretation and Presentation of Cultural Heritage Sites (2008)

Decisions adopted by the World Heritage Committee

• Decision (XVII.4-XVII.12) adopted by the World Heritage Committee at its 25th Session in Helsinki (2001)
• Decision 33 COM 5A adopted by the World Heritage Committee at its 30th Session in Seville (2009)
• Decision 34 COM 5F.2 adopted by the World Heritage Committee at its 34th Session in Brasilia (2010)
• Decision 36 COM 5E adopted by the World Heritage Committee at its 36th Session in Saint Petersburg (2012)

Legal instruments adopted by UNESCO on heritage preservation in chronological order

• Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property (1970)
• The Recommendation for the Protection of Movable Cultural Property (1978)
• The Recommendation on the Safeguarding of Traditional Culture and Folklore (1989)
• The Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural heritage (2001)
• The Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions (2005)

Other instruments

• Other instruments OECD Tourism Trends and Policies 2012 (French forthcoming)
• Programme on Sustainable Consumption and Production (In English)
• Siem Reap Declaration on Tourism and Culture 2015 – Building a New Partnership Model

Decisions / Resolutions (5)

The World Heritage Committee,

• Having examined Document WHC/18/42.COM/5A,
• Recalling Decision 41 COM 5A adopted at its 41st session (Krakow, 2017) and Decision 40 COM 5D adopted at its 40th session (Istanbul/UNESCO, 2016), General:
• Takes note with appreciation of the activities undertaken by the World Heritage Centre over the past year in pursuit of the Expected Result to ensure that “tangible heritage is identified, protected, monitored and sustainably managed by Member States, in particular through the effective implementation of the 1972 Convention ”, and the five strategic objectives as presented in Document WHC/18/42.COM/5A; 
• Welcomes the proactive role of the Secretariat for enhancing synergies between the World Heritage Convention and the other Culture and Biodiversity-related Conventions, particularly the integration of relevant synergies aspects in the revised Periodic Reporting Format and the launch of a synergy-related web page on the Centre’s website;
• Also welcomes the increased collaboration among the Biodiversity-related Conventions through the Biodiversity Liaison Group and focused activities, including workshops, joint statements and awareness-raising;
• Takes note of the Thematic studies on the recognition of associative values using World Heritage criterion (vi) and on interpretation of sites of memory, funded respectively by Germany and the Republic of Korea and encourages all States Parties to take on board their findings and recommendations, in the framework of the identification of sites, as well as management and interpretation of World Heritage properties;
• Noting the discussion paper by ICOMOS on Evaluations of World Heritage Nominations related to Sites Associated with Memories of Recent Conflicts, decides to convene an Expert Meeting on sites associated with memories of recent conflicts to allow for both philosophical and practical reflections on the nature of memorialization, the value of evolving memories, the inter-relationship between material and immaterial attributes in relation to memory, and the issue of stakeholder consultation; and to develop guidance on whether and how these sites might relate to the purpose and scope of the World Heritage Convention , provided that extra-budgetary funding is available and invites the States Parties to contribute financially to this end;
• Also invites the States Parties to support the activities carried out by the World Heritage Centre for the implementation of the Convention ;
• Requests the World Heritage Centre to present, at its 43rd session, a report on its activities. Thematic Programmes:
• Welcomes  the progress report on the implementation of the World Heritage Thematic Programmes and Initiatives,  notes  their important contribution towards implementation of the Global Strategy for representative World Heritage List, and  thanks  all States Parties, donors and other organizations for having contributed to achieving their objectives;
• Acknowledges  the results achieved by the World Heritage Cities Programme and calls States Parties and other stakeholders to provide human and financial resources ensuring the continuation of this Programme in view of its crucial importance for the conservation of the urban heritage inscribed on the World Heritage List, for the implementation of the Recommendation on the Historic Urban Landscape and its contribution to achieving the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals related to cities as well as for its contribution to the preparation of the New Urban Agenda, and further thanks to China and Croatia for their support for the implementation of the Programme;
• Also acknowledges the results achieved of the World Heritage Marine Programme, also thanks Flanders, France and the Annenberg Foundation for their support, notes the increased focus of the Programme on a global managers network, climate change adaptation strategies and sustainable fisheries, and  invites  States Parties, the World Heritage Centre and other stakeholders to continue to provide human and financial resources to support for the implementation of the Programme;
• Further acknowledges the results achieved in the implementation of the World Heritage Sustainable Tourism Programme, in particular the development of the Sustainable Tourism and Visitor Management Assessment tool and encourages States Parties to participate in the pilot testing of the tool, expresses  appreciation for the funding provided by the European Commission and  further thanks the Republic of Korea, Norway, and Seabourn Cruise Line for their support in the implementation of the Programme’’s activities;
• Further notes the progress in the implementation of the Small Island Developing States Programme, its importance for a representative, credible and balanced World Heritage List and building capacity of site managers and stakeholders to implement the World Heritage Convention , thanks furthermore Japan and the Netherlands for their support as well as the International Centre on Space Technology for Natural and Cultural Heritage (HIST) and  the World Heritage Institute of Training & Research for the Asia & the Pacific Region (WHITRAP) as Category 2 Centres for their technical and financial supports and also requests the States Parties and other stakeholders to continue to provide human, financial and technical resources for the implementation of the Programme;
• Takes note of the activities implemented jointly by the International Astronomical Union (IAU) and ICOMOS under the institutional guidance of the World Heritage Centre, in line with its Decision 40 COM 5D, further requests the World Heritage Centre to disseminate among the States Parties the second volume of the IAU/ICOMOS Thematic Study on Astronomical Heritage and renames this initiative as Initiative on Heritage of Astronomy, Science and Technology;
• Also takes note of the progress report on the Initiative on Heritage of Religious Interest, endorses the recommendations of the Thematic Expert Consultation meetings focused on Mediterranean and South-Eastern Europe (UNESCO, 2016), Asia-Pacific (Thailand, 2017) and Eastern Europe (Armenia, 2018), thanks the States Parties for their generous contribution and reiterates its invitation to States Parties and other stakeholders to continue to support this Initiative, as well as its associated Marketplace projects developed by the World Heritage Centre;
• Takes note of the activities implemented by CRATerre in the framework of the World Heritage Earthen Architecture Programme, under the overall institutional guidance of the World Heritage Centre, and of the lines of action proposed for the future, if funding is available;
• Invites  States Parties, international organizations and donors to contribute financially to the Thematic Programmes and Initiatives as the implementation of thematic priorities is no longer feasible without extra-budgetary funding;
• Requests furthermore  the World Heritage Centre to submit an updated result-based report on Thematic Programmes and Initiatives, under Item 5A: Report of the World Heritage Centre on its activities, for examination by the World Heritage Committee at its 44th session in 2020.

1.   Having examined document WHC-12/36.COM/5E,

2.  Recalling Decision 34 COM 5F.2 adopted at its 34th session (Brasilia, 2010),

3.  Welcomes the finalization of the new and inclusive Programme on World Heritage and Sustainable Tourism and notes with appreciation the participatory process for its development, objectives and approach towards implementation;

4.  Also welcomes the contribution of the Steering Group comprised of States Parties representatives from the UNESCO Electoral Groups, the World Heritage Centre, the Advisory Bodies (IUCN, ICOMOS, ICCROM), Switzerland and the United Nations World Tourism Organisation (UNWTO) in the elaboration of the Programme;

5.   Thanks the Government of Switzerland, the United Nations Foundation and the Nordic World Heritage Foundation for their technical and financial support to the elaboration of the Programme;

6.   Notes with appreciation the contribution provided by the States Parties and other consulted stakeholders during the consultation phase of the Programme;

7.   Takes note of the results of the Expert Meeting in Sils/Engadin (Switzerland), from 18 to 22 October 2011 contributing to the Programme, and further thanks the Government of Switzerland for hosting the Expert Meeting;

8.   Adopts the World Heritage and Sustainable Tourism Programme;

9.   Requests the World Heritage Centre to refine the Draft Action Plan 2013-2015 in an Annex to the present document and to implement the Programme with a Steering  Group comprised of representatives of the UNESCO Electoral Groups, donor agencies, the Advisory Bodies, UNWTO and in collaboration with interested stakeholders;

10.   Notes that financial resources for the coordination and implementation of the Programme do not exist and also requests States Parties to support the implementation of the World Heritage and Sustainable Tourism Programme;

11.  Further requests the World Heritage Centre to report biennially on the progress of the implementation of the Programme;

12.   Notes with appreciation the launch of the Programme foreseen at the 40th Anniversary of the World Heritage Convention event in Kyoto, Japan, in November 2012

1. Having examined Document WHC-10/34.COM/INF.5F.1 and WHC-10/34.COM/INF.5F.3,

2. Highlighting that the global tourism sector is large and rapidly growing, is diverse and dynamic in its business models and structures, and the relationship between World Heritage and tourism is two way: tourism, if managed well, offers benefits to World Heritage properties and can contribute to cross-cultural exchange but, if not managed well, poses challenges to these properties and recognizing the increasing challenges and opportunities relating to tourism;

3. Expresses its appreciation to the States Parties of Australia, China, France, India, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom, and to the United Nations Foundation and the Nordic World Heritage Foundation for the financial and technical support to the World Heritage Tourism Programme since its establishment in 2001;

4. Welcomes the report of the international workshop on Advancing Sustainable Tourism at Natural and Cultural Heritage Sites (Mogao, China, September 2009) and adopts the policy orientation which defines the relationship between World Heritage and sustainable tourism ( Attachment A );

5. Takes note of the evaluation of the World Heritage Tourism Programme by the UN Foundation, and encourages the World Heritage Centre to take fully into account the eight programme elements recommended in the draft final report in any future work on tourism ( Attachment B );

6. Decides to conclude the World Heritage Tourism Programme and requests the World Heritage Centre to convene a new and inclusive programme on World Heritage and Sustainable Tourism, with a steering group comprising interested States Parties and other relevant stakeholders, and also requests the World Heritage Centre to outline the objectives and approach to implementation of this programme, drawing on the directions established in the reports identified in Paragraphs 4 and 5 above, for consideration at the 35th session of the World Heritage Committee (2011);

7. Also welcomes the offer of the Government of Switzerland to provide financial and technical support to specific activities supporting the steering group; further welcomes the offer of the Governments of Sweden, Norway and Denmark to organize a Nordic-Baltic regional workshop in Visby, Gotland, Sweden in October 2010 on World Heritage and sustainable tourism; and also encourages States Parties to support the new programme on World Heritage and Sustainable Tourism including through regional events and the publication of materials identifying good practices;

8. Based upon the experience gained under the World Heritage Convention of issues related to tourism, invites the Director General of UNESCO to consider the feasibility of a Recommendation on the relationship between heritage conservation and sustainable tourism. 

Attachment A

Recommendations of the international workshop

on Advancing Sustainable Tourism at Natural and Cultural Heritage Sites  

Policy orientations: defining the relationship between World Heritage and tourism

1. The tourism sector

The global tourism sector is large and rapidly growing, is diverse and dynamic in its business models and structures.

Tourists/visitors are diverse in terms of cultural background, interests, behaviour, economy, impact, awareness and expectations of World Heritage.

There is no one single way for the World Heritage Convention , or World Heritage properties, to engage with the tourism sector or with tourists/visitors.

2. The relationship between World Heritage and tourism

The relationship between World Heritage and tourism is two-way:

a. World Heritage offers tourists/visitors and the tourism sector destinations

b. Tourism offers World Heritage the ability to meet the requirement in the Convention to 'present' World Heritage properties, and also a means to realise community and economic benefits through sustainable use.

Tourism is critical for World Heritage:

a. For States Parties and their individual properties,

i. to meet the requirement in the Convention to 'present' World Heritage

ii. to realise community and economic benefits

b. For the World Heritage Convention as a whole, as the means by which World Heritage properties are experienced by visitors travelling nationally and internationally

c. As a major means by which the performance of World Heritage properties, and therefore the standing of the Convention , is judged,

i. many World Heritage properties do not identify themselves as such, or do not adequately present their Outstanding Universal Value

ii. it would be beneficial to develop indicators of the quality of presentation, and the representation of the World Heritage brand

d. As a credibility issue in relation to: i. the potential for tourism infrastructure to damage Outstanding Universal Value

i. the threat that World Heritage properties may be unsustainably managed in relation to their adjoining communities

ii. sustaining the conservation objectives of the Convention whilst engaging with economic development

iii. realistic aspirations that World Heritage can attract tourism.

World Heritage is a major resource for the tourism sector:

a. Almost all individual World Heritage properties are significant tourism destinations

b. The World Heritage brand can attract tourists/visitors,

i. the World Heritage brand has more impact upon tourism to lesser known properties than to iconic properties.

Tourism, if managed well, offers benefits to World Heritage properties:

a. to meet the requirement in Article 4 of the Convention to present World Heritage to current and future generations

b. to realise economic benefits.

Tourism, if not managed well, poses threats to World Heritage properties.

3. The responses of World Heritage to tourism

The impact of tourism, and the management response, is different for each World Heritage property: World Heritage properties have many options to manage the impacts of tourism.

The management responses of World Heritage properties need to:

a. work closely with the tourism sector

b. be informed by the experiences of tourists/visitors to the visitation of the property

c. include local communities in the planning and management of all aspects of properties, including tourism.

While there are many excellent examples of World Heritage properties successfully managing their relationship to tourism, it is also clear that many properties could improve:

a. the prevention and management of tourism threats and impacts

b. their relationship to the tourism sector inside and outside the property

c. their interaction with local communities inside and outside the property

d. their presentation of Outstanding Universal Value and focus upon the experience of tourists/visitors.

a. be based on the protection and conservation of the Outstanding Universal Value of the property, and its effective and authentic presentation

b. work closely with the tourism sector

c. be informed by the experiences of tourists/visitors to the visitation of the property

d. to include local communities in the planning and management of all aspects of properties, including tourism.

4. Responsibilities of different actors in relation to World Heritage and tourism

The World Heritage Convention (World Heritage Committee, World Heritage Centre, Advisory Bodies):

a. set frameworks and policy approaches

b. confirm that properties have adequate mechanisms to address tourism before they are inscribed on the World Heritage List

i. develop guidance on the expectations to be include in management plans

c. monitor the impact upon OUV of tourism activities at inscribed sites, including through indicators for state of conservation reporting

d. cooperate with other international organisations to enable:

i. other international organisations to integrate World Heritage considerations in their programs

ii. all parties involved in World Heritage to learn from the activities of other international organisations

e. assist State Parties and sites to access support and advice on good practices

f. reward best practice examples of World Heritage properties and businesses within the tourist/visitor sector

g. develop guidance on the use of the World Heritage emblem as part of site branding.

Individual States Parties:

a. develop national policies for protection

b. develop national policies for promotion

c. engage with their sites to provide and enable support, and to ensure that the promotion and the tourism objectives respect Outstanding Universal Value and are appropriate and sustainable

d. ensure that individual World Heritage properties within their territory do not have their OUV negatively affected by tourism.

Individual property managers:

a. manage the impact of tourism upon the OUV of properties

i. common tools at properties include fees, charges, schedules of opening and restrictions on access

b. lead onsite presentation and provide meaningful visitor experiences

c. work with the tourist/visitor sector, and be aware of the needs and experiences of tourists/visitors, to best protect the property

i. the best point of engagement between the World Heritage Convention and the tourism sector as a whole is at the direct site level, or within countries

d. engage with communities and business on conservation and development.

Tourism sector:

a. work with World Heritage property managers to help protect Outstanding Universal Value

b. recognize and engage in shared responsibility to sustain World Heritage properties as tourism resources

c. work on authentic presentation and quality experiences.

Individual tourists/visitors with the assistance of World Heritage property managers and the tourism sector, can be helped to appreciate and protect the OUV of World Heritage properties.  

Attachment B

Programme elements recommended by the Draft Final Report of the Evaluation of the World Heritage Tourism Programme by the UN Foundation:

1. Adopt and disseminate standards and principles relating to sustainable tourism at World Heritage sites;

 2. Support the incorporation of appropriate tourism management into the workings of the Convention ;

 3. Collation of evidence to support sustainable tourism programme design, and to support targeting;

 4. Contribution of a World Heritage perspective to cross agency sustainable tourism policy initiatives;

 5. Strategic support for the dissemination of lessons learned;

 6. Strategic support for the development of training and guidance materials for national policy agencies and site managers;

 7. Provision of advice on the cost benefit impact of World Heritage inscription;

 8. Provision of advice on UNESCO World Heritage branding.

1. Having examined Documents WHC-09/33.COM/5A, WHC- 09/33.COM/INF.5A.1, WHC-09/33.COM/INF.5A.2, and WHC-09/33.COM/INF.5A.3 ,

2. Recalling Decision 32 COM 5 adopted at its 32nd session (Quebec City, 2008),

3. Takes note with appreciation of the activities undertaken by the World Heritage Centre over the past year in pursuit of the Committee's five Strategic Objectives;

4. Takes also note of the findings of the study undertaken by UNESCO's Internal Oversight Service on the mapping of the workload of the World Heritage Centre presented in Document WHC-09/33.COM/INF.5A.3;

5. Notes with satisfaction that the World Heritage Centre is working with the secretariats of intergovernmental committees of related conventions such as the Convention for the Safeguarding of Intangible Cultural Heritage , and the Convention for the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage-2001 and recommends that such cooperation be encouraged as this would further strengthen the work of the Centre;

6. Requests the World Heritage Centre to prepare a document on the World Heritage Convention and its cooperation and exchange with other conventions and programmes in the field of cultural heritage for discussion at the 34th session of the World Heritage Committee (2010);

7. Also requests the World Heritage Centre, in future reports on activities undertaken, to further strengthen the information and analysis available to States Parties by:

a) Retaining the current format to report activities and including an update on progress with implementing the Committee's decisions,

b) Describing the criteria by which the World Heritage Centre makes decisions as to which activities under the Convention it undertakes,

c) And including, on a discretionary basis, analysis of strategic issues and new directions;

8. Further requests the World Heritage Centre to produce, on an experimental basis, an indexed audio verbatim recording of the proceedings of the 33rd Session in addition to the standard summary records (as produced since the 26th session of the World Heritage Committee);

9. Notes the outline provided by the World Heritage Centre of its roles and the roles of the Advisory Bodies and agrees that this topic be further discussed at the 34th session of the Committee in 2010 under a separate agenda item;

10. Requests furthermore the World Heritage Centre to outline the forward direction of the World Heritage thematic programmes and initiatives, to enable an understanding of how these themes connect with and integrate into general programmes, and how they might be resourced;

11. Notes that the Centre already proactively engages women in its Heritage Programmes in Asia, Africa and the Caribbean as part of its gender balance policy and the provision of equal opportunity to all, and recommends that gender balance and community involvement be prioritized in the Centre's programmes;

12. Adopts the World Heritage Thematic Programme on Prehistory presented in Annex 1 of document WHC-09/33.COM/5A ;

13. Requests the World Heritage Centre to reconsider the term "prehistory", to better recognize the continuing cultures of indigenous communities, to ensure global representation in the identification and conservation of related properties, and to present a report on progress in developing an Action Plan on Prehistory and World Heritage at its 34th session in 2010;

14. Notes with concern the ongoing destruction of some of these fragile sites, including the recent destruction of the Rock Art sites of Tardrat Acacus in Libya, and requests the State Party to take immediate action and other measures as necessary to address the problem in consultation with the World Heritage Centre and to invite a joint World Heritage Centre / ICOMOS mission;

15. Expresses its gratitude to the Governments of Bahrain, South Africa and Spain for the financial and technical support for the various international scientific encounters, and recognizes the proposal of the Government of Spain in establishing a centre for the research of Prehistory;

16. Recalling the Decision of the World Heritage Committee 31 COM.21C to carry out a programme of sustainable development concerning the conservation of earthen architecture, thanks the Governments of Italy and France for their support of the programme on earthen architecture in Africa and the Arab States in particular, and requests the potential financial donors and the States Parties to support the implementation of activities and further requests the World Heritage Centre to submit a progress report at its 35th session in 2011;

17. Takes note of the progress report on the World Heritage Tourism Programme;

18. Thanks the Governments of Australia, China, France, India, Switzerland and United Kingdom, who have worked in close collaboration with the World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies, the World Tourism Organization and other partners, for contributing to the Initiative of Sustainable Tourism;

19. Expresses its gratitude to the Governments of Australia and China for the organization of a workshop on sustainable tourism at the World Heritage site, Mogao Caves, China, in September-October 2009 and requests that the following elements be submitted to the Committee for examination at its 34th session in 2010:

a) A report on the workshop,

b) The subsequent recommendations of the workshop regarding the adoption of best practices policy guidance, and concerning the changes proposed for the Operational Guidelines for the implementation of the World Heritage Convention ,

c) A document concerning the progress of the World Heritage Programme on Tourism;

20. Finally requests the Director of the World Heritage Centre to identify supplementary sources of funding to put into place a sufficient number of staff and resources at the World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies in order to continue to efficiently contribute to the resolution of problems related to World Heritage conservation.

XVII.8 The Secretariat provided the following justifications for the selection: 

• Tourism - growing threats on World Heritage sites from tourism which, if sustainably managed could offer socio-economic development opportunities;
• Forests - since close to 60 of the natural sites on the World Heritage List are forests and that the lessons being learned from the large-scale UNESCO-UN Foundation projects in the tropical forest sites in the Democratic Republic of the Congo can serve as case studies to enrich the programme;
• Cities - since close to 200 of the cultural sites on the List are historic centres or entire cities, and because 20% of the Fund's international assistance have served to address the challenge of urban heritage conservation;
• Earthen structures - since some 30 of the cultural sites on the List are included in this category, and due to the particularity of conservation of earthen heritage, and threats.

XVII.10 The Committee expressed its appreciation for the clarity of the presentation and the justifications provided. Indicating strong support for the overall programming approach, the Committee however indicated the need for the programme to respond to the priorities established by the Committee and to create strong links with the results of the Global Strategy actions and Periodic Reporting. The Committee approved the four proposed themes of the programmes in this first series of initiatives and authorized the Centre to proceed in their development.

Encyclopedia of Tourism pp 1–3 Cite as

World Heritage and Tourism

• Michael A. Di Giovine 3  
• Living reference work entry
• Latest version View entry history
• First Online: 27 March 2024

World heritage refers to monuments, sites, and cultural and natural landscapes, as well as intangible practices and traditions, as designated by the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). Specifically, it refers to something to be of “outstanding universal value” that transcends any specific significances it might have at the local, regional, or national levels. The preservation of world heritage is paramount since it is considered “of common importance for present and future generations of all humanity” (UNESCO 2005 : 12).

World heritage is often seen as an intrinsic quality to a site or tradition, but in actuality, it is the product of a complex political process that evolved over more than a half-century. Born from the 1972 Convention for the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritag e, it is elaborated upon through the day-to-day work of UNESCO’s Advisory Bodies (International Council on Monuments and Sites, International Union for...

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution .

Brumann, Christoph. 2022. The best we share . Oxford: Berghahn.

Book   Google Scholar  

Di Giovine, Michael A. 2009. The heritage-scape: UNESCO, world heritage, and tourism . Lanham: Lexington Books.

Google Scholar  

Gravari-Barbas, M., L. Bourdeau, and M. Robinson. 2015. World heritage and tourism: From opposition to co- production. In World heritage, tourism and identity: Inscription and co-production. Heritage culture and identity , ed. L. Bourdeau, M. Gravari-Barbas, and M. Robinson, 1–24. London: Routledge.

Meskell, Lynn. 2018. A future in ruins: UNESCO, world heritage, and the dream of peace . Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Smith, Laurajane. 2006. Uses of heritage . London: Routledge.

UNESCO. 2005. World Heritage Information Kit . Paris: World Heritage Center.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

West Chester University of Pennsylvania, West Chester, USA

Michael A. Di Giovine

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael A. Di Giovine .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

School of Hospitality Leadership, University of Wisconsin-Stout, Menomonie, WI, USA

Jafar Jafari

School of Hotel and Tourism Management, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong, China

Honggen Xiao

Section Editor information

Universidad Nacional de Quilmes Bernal, Bernal, Argentina

Regina Schlüter

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this entry

Cite this entry.

Di Giovine, M.A. (2023). World Heritage and Tourism. In: Jafari, J., Xiao, H. (eds) Encyclopedia of Tourism. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-01669-6_224-2

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-01669-6_224-2

Received : 17 March 2021

Accepted : 20 May 2023

Published : 27 March 2024

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-319-01669-6

Online ISBN : 978-3-319-01669-6

eBook Packages : Springer Reference Business and Management Reference Module Humanities and Social Sciences Reference Module Business, Economics and Social Sciences

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Chapter history

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-01669-6_224-2

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-01669-6_224-1

• Find a journal
• Track your research

Making sense of heritage tourism: Research trends in a maturing field of study

• Sustainability Initiative
• Sustainable Tourism, Center for

Research output : Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

This essay examines several emerging research trends in the field of heritage tourism. These trends, including experiential connections with heritage, blurred boundaries between tourisms, more accurate portrayals of the commodified past and technological advancements, demonstrate a precipitous growth in heritage tourism scholarship that focuses more on experience, identity, stewardship, place and empowerment than the more descriptive supply v. demand work that preceded it. Changes in how researchers treat the cultural past indicate a maturing field of study that is increasing in popularity as a focus of academic research and also as a consumable tourist product.

ASJC Scopus subject areas

• Tourism, Leisure and Hospitality Management

Access to Document

• 10.1016/j.tmp.2017.11.018

Other files and links

• Link to publication in Scopus

Fingerprint

• Heritage Tourism Business & Economics 96%
• Research Trends Business & Economics 85%
• Tourism Research Business & Economics 79%
• Sensemaking Business & Economics 71%
• Work Demands Business & Economics 47%
• academic research Earth & Environmental Sciences 46%
• empowerment Earth & Environmental Sciences 44%
• Stewardship Business & Economics 41%

T1 - Making sense of heritage tourism

T2 - Research trends in a maturing field of study

AU - Timothy, Dallen

N1 - Publisher Copyright: © 2017 Elsevier Ltd

PY - 2018/1

Y1 - 2018/1

N2 - This essay examines several emerging research trends in the field of heritage tourism. These trends, including experiential connections with heritage, blurred boundaries between tourisms, more accurate portrayals of the commodified past and technological advancements, demonstrate a precipitous growth in heritage tourism scholarship that focuses more on experience, identity, stewardship, place and empowerment than the more descriptive supply v. demand work that preceded it. Changes in how researchers treat the cultural past indicate a maturing field of study that is increasing in popularity as a focus of academic research and also as a consumable tourist product.

AB - This essay examines several emerging research trends in the field of heritage tourism. These trends, including experiential connections with heritage, blurred boundaries between tourisms, more accurate portrayals of the commodified past and technological advancements, demonstrate a precipitous growth in heritage tourism scholarship that focuses more on experience, identity, stewardship, place and empowerment than the more descriptive supply v. demand work that preceded it. Changes in how researchers treat the cultural past indicate a maturing field of study that is increasing in popularity as a focus of academic research and also as a consumable tourist product.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85035337444&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85035337444&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.tmp.2017.11.018

DO - 10.1016/j.tmp.2017.11.018

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:85035337444

SN - 2211-9736

JO - Tourism Management Perspectives

JF - Tourism Management Perspectives

• 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

4265 Accesses

4 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

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation

Each year, millions of travelers visit America’s historic places. The National Trust for Historic Preservation defines heritage tourism as “traveling to experience the places, artifacts, and activities that authentically represent the stories and people of the past and present.”  A high percentage of domestic and international travelers participate in cultural and/or heritage activities while traveling, and those that do stay longer, spend more, and travel more often. Heritage tourism creates jobs and business opportunities, helps protect resources, and often improves the quality of life for local residents.

The ACHP has encouraged national travel and tourism policies that promote the international marketing of America’s historic sites as tourism destinations. The ACHP also engages in ongoing efforts to build a more inclusive preservation program, reaching out to diverse communities and groups and engaging them in dialogue about what parts of our national legacy should be more fully recognized, preserved, and shared. 

The ACHP developed Preserve America , a national initiative to encourage and support community efforts for the preservation and enjoyment of America’s cultural and natural heritage. In partnership with other federal agencies, the initiative has encouraged the use of historic assets for economic development and community revitalization, as well as enabling people to experience and appreciate local historic resources through heritage tourism and education programs. These goals have been advanced by an Executive Order directing federal agencies to support such efforts, a community designation program, and a recognition program for outstanding stewardship of historic resources by volunteers.

From 2004-2016, over 900 Preserve America Communities   were designated in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and two territories, as well as nearly 60 Preserve America Stewards . Many Preserve America Communities are featured in “Discover Our Shared Heritage” National Register on-line travel itineraries . From 2006 through 2010, the National Park Service (in partnership with the ACHP) awarded more than $21 million in Preserve America Grants   to support sustainable historic resource management strategies, with a focus on heritage tourism. 

These links are being provided as a convenience and for informational purposes only; if they are not ACHP links, they do not constitute an endorsement or an approval by the ACHP of any of the products, services or opinions of the corporation or organization or individual. The ACHP bears no responsibility for the accuracy, legality, or content of the external site or for that of subsequent links. Please contact the external site for answers to questions regarding its content, including its privacy policies.

Related resources.

Why 2024 will be the year of tourism FDI in South Africa

T he dawn of 2024 brings with it a palpable sense of optimism in South Africa's tourism and hospitality industry. Building on the momentum gained in 2023, the sector is set to experience a transformative year. This surge is evident in the significant increase in reservations from the UK and USA, largely attributed to the new direct flight routes from Cape Town to the USA.

At the time of the announcement, James Vos, the Mayoral Member for Economic Growth and Tourism at the City of Cape Town described this development as a “big boost” for the tourism and hospitality industry in the city.

“The Delta route comes on top of the United Airlines announcement that it will be resuming direct flights between Cape Town and Newark/New York in June 2022, ahead of their initial schedule,” he said at the time . Since then, the Western Cape’s October Tourism Report for 2023 indicated a 57% increase in international passenger traffic, signalling a renewed global interest in South Africa as a premier travel destination.

Facilitating tourism growth

The initiation of direct flights between Cape Town and the USA has opened new avenues for international tourism, significantly reducing travel time and enhancing convenience for American travellers. This development has not only facilitated an easier flow of tourists but also stimulated interest in South Africa's diverse travel offerings.

Recent data from Stats SA showed South Africa received more than 7.5 million international travellers by November 2023, with tourist arrivals from the Americas showing a 44% growth between January and November last year compared to the year before.

Likewise, the sustained increase in visitors from the UK can be seen as a testament to South Africa’s enduring appeal in the European market as the country welcomed more than 1 million tourists from Europe in the same period. Among European arrivals, the UK remained the dominant market followed by Germany and the Netherlands. The data also showed an increase of more than 80% in arrivals from Russia.

Benefits for SA's tourism sector

This influx of international visitors is expected to bring a fresh wave of economic benefits and cultural exchange, further enriching South Africa's tourism landscape and economic activity in the sector.

In 2023, these tourists largely drove occupancy rates in accommodations across the country, with more than 50% of visitors being international tourists. Tailoring offerings to local preferences, such as family-friendly packages, weekend getaways, and special events, continues to be a successful strategy for maintaining a steady stream of domestic tourism.

International travellers to South Africa are spoiled for choice , with a variety of landscapes, climates, and vacation options across the country. These range from the vast Karoo to the lush and mountainous Great Drakensberg area, to the many coastal options available across the country with most travellers setting their sights on the Mother City.

Experiential travel and sustainability

As we navigate through 2024, the adaptation and innovation of businesses in the tourism and hospitality sector will play an important role in their success. One of the key drivers will be to offer unique experiences. National Geographic believes that experiential travel might become one of the biggest travel trends for this year. “Experiential travel usually delves deeper into a given destination, ensuring visitors can experience it as authentically as possible. As such, tours tend to focus on less-touristy spots,” the magazine said.

The allure of unique, authentic experiences cannot be overstated. For international tourists, this might mean wildlife safaris that showcase South Africa's rich biodiversity, cultural tours that explore the country's heritage, or adventure sports set against stunning natural backdrops. For local tourists, the focus might be on undiscovered gems within their own country, such as off-the-beaten-path destinations or local festivals that celebrate South African traditions and cuisines.

This is evidenced by statistics released in October last year by Mireille Wenger , the Western Cape’s Provincial Minister of Finance and Economic Opportunities, which recorded the top five highest year-on-year growth rates recorded for a few of the Western Cape’s national parks and reserves such as Anysberg Nature Reserve (867%), Stony Point Eco Venue (109%), Walker Bay Nature Reserve (65%), Table Mountain National Park: Boulders (47%) and Table Mountain National Park: Cape of Good Hope (31%).

Focusing on experiential travel and adventures in South Africa, it also highlights that sustainability in the travel industry is no longer a mere trend but a necessity. Eco-friendly initiatives can range from reducing waste and conserving water to supporting conservation projects. Such practices not only appeal to environmentally conscious travellers but also ensure the long-term viability of the tourism sites themselves.

Integration of Technology

Another trend that will continue to grow in 2024 is the integration of technology in tourism, which is revolutionising the way travellers interact with destinations and also helping with the recovery of the industry post-pandemic. Efficient online booking systems, virtual customer service, and mobile applications can simplify travel planning and provide seamless experiences for tourists.

By capitalising on the trends of the past year and implementing forward-thinking strategies, the industry is well-positioned to offer an unparalleled travel experience. From the bustling streets of Johannesburg to the serene landscapes of the Western Cape, South Africa is ready to welcome the world with its unique blend of beauty, culture, and adventure.