research paper on heritage and tourism

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

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here .

Loading metrics

Open Access

Peer-reviewed

Research Article

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

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

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

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

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

* E-mail: [email protected]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Data Availability: All relevant data are within the paper.

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

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

Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

Study rationale

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

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

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

Search strategy

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

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

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

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

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

The search covered the following bibliographic databases and electronic collections:

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

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

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

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

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

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

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

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

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

Study selection and screening

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

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

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

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

Data extraction

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

Quality assessment

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

Data synthesis

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

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

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

Identifying metaphors and themes.

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

Determining how the studies were related.

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

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

Translation and synthesis of studies.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusions

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

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

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

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

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

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

Supporting information

S1 checklist. prisma 2009 checklist..

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

Acknowledgments

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

Declarations

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

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

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

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

• Ananya Pati 1 &
• Mujahid Husain 2  

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

2530 Accesses

1 Altmetric

Metrics details

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

1 Introduction

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

1.1 Aim and objective

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

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

1.2 The project details

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

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

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

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

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

2 Literature review

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2.1 Methodology

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

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

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

Research Methodology Flow Chart (Source: the author)

2.2 The heritage of Varanasi

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

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

2.3 The landscape change

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2.4 People’s perspectives

2.4.1 perspective of the residents.

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

2.4.2 Perspective of shop owners

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

2.4.3 Perspective of the authorities

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

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

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

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

2.4.4 Perspective of the Tourists

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

2.4.5 Other perspectives

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

3 Implication: rediscovering the ancient temples

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

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

4 Discussion and conclusion

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

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

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

Availability of data and materials

Not applicable.

Abbreviations

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation

Sustainable Tourism Development

Before the Christian Era

Press Trust of India

Chief Executive Officer

Indo-Asian News Service

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

Article   Google Scholar  

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

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

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

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

Google Scholar  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Download references

Acknowledgements

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

No fund received during this research work.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

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

Ananya Pati

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

Mujahid Husain

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

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

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mujahid Husain .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

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

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

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

Download citation

Received : 25 November 2022

Accepted : 23 July 2023

Published : 15 August 2023

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

Share this article

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Conservation
• Development

• Research article
• Open access
• Published: 06 May 2021

The cultural and heritage tourist, SEM analysis: the case of The Citadel of the Catholic King

• Ricardo David Hernández-Rojas 1 ,
• Juan Antonio Jimber del Río   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-6886-7434 1 ,
• Alberto Ibáñez Fernández 2 &
• Arnaldo Vergara-Romero 3  

Heritage Science volume  9 , Article number:  52 ( 2021 ) Cite this article

14k Accesses

14 Citations

4 Altmetric

Metrics details

This study researches the loyalty of travelers to destinations which include material cultural heritage. It analyzes the loyalty of visitors to a destination with cultural heritage sites in order to provide results which can be used to improve the management of the destination. This research used Warp-PLS 7.0 software with a structural equations model to evaluate the 8 proposed and validated hypotheses. A questionnaire was given to a sample of 499 tourists who visited The Citadel of the Catholic King in Córdoba and the statistical study of the replies gave results about the loyalty of visitors to a destination which includes cultural heritage. This study adds an innovative component by analyzing the moderating effect of perceived heritage quality and perceived cultural quality on the relationship of perceived value and visitor satisfaction. This study shows that visitor loyalty to The Citadel of the Catholic King depends on the visitor satisfaction with the cultural heritage, it also analyses how the quality perceived by the tourist modulates to varying degrees the relationship between perceived value and tourist satisfaction. Areas which can be improved at cultural heritage sites have been identified and these include the professionalization of tour guides specialized in cultural heritage sites, improving and showing the cultural importance of the heritage, the information available about the heritage and the access to the heritage. These findings are important for city managers when preparing projects to increase the loyalty and competitiveness of the city compared to other similar destinations with cultural heritage.

Introduction

Cultural material heritage has become a factor which can make a city more attractive to visitors. Adequate management of the heritage is essential to achieve visitor satisfaction during and after the visit as well as improve the visitor expectations before and the perceived quality after the visit. Continuous improvement of these aspects can be the differentiating factor for the loyalty of the visitor to the city. The strong competition for visitors between destinations with heritage and culture sites, especially UNESCO listed sites, means that making continual improvements to the management of these sites is essential. The current situation will only become more difficult in the future [ 1 ]. In view of this, visitor loyalty to a destination is an important factor to take into account, especially for tourist destinations in areas with cultural heritage [ 2 ]. This research makes a valuable contribution to this subject [ 2 ].

The Citadel of the Catholic King is material heritage that has a lot of historical and cultural relevance. Firstly, due to the cultures that used the site. The first record of the existence of the enclave comes from Roman culture when it was used as a way to defend the city against incursions made on the Guadalquivir River. After that it became the center of Arabic culture in Spain, being used as the residence of the city rulers. After the reconquest of Cordoba by the Catholic kings, it was transformed into a building where the monarchs could rest and relax. The Citadel of the Catholic King is also a place where important historical changes for Spain and the world happened. It was the place where Cristopher Columbus met the Catholic Kings, who were the Monarchs that unified Spain into a Kingdom [ 3 ]. The building that can be visited today was built by Alfonso XI in 1328 on the site of the Omeya Citadel (Arabic origin) [ 4 ]. From 1492 to 1811, it was owned by the holy Catholic inquisition. From 1822 to 1931 it was a prison and later used as a military installation until its transfer in 1955 to the Córdoba City Council, which now owns it and manages it as a tourist site [ 5 ]. The Alcázar was classified as a Historical Monument in 1931 and is in the area in Córdoba that was declared a World Heritage Site by UNESCO in 1994. Currently, The Citadel of the Catholic King is the third most visited material heritage in Cordoba, the second being the synagogue of Cordoba and the first is the Mosque-Cathedral. In 2019 it had 615,737 tourist visits, and an average growth in visits of 10.69% in the last 10 years (Observatorio de turismo de Córdoba, 2019).

This study is based in the American Customer Satisfaction Index (ACSI) [ 6 ], which is a model that has been fully tested for use in research on tourism [ 7 ], tourist satisfaction [ 8 ], heritage [ 9 ] and culture [ 10 ].

“The ACSI model has been used in multiple studies of satisfaction and loyalty in tourism in general and in heritage tourism [ 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 ].

The model is based on the expectations that are created before visiting a heritage tourism destination (expected quality). Tourists once they arrive at their destination, live the experience at destination, perceive the quality of different factors that build the perceived quality. Both constructs, (expected quality and perceived quality) relate to the perceived value, which compares the balance or imbalance between perceived cost at its destination and the value received at it. Once the tourist has internalized the perceived value, he is able to assess the level of satisfaction at the destination. The satisfaction level allows you to decide to recommend and repeat the destination (Loyalty).”

This study expands the existing literature about the satisfaction and loyalty of heritage and cultural tourists, since the expected quality of the heritage and cultural aspects are separated, as are the perceived cultural quality and the perceived heritage quality. The concept of moderating constructs is also added to the classic theory of the Structural Equation Model. Two hypotheses specifically analyze the modulating effect of the constructs perceived cultural quality and perceived heritage quality of the visiting tourist. This study is configured as follows: first the introduction, secondly there is the theoretical framework that explains the constructs of the theoretical model and structural equations, below explains the methodology used and the fourth section summarizes the results of the research. To finish the article we find the discussion and conclusions of the study, followed by a list of the references used in the article.

In recent decades Cultural tourism occupies a niche market with exponential growth in international tourism [ 20 ]. Visiting tourists have motivations perceptions and build their idea of satisfactory destination based on various factors. Cultural and heritage, as an important part of the demand for knowledge of the place visited, create the experience of the tourist's visit that allows to have the ability to make the decision to return, recommend and promote the destination as a prominent part of his historical heritage experience [ 21 ]. World heritage cities compete to offer recreational and cultural experiences that attract the greatest number of tourists with the desire to learn more about the history of the destination, enriching their knowledge and their life experience [ 22 ]. Ramires, Brandao, and Sousa describes cultural historical tourism as a social phenomenon [ 23 ]. Cultural heritage cities have to differentiate the difference from the competition, either including in their cultural offer local customs, centuries of history, art and traditions transmitted from generation to generation. Consequently, heritage tourism is important for the cities that have heritage sites [ 24 ].

In this context, the components that are related to satisfaction in the visit to the material heritage can cite how visitors seek new experiences, authentic contexts and unique or exceptional activities. Actions such as participation, hedonism, knowledge, nostalgia, history, novelty and local culture are the basic ingredients of a memorable and satisfying tourist experience [ 25 ], in the same line the authors [ 26 ] highlight how the experiences provided in the heritage present the same degree of satisfaction for visitors that aims to visit the material heritage itself as those who visit the heritage for the tourist experiences around it (theatrical visits, historical explanations). This, coupled with the fact that these activities are usually carried out on holidays and that holiday contribute to the satisfaction of life and its quality of life [ 27 , 28 , 29 ] in addition to adding congratulations and pleasurable effects to the activities carried out in the holiday period [ 30 ].

Studies have shown that loyalty to a visited place is directly related to the satisfaction and opinion of the visitor [ 31 , 32 ]. Studies which analyze loyalty in tourism have mainly looked into the attitude and intention of the visitor [ 32 ]. Academic studies can be grouped into two categories due to how loyalty is examined. The first group investigates repeat purchases, that is to say, tourists returning to a destination. The second, and far more interesting, group takes loyalty to mean recommending the tourist destination to other future tourists [ 33 , 34 , 35 ]. This means that the tourist feels a connection with a destination and intends to visit it again in the future, while also recommending it to third parties [ 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 ]. It should be pointed out that there are authors who warn that a tourist’s desire for new experiences may counteract the loyalty shown to the destination [ 40 ]. Studies which investigate loyalty to cultural heritage are mainly cognitive and use structural equations to predict intentions to return to or recommend a destination [ 41 , 42 ].

How comfortable the tourist felt at the destination and the monument visited is one of the most important factors when deciding to return to a destination, and therefore for visitor loyalty [ 35 , 38 , 43 ]. The perceived quality is usually considered one of the most important factors in research on tourist behavior [ 44 ]. Researchers define perceived quality as the overall accumulation of the tourist’s feelings about the experience at a destination [ 45 , 46 ]. Tourists value their experience as positive or negative for different attributes of the monument or destination [ 80 ]. Following on from this idea, the perceived value of a destination by a visitor is considered to be the most important indicator of their intentions to return to the chosen destination. It is possible that a customer does not buy a product or service because it is not considered value for money as the perceived value is not adequate for the price asked [ 47 ]. Studies by different authors explain that perceived value measures a tourist’s general assessment of their experience at a destination from the feelings they had there [ 48 , 49 ]. Cossío-Silva et al. obtain a realistic idea of tourist behavior by means of this variable and the results obtained can be useful for public institutions and organizations that offer tourism [ 50 ]. Customers who are aware of the value of a service or product sometimes expect particular benefits from it [ 51 ]. For this reason, perceived value is related to the usefulness of a purchase because the purchase has intrinsic benefits that satisfy the buyer’s needs [ 52 ]. A tourist who is interested in value will look for information and contemplate the idea fully before making a decision [ 53 ]. This means that perceived value affects the decisions of customers [ 54 ]. Perceived value can positively affect the loyalty of a customer [ 47 ] because customers who are aware of the value of a service make positive judgements about it, relating value to price and critically assessing all options.

This study analyses the relationship between the following variables, perceived heritage quality (PPQ) and the expected heritage quality (EPQ), perceived cultural heritage quality (PCHQ) and the expected cultural heritage quality (ECHQ), the perceived value of the visit as a whole (PV), satisfaction (SATISFAC) and loyalty (LOYALTY). In literature there are several studies including these variables, however few studies include modulating variables in the relationships between constructs [ 55 , 56 ]. The different authors who have used this type of theoretical model are shown in Table 1 .

The questionnaire with which the data was obtained was designed following various authors who have used constructs similar to those used in the theoretical model. The ACSI model has been used in multiple studies of satisfaction and loyalty in tourism in general and in heritage tourism [ 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 ].

The model is based on the expectations that are created before visiting a heritage tourism destination (expected quality). Tourists once they arrive at their destination, live the experience at destination, perceive the quality of different factors that build the perceived quality. Both constructs, (expected quality and perceived quality) relate to the perceived value, which compares the balance or imbalance between perceived cost at its destination and the value received at it. Once the tourist has internalized the perceived value, he is able to assess the level of satisfaction at the destination. The satisfaction level allows you to decide to recommend and repeat the destination (loyalty).

The variables which were investigated in this study are satisfaction and loyalty. These have been studied on several occasions in different areas by several authors [ 57 , 58 ]. Both variables are positively related showing that the probability of a visitor at a heritage site revisiting or recommending the destination is high [ 59 , 60 ] if they are satisfied with the visit. These are judgments made by tourists because of their experience at the destination, and these affect the likelihood of the tourist revisiting the site or city and their willingness to recommend it to friends and family [ 2 , 61 ].

Managers of cultural material heritage should have previous information about the visitors who visit the site in order to plan actions which will improve the visitor expectations about the heritage and cultural experiences. These modify the behavior of the tourist because of the relationship between the perceived value and satisfaction. This study uses structural equations with all the above variables and, as it also includes a new approach using moderating relationships at heritage sites, it is of academic interest. This research increases the contribution to academic literature around heritage, loyalty and satisfaction by adding culture on the visit.

There are not many Royal and historical Citadels (with a past dated at least from the Muslim era) in Spain which are put in tourist value and are visitable. The uniqueness that were the quarters of the Catholic kings, with a historical character and that are touristic. In particular, there are four: Royal Citadel Sevilla, Royal Citadel Madrid, the Muslim Citadel of Valencia and the Royal Citadel Almunia (Palma de Mallorca). In academic matters, different studies have been carried out from the historical or archaeological perspective [ 62 , 63 ] but not from the tourist management. The Citadel of the Catholic King of Cordoba is the most culturally, and architecturally significant. It belongs to the historic center of Cordoba being an inscription by UNESCO and is dated from roman times, an optimal conservation and valued for the tourism, therefore it is the most historical and cultural.

The aim of this study is to add to the information available about cultural heritage tourism, contribute to the improvement of the management of visits to the unique heritage sites and provide useful knowledge for cultural heritage managers and tourism companies. The most concrete objective is to detect how tourist experiences in culture and heritage increase satisfaction and loyalty by increasing visits, repetition and their recommendation. This research studies the loyalty of visitors to the cultural heritage site and to the city, along with the Satisfaction and Expectations of the tourists who visit The Citadel of the Catholic King. Scientific literature which studies cultural heritage tourism by investigating heritage and culture, and the influence on Perceived Quality at different Citadel s, is scarce. While it is true that there are some studies in tourism with modeling variables, the study in particular cases of heritage tourism in Spain (as a second country in the ranking of international tourists) is novel. It contributes to academic knowledge about the cultural and heritage aspects of material heritage. This means that it makes a contribution to the current knowledge of cultural heritage and city management.

Therefore this article contributes in several ways: first it contributes to scientific literature in the analysis of the modulation of cultural and heritage quality perceived in the relationship between perceived value in general and satisfaction, considering ranges of low values and high values, secondly, provides the study of the characteristics of the cultural and heritage tourism through the visit to a cultural heritage and third place, provides conclusions to achieve or loyalty improve to tourists cultural and heritage.

Hypotheses development

The variables used to measure the loyalty of the visitors to the city of Cordoba were, (1) The expected cultural quality of The Citadel of the Catholic King, (2) The expected heritage quality of The Citadel of the Catholic King, (3) The perceived cultural quality of The Citadel of the Catholic King, (4) The perceived heritage quality of The Citadel of the Catholic King, (5) Comparing the expected quality and the perceived quality we can estimate the perceived value, (6) Satisfaction, as an emotional or cognitive response of the visiting tourist, and (7) The loyalty that tourists feel as a result of their attitude and contact with the experience in destiny.

The following (Fig.  1 ) hypotheses were formulated using the existing literature:

Research model

Hypothesis 1 (H1)

The expected patrimonial quality (EPQ) positively and significantly influences the perceived patrimonial quality (PPQ). EPQ influences PPQ.

Hypothesis 2 (H2)

The expected cultural heritage quality (ECHQ) positively and significantly influences the perceived cultural heritage quality (PCHQ). ECHQ influences PCHQ.

Hypothesis 3 (H3)

The perceived cultural heritage quality positively and significantly influences the perceived value as a whole. PCHQ influences PV.

Hypothesis 4 (H4)

The perceived patrimonial quality (PPQ) positively and significantly influences the perceived value (PV) as a whole. PPQ influences PV.

Hypothesis 5 (H5)

The perceived patrimonial quality (PPQ) positively and significantly influences the relationship between perceived value (PV) and satisfaction (SATISFAC). PPQ moderates PV which influences SATISFAC.

Hypothesis 6 (H6)

The perceived cultural heritage quality (PCHQ) positively and significantly influences the relationship between perceived value (PV) and satisfaction (SATISFAC). PCHQ moderates PV which influences SATISFAC.

Hypothesis 7 (H7)

The perceived value (PV) influences the satisfaction (SATISFAC) with it. PV influences SATISFAC.

Hypothesis 8 (H8)

The satisfaction of the visitor to the cultural heritage positively influences their loyalty to it. SATISFAC influences LOYALTY.

Methodology

Questionnaire and data collection.

This study was conducted in Córdoba, Andalusia, Spain. Córdoba, as with its four UNESCO world heritage sites, has an extraordinary cultural and heritage offer, full of history, traditions and centuries of Arab, Jewish and Christian knowledge [ 64 ]. The data was collected with a questionnaire, which was given to tourists visiting the Citadel of the Catholic King. To ensure the validity of the questionnaire, the questions were based on previous similar studies [ 65 ]. To ensure the validity of the questionnaire, the questions were based on previous similar studies [ 66 ].

The information was collected using a questionnaire together with a personal interview with each tourist after their visit to Citadel of the Catholic King. The questionnaire was prepared in November 2019. The validation of the survey and the construction of the questions is based on consolidated indicators from previous research [ 114 , 115 ]. Once the indicators had been obtained, a two-stage refining process was used. First, the indicators proposed by an investigator were analyzed, then the final survey was tested and verified by a manager at the Citadel of the Catholic King. This meant that the validity of the indicators in the constructs of the proposed research model were checked twice.

The questionnaire consisted of five sections, which were, (1) Questions about the expected heritage quality, perceived heritage quality and perceived value at The Citadel of the Catholic King, which includes the Arabic and Christian heritage of the Citadel, the conservation of the heritage site and the culture on display (2) Questions about the expected cultural quality, perceived cultural quality and perceived value at the The Citadel of the Catholic King, which includes the Arabic culture of the Citadel, the Christian culture of the Citadel and the information available about the history of the monument, etc. (3) Questions about visitor satisfaction with The Citadel of the Catholic King, (4) Questions about the loyalty of visitors to The Citadel of the Catholic King, and if they would recommend it to their family, friends, and workmates (5) Questions about the sociodemographic profile. Tourists were informed of the academic purposes and the anonymity of the study before completing the questionnaire. Verbal consent was requested before the tourist completed the questionnaire. The anonymity of the respondent was guaranteed at all times. The questions in the first four parts of the questionnaire used a seven-point Likert scale, where one was the answer totally disagree and seven totally agree. Participation in the study was voluntary. The questionnaire contained 68 items, the sample data was collected through a personal questionnaire at different times of the day. The questionnaire was only given to tourists who had visited the Citadel of the Catholic King and its cultural heritage. The sociodemographic profile and the details of the trip were completed with closed questions. There were 499 valid questionnaires in the sample, which had a 95% confidence level and a sampling error of 3.25%.

Research data was tabulated and analyzed using (PLS-SEM), using Warp-PLS 7.0 software (ScriptWarp Systems, P.O. Box 452428, Laredo, Texas, 78045, USA).

Many authors have used in their studies the latent variables seen in Table 1 .

This section describes the results obtained after applying the structural equation models. First, a summary of the sociodemographic profile is shown, then the reliability and validity of the proposed model, and finally, the contrast of the eight hypotheses raised in the theoretical model.

Table 2 shows the sociodemographic profile. 45.5% of those interviewed were women, compared to 53.3 men, and 1.2% did not indicate their sex. The questionnaires were answered mainly by young people between 30 and 39 years old (31.1%) who had studied at the university (39.7%).

The relationship between the observed and latent variables is shown in Table 3 . The structural coefficients of the normalized model have also been calculated.

Analysis of the individual reliability of the items

In order to validate the proposed model, the validity and reliability of the reflective and formative constructs were analyzed.

The formative construct (loyalty) follows the recommendations according to Sarstedt et al. Regarding the convergent validity of the constructs, all the articles proposed in the model (Table 4 ) had a value > 0.707 [ 99 ].

With an analysis of the reflective constructs we can study the individual reliability of the elements with an analysis of the simple correlations of each observed variable with respect to the construct to which it belongs. Following Carmines and Zeller [ 100 ] maintaining the values of 0.707 are necessary for a variable to be accepted as part of a construct. Fifty-six of the sixty-six reflective elements have values > 0.707, therefore we can affirm that it has good reliability for the elements that make up each first-order construct. Once individual reliability had been studied, the validity and reliability of the constructs were analyzed [ 101 ]. The analysis consisted of evaluating collinearity and verifying that the value of the inflation factor variance (VIF) is > five. The results did not show collinearity in the variables used for the loyalty construct.

Likewise, Table 5 shows the analysis of the reflective constructs (expected heritage quality, expected cultural quality, perceived heritage quality, perceived cultural quality, perceived value and satisfaction) [ 102 ].

After this analysis, we can affirm that the results indicated a quasi-optimal individual reliability, since all the load values were above the minimum required threshold of 0.505 or 0.6 according to Fornell and Larcker [ 103 ] and Barclay, Higgins and Thompson [ 101 ].

In fact, the analysis revealed that the loads were statistically significant at 99.99%. Based on the results of these calculations, the measurement model was considered valid and reliable, which meant that the structural model could then be analyzed.

Analysis of the reliability of the first-order constructs

In order to confirm whether the observed variables rigorously and adequately measure the latent variable they represent, following Nunnally and Bernstein [ 104 ], the Cronbach’s Alpha and composite reliability values are taken, checking if they are higher or equal to 0.7 (Table 7 ). As all the values exceed this lower limit, the reliability of the first order constructs and their ability to measure Loyalty are confirmed. In our analysis, all the constructs exceeded a value of 0.9 (expected heritage quality, perceived heritage quality, expected cultural quality, perceived cultural quality, perceived value and satisfaction) which means that there can be no doubt about the constructs capacity for measuring Loyalty (Table 6 ).

Convergent validity

To evaluate the convergent validity of a set of variables, that is, if it explains one construct and not another, the mean variance extracted (AVE) is used, it is the acceptance criterion most commonly used in research to evaluate this concept (Table 7 ). Fornell and Larcker [ 103 ] determined that the minimum value of the AVE must be > 0.5, which means that the construct shares more than half of its variance with its indicators, the rest of the variance is explained by the error measurement [ 68 ]. The mean variance extracted is applicable to latent variables with reflective indicators. The nine Loyalty variables share more than 69% of their variance. Based on the results obtained, we can confirm that the measurements made are valid.

Discriminatory validity

To verify the discriminatory validity, in line with Barclay, Higgins and Thompson the cross-factor loads of indicators of a latent variable are checked against the indicator loads of the other latent variables (Table 8 ). Factorial loads must have greater value with their own variable than with the others evaluated in the model.

In addition, Henseler et al., in conducting simulation studies, demonstrated that the lack of validity is better detected by means of the HTMT ratio (Table 9 ). If the monotrait-heteromethod correlations (correlations between indicators that measure the same construct) are greater than heterotrait-heteromethod (correlations between indicators that measure different constructs) there will be discriminatory validity. Thus, the HTMT key figure must be below one (Gold et al. consider a value of 0.90).

In this sense, you can also use a resampling or bootstrapping to test whether the HTMT key figure is significantly different from one using the confidence interval. According to the criteria set, the confidence intervals for the HTMT must be less than one, allowing this criterion to be validated (Table 10 ).

Hypothesis testing

To verify the goodness-of-fit of the proposed model, different parameters that address said goodness were calculated in Tables 11 and 12 .

Once all the constructs (reflective and formative) have been verified and validated as well as the goodness of the fit of the model, we can affirm that the results obtained are adequate and justify their validity and applicability.

Then the significance of the Path Coefficient of each hypothesis was calculated (Table 13 ). This showed that all the hypotheses are compatible (H1, H2, H3, H4, H5, H6, H7 and H8).

Hypotheses H1, H2, H3, H4, H5, H6, H7 and H8 were all supported. This means that there is a positive and significant relationship between the expected and perceived cultural quality, and the expected and perceived heritage quality. There is also a positive and significant relationship between perceived cultural and heritage quality and the overall perceived value. The perceived cultural quality has a positive and significant moderating influence on the relationship between perceived value and satisfaction of the visiting tourist. There is a positive and significant relationship between the satisfaction and loyalty of visitors at the heritage site.

Figure  2 shows the values of the structural coefficients of the constructs. The limiting probability (p-value) of each one is used to validate the importance of the relationships between the constructs of the proposed model.

Path diagram of the proposed model with the p-value

Discussion and conclusion

The satisfaction of the tourists who visit cities with cultural heritage is the determining factor for loyalty to the city. The tourists and visitors who would repeat their visit also recommend and share their cultural and heritage experience with family, friends and co-workers. The public administration aims to preserve culture and heritage and maintain the sustainable value of the cultural heritage sites it manages. For private travel companies that have been trying for years to increase the number of visitors and the number of overnight stays, the loyalty of visiting tourists is the key to achieving their goal, which will also increase employment and the economy at the destination.

The analysis of the loyalty of tourists in the destination is important for obtaining excellence in tourist destinations. In this study, a model of structural equations was generated in which latent modulating variables of the main components that are part of satisfaction were implemented. The loyalty of the visiting tourist especially interested in the heritage and culture of the selected destination is analyzed. The results obtained in the study confirmed the hypotheses proposed in the theoretical model and can be used to improve the competitiveness of a destination.

The main variables that influenced the choice of the destination city were the cultural and heritage quality that I expected to find when choosing to visit a city declared a World Heritage Site and the recommendation and loyalty of other visitors to the destination [ 105 , 106 , 107 ].

At the end of the visit to a world heritage city, the tourist evaluates the gap between the cultural and heritage quality that he expects at the time he prepares the visit, collects information and creates a preconceived idea of the destination and the one he perceives once arrives at the destination, has an experience through the professionals, the accommodations, the monuments and the heritage city as a whole. All this set of sensations and perceptions converge in the satisfaction of the visiting tourist, it gave a feeling of satisfaction that made the visitors recommend it to others as a tourist destination.

Hypothesis 1

The expected cultural quality of the visitor positively and significantly influences the perceived cultural quality. In Fig.  3 , the sinusoidal behavior of this variable can be observed, and shows that for very high values of expected cultural quality there is no direct influence on perceived cultural quality. This result coincides with studies by [ 69 , 108 ]. Heritage managers must organize cultural activities at and around the heritage site. These activities increase the expected quality and therefore also the perceived quality. Visitors commented that they would like to see theatrical activities together with specialist guides at the destination to increase their satisfaction with the visit.

Hypothesis 1 ECHQ—PCHQ

Hypothesis 2

The expected heritage quality of the visitor positively and significantly influences the perceived heritage quality. In Fig.  4 the sinusoidal behavior means that for very high values of expected heritage quality there is no direct influence on the perceived heritage quality. This confirms studies by [ 71 , 92 ]. This result suggests that the digital information available online and the information on display at the destination must be increased. The tourists interviewed in the study claimed that there were not many references to this heritage site in terms of videos, photography, etc. and therefore they did not have any references for the expected quality of the heritage, which means that the perceived heritage quality was diminished.

Hypothesis 2 EPQ—PPQ

Hypothesis 3

The perceived heritage quality of the visitor positively and significantly influences the perceived value of the destination as a whole. Figure  5 shows how the perceived value changes as the perceived heritage quality increases. These results coincide with other studies about heritage [ 71 ]. This means that managers of heritage sites should think about improving the maintenance at the site.

Hypothesis 3 PPQ—PV

Hypothesis 4

The perceived cultural quality of the visitor positively and significantly influences the perceived value of the destination as a whole. Figure  6 shows the linear influence of perceived cultural quality on the total perceived value. This result coincides with the research of [ 109 ]. Heritage managers should be aware of the cultural quality of the heritage. A pile of stones means nothing without the culture that is attached to it. Therefore, heritage managers must make sure that the culture that is associated with a site is explained in the tourists visits.

Hypothesis 4 PCHQ—PV

Hypothesis 5 (Fig.  7 a)

The perceived cultural quality (PCHQ) of the visitor positively and significantly modulates the relationship between perceived value and satisfaction. Figure  7 b shows that for a range of low moderating variable values (perceived cultural quality-PCHQ), in the face of unit increases in perceived value (PV), satisfaction (SATISFAC) increases more than proportionately; for a range of perceived cultural quality high values (PCHQ), in the face of unit increases in perceived value (PV) visitor satisfaction increases less than proportionately. Therefore, for both low values and high values of perceived cultural quality (PCHQ) the satisfaction (SATISFAC) of the visiting tourist increases in the face of increases in perceived value (PV). This matches the results found by other authors [ 68 , 73 ]. This means that increasing the quality of the heritage helps to increase the overall satisfaction of the tourist with the experience lived.

a. Hypothesis 5 3D. PCHQ ⟶ (PV—SATISFAC). b Hypothesis 5 2D. PCHQ ⟶ (PV—SATISFAC)

Hypothesis 6 (Fig.  8 a)

The perceived heritage quality (PPQ) by the visitor positively and significantly moderates the relationship between perceived value (PV) and satisfaction (SATISFAC). Figure  8 b shows that in a range of low values of the modulating variable (perceived quality of equity-PPQ), in the face of unit increases in perceived value (PV) satisfaction grows more than proportionally. In a range of high values of the moderating variable, the relationship between perceived value and satisfaction is linear. This coincides with the results of studies by other authors [ 110 , 111 ]. That is, for both low values and high values of the modulating variable, satisfaction (SATISFAC) increases as the perceived value (PV) increases. We can say that in view of increases in the quality of the heritage, increasing the perceived value of the site increases the satisfaction of the tourist. Increasing the quality of perceived heritage helps to increase overall satisfaction with the tourist experience.

a. Hypothesis 6 3D. PPQ ⟶ (PV—SATISFAC). b Hypothesis 6 2D. PPQ ⟶ (PV—SATISFAC)

Hypothesis 7

The perceived value of the visit influences visitor satisfaction with the heritage site. Figure  9 shows that for values of − 1.8 and more the expected cultural quality has a linear and direct influence on perceived cultural quality and for very low values this behavior is reversed. This result has also been observed by other authors [ 105 , 112 , 113 ]. This result means that for the case being studied, and for cultural heritage in general, the visitor satisfaction can be increased by providing information about the history and the culture of the site. This can be done by having rooms dedicating to the cultures that inhabited the heritage site and explaining the significant milestones that took place there. A high entrance price without offering much cultural and heritage information is counterproductive for the perceived value.

Hypothesis 7 PV—SATISFAC

Hypothesis 8 was also confirmed, showing the direct influence that visitor satisfaction in a destination has on tourist loyalty. Figure  10 shows the sine behavior of this relationship. Only in very low extreme values and very high satisfaction, it has no effect on the loyalty of the visiting tourist. For non-extreme values of satisfaction, in the face of increased satisfaction, there are proportional increases in tourist loyalty. The results showed that satisfaction, quality and expectations are positive factors that influence the visitor's decision to return, and recommend a destination. This coincided with the results of other studies [ 108 , 114 ]. This study confirmed the relationship between the high satisfaction of the tourist with the heritage of Cordoba and the willingness of tourists to return and recommend the Citadel of the Catholic King. This means that tourists’ loyalty from cultural heritage to heritage is high, even though deficiencies that affected heritage expectations were also identified. These deficiencies included the lack of a website dedicated to the site and the lack of advertising. Deficiencies affecting tourist satisfaction were also found. These include the lack of specialized guides, the lack of theatrical visits, the lack of signs and indications and the lack of information on the culture and history of heritage. The latter affects loyalty. Although tourist satisfaction was generally acceptable, there were too many irregularities to achieve tourist loyalty.

Hypothesis 8 SATISFAC—LOYALTY

This study outlines a reachable goal for the managers of the heritage in Cordoba so that the experience of visitors to the city can be maximized. This means that having visitors who are satisfied with their visit becomes one of the main reasons to exhibit the heritage. The results of this study agree with those found in previous studies [ 59 , 115 ] which indicate that satisfaction has a positive influence on loyalty to the destination, and encourages the tourist to return to the destination in the future and to recommend it to family and friends. This study states the most important factors to achieve loyalty of heritage tourists in a city which has been home to various cultures, and where there are different heritage sites that show the cultures that have inhabited the city.

This study identifies various factors which visitors to the city consider important when visiting a heritage site. The conservation and cleanliness of the heritage site were valued highly, as was the fact that the heritage sites are inside, or close to, the historical city center. In this way, Cordoba unites and links the tourist to the destination, which positively influences loyalty to the city. The brand created by this set of heritage sites, together with the perceived quality of the visit are factors which can be used to attract tourists who want to experience local culture by visiting these sites [ 95 ].

As general conclusions regarding the theoretical implications this research demonstrates, supports and verifies how variables in tourism affect each other. Research, search and study of new relationships and new variables becomes essential. Therefore, we must continue to study the different variables and their relationships in favor of the loyalty of the tourist in the destination. The practical implications for managers of this type of heritage is the importance of focusing on those who visit the heritage: that is, you have to think about all the tourist flows, motivations, moods, but always with the aim of giving a complete tourist experience and the highest quality for those who visit the heritage.

The limitations of this study were due to the sample which was used. The data was obtained from heritage tourists at The Citadel of the Catholic King, which means that the collected data is only valid for one type of tourist at one destination. It would be desirable to study elsewhere where kings stayed overnight and placed their base outside the capital. Another limitation is to perform the study at a time, being convenient to do it temporarily to see the evolution. Similarly, measuring loyalty as the intention of future behavior is a limitation of this study. Finally, loyalty does not always mean accurate behavior, the tourist can have amazing behavior [ 116 ].

For future lines of research, this study could be carried out in other destinations in Spain such as Madrid or Ibiza which have Alcazares of Catholic kings placed in tourist value, and the results obtained in this work could be compared with those of other destinations. Another possible line of research could be to perform this same study, but aimed at international tourists, in order to examine their motivations and thus establish a segmentation of the touristic offerings of the community according to the type of tourist, national or international.

On the other hand, this study does not deepen and concrete in the tourist experiences around the culture and heritage of a historical heritage asset and how each one affects the value of loyalty and recommendation, therefore, is a future line of research.

Availability of data and materials

Availability of data and materials in the editorial manager.

Kim H, et al. Assessing the economic values of World Heritage Sites and the effects of perceived authenticity on their values. Int J Tour Res. 2018;20(1):126–36.

Article   Google Scholar  

Zhang H, et al. Destination image and tourist loyalty: a meta-analysis. Tour Manage. 2014;40:213–23.

Montejo Córdoba AJ. La rauda del Alcázar de Córdoba . 2006.

Redondo JFM, et al. Investigaciones arqueológicas en la Muralla de la Huerta del Alcázar (Córdoba). Anejos de anales de arqueología cordobesa. 2009;2:183–230.

Google Scholar  

Arjona Fuentes J. Potencialidad De Los Eventos De Religiosidad Popular Como Complemento a La Oferta De Turismo Cultural En La Ciudad De Córdoba (Appeal of Popular Religious Events as a Complement to Cultural Tourist Attractions in the City of Cordova) . Available at SSRN 2595585, 2014.

Fornell C, et al. The American customer satisfaction index: nature, purpose, and findings. J Mark. 1996;60(4):7–18.

Bezerra GC, Gomes CF. Determinants of passenger loyalty in multi-airport regions: implications for tourism destination. Tourism Manage Perspect. 2019;31:145–58.

Huang S, Weiler B, Assaker G. Effects of interpretive guiding outcomes on tourist satisfaction and behavioral intention. J Travel Res. 2015;54(3):344–58.

Jimber del Río JA, et al. Loyalty in heritage tourism: the case of Córdoba and its four world heritage sites. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(23):8950.

Cho M-H. A study of authenticity in traditional Korean folk villages. Int J Hosp Tour Adm. 2012;13(2):145–71.

de Sousa EM, et al. Innovation in explaining loyalty: extension of the ACSI model. Rev Admin Em Dialog. 2021;23(1):10–25.

Gao B, et al. When online reviews meet ACSI: how ACSI moderates the effects of online reviews on hotel revenue. J Travel Tour Mark. 2020;37:396–408.

Ali SS, Kaur R. An analysis of satisfaction level of 3PL service users with the help of ACSI. Benchmarking Int J. 2018;25(1):24–46.

Kim W-H. The impact of online reviews on customer satisfaction: an application of the American Customer Satisfaction Index (ACSI). Int J Tour Manage Sci. 2017;32(5):65–78.

Dani V. Measuring customer satisfaction for F&B chains in Pune using ACSI model . In: International Conference on Trade, Markets and Sustainability (Ictms-2013), 2014;133:465–472.

Sun K-A, Kim D-Y. Does customer satisfaction increase firm performance? An application of American Customer Satisfaction Index (ACSI). Int J Hosp Manage. 2013;35:68–77.

Ivanov V, Joseph K, Wintoki MB. Disentangling the market value of customer satisfaction: evidence from market reaction to the unanticipated component of ACSI announcements. Int J Res Mark. 2013;30(2):168–78.

Park T, Jaegal D. Understanding the satisfaction process of festival visitors through the revised ACSI model: the Andong Mask Dance Festival. J Tour Sci. 2005;28(4):87–105.

Ali SS, Kaur R. An analysis of satisfaction level of 3PL service users with the help of ACSI. Benchmarking Int J. 2018;25:24–46.

Altunel MC, Erkurt B. Cultural tourism in Istanbul: the mediation effect of tourist experience and satisfaction on the relationship between involvement and recommendation intention. J Destin Mark Manag. 2015;4(4):213–21.

Craik J. The culture of tourism. In: Touring cultures. Routledge; 2002. p. 123–46.

Poria Y, Butler R, Airey D. Links between tourists, heritage, and reasons for visiting heritage sites. J Travel Res. 2004;43(1):19–28.

Ramires A, Brandao F, Sousa AC. Motivation-based cluster analysis of international tourists visiting a World Heritage City: the case of Porto, Portugal. J Destin Mark Manag. 2018;8:49–60.

Burns L, Eaddy M, Moore C, Speno L, McRae H. Heritage tourism handbook: a how-to guide for Georgia. Atlanta, GA, USA: Georgia Department of Natural Resources; 2010.

Crespi-Vallbona M. Satisfying experiences: guided tours at cultural heritage sites. J Herit Tour. 2021;16(2):201–17.

Jensen O, Li Y, Uysal M. Visitors’ satisfaction at managed tourist attractions in Northern Norway: do on-site factors matter? Tour Manage. 2017;63:277–86.

Dolnicar S, Yanamandram V, Cliff K. The contribution of vacations to quality of life. Ann Tour Res. 2012;39(1):59–83.

Su MM, Wall G, Xu K. Heritage tourism and livelihood sustainability of a resettled rural community: mount Sanqingshan World Heritage Site, China. J Sustain Tour. 2016;24(5):735–57.

McCabe S, Johnson S. The happiness factor in tourism: subjective well-being and social tourism. Ann Tour Res. 2013;41:42–65.

Gilbert D, Abdullah J. Holidaytaking and the sense of well-being. Ann Tour Res. 2004;31(1):103–21.

Paul J, Modi A, Patel J. Predicting green product consumption using theory of planned behavior and reasoned action. J Retail Consum Serv. 2016;29:123–34.

Buhalis D, López EP, Martinez-Gonzalez JA. Influence of young consumers’ external and internal variables on their e-loyalty to tourism sites. J Destin Mark Manag. 2020;15:100409.

Castro CB, Armario EM, Ruiz DM. The influence of market heterogeneity on the relationship between a destination’s image and tourists’ future behaviour. Tour Manage. 2007;28(1):175–87.

Chen C-F, Tsai D. How destination image and evaluative factors affect behavioral intentions? Tour Manage. 2007;28:1115–22.

Sato S, et al. Adventure tourism motivation and destination loyalty: a comparison of decision and non-decision makers. J Destin Mark Manag. 2018;8:74–81.

Kozak M. Repeaters’ behavior at two distinct destinations. Ann Tour Res. 2001;28(3):784–807.

Kozak M, Rimmington M. Tourist satisfaction with Mallorca, Spain, as an off-season holiday destination. J Travel Res. 2000;38:260–9.

Yoon Y, Uysal M. An examination of the effects of motivation and satisfaction on destination loyalty: a structural model. Tour Manage. 2005;26:45–56.

Chi CG-Q, Qu H. Examining the structural relationships of destination image, tourist satisfaction and destination loyalty: an integrated approach. Tour Manage. 2008;29:624–36.

Hallak R, Assaker G, El-Haddad R. Re-examining the relationships among perceived quality, value, satisfaction, and destination loyalty: a higher-order structural model. J Vacat Mark. 2018;24:118–35.

Kang J-W, Lee H, Namkung Y. The impact of restaurant patrons’ flow experience on SNS satisfaction and offline purchase intentions. Int J Contemp Hosp Manag. 2018;30:797–816.

Yu T-W, Chen T-J. Online travel insurance purchase intention: a transaction cost perspective. J Travel Tour Mark. 2018;35:1175–86.

Yuksel A, Yuksel F, Bilim Y. Destination attachment: effects on customer satisfaction and cognitive, affective and conative loyalty. Tour Manage. 2010;31:274–84.

Wu H-C, Li T. A study of experiential quality, perceived value, heritage image, experiential satisfaction, and behavioral intentions for heritage tourists. J Hospital Tour Res. 2017;41(8):904–44.

Jin N, Lee S, Lee H. The effect of experience quality on perceived value, satisfaction, image and behavioral intention of water park patrons: new versus repeat visitors. Int J Tour Res. 2015;17:82–95.

Loureiro SMC, González FJM. The importance of quality, satisfaction, trust, and image in relation to rural tourist loyalty. J Travel Tour Mark. 2008;25:117–36.

Lichtenstein DR, Netemeyer RG, Burton S. Distinguishing coupon proneness from value consciousness: an acquisition-transaction utility theory perspective. J Mark. 1990;54:54–67.

Chang L-L, Backman KF, Huang YC. Creative tourism: a preliminary examination of creative tourists’ motivation, experience, perceived value and revisit intention. Int J Cult Tour Hospital Res. 2014;8:401–19.

Anderson EW, Sullivan MW. The antecedents and consequences of customer satisfaction for firms. Mark Sci. 1993;12:125–43.

Cossío-Silva F-J, Revilla-Camacho M-Á, Vega-Vázquez M. The tourist loyalty index: a new indicator for measuring tourist destination loyalty? J Innov Knowl. 2019;4:71–7.

Bao YQ. Discerning store brand users from value consciousness consumers: the role of prestige. Adv Consum Res Vol Xxxi. 2004;31:707–12.

Chen C-F, Chou S-H. Antecedents and consequences of perceived coolness for Generation Y in the context of creative tourism—a case study of the Pier 2 Art Center in Taiwan. Tour Manage. 2019;72:121–9.

Pillai KG, Kumar V. Differential effects of value consciousness and coupon proneness on consumers’ persuasion knowledge of pricing tactics. J Retail. 2012;88(1):20–33.

Delgado-Ballester E, Hernandez-Espallardo M, Rodriguez-Orejuela A. Store image influences in consumers’ perceptions of store brands: the moderating role of value consciousness. Eur J Mark. 2014;48(9–10):1850–69.

Parasuraman A, Zeithaml VA, Berry LL. A conceptual model of service quality and its implications for future research. J Mark. 1985;49(4):41–50.

Chang S. Experience economy in hospitality and tourism: gain and loss values for service and experience. Tour Manage. 2018;64:55–63.

Wong IA, Ji M, Liu MT. The effect of event supportive service environment and authenticity in the quality-value-satisfaction framework. J Hospital Tour Res. 2018;42(4):563–86.

Kuo N-T, et al. The asymmetric effect of tour guide service quality on tourist satisfaction. J Qual Assur Hosp Tour. 2018;19(4):521–42.

Alrawadieh Z, Alrawadieh Z, Kozak M. Exploring the impact of tourist harassment on destination image, tourist expenditure, and destination loyalty. Tour Manage. 2019;73:13–20.

Azhar ME, Prayogi MA, Sari M. The role of marketing mix and service quality on tourist satisfaction and loyalty at samosir. Rev Hospital. 2018;15:124–37.

Cronin Jr JJ, Brady MK, Hult GTM. Assessing the effects of quality, value, and customer satisfaction on consumer behavioral intentions in service environments. J Retail. 2000;76(2):193–218.

Cabeza Méndez JM. El Real Alcázar de Sevilla. Zabaglia. 2011;8:10–3.

Jiménez Castillo P, Navarro Palazón J, Alcázares. alcazabas y almunias durante el periodo taifa (siglo XI): los espacios palatinos al servicio de unos poderes en formación . 2016.

Csapo J. The role and importance of cultural tourism in modern tourism industry. In: Strategies for tourism industry-micro and macro perspectives. 2012;201–232.

Farooq MS, et al. Impact of service quality on customer satisfaction in Malaysia airlines: a PLS-SEM approach. J Air Transp Manag. 2018;67:169–80.

Ozdemir B, Çizel B, Bato CR. Satisfaction with all-inclusive tourism resorts: the effects of satisfaction with destination and destination loyalty. Int J Hospital Tour Admin. 2012;13(2):109–30.

Nguyen THH, Cheung C. Chinese heritage tourists to heritage sites: what are the effects of heritage motivation and perceived authenticity on satisfaction? Asia Pacific J Tour Res. 2016;21(11):1155–68.

Kempiak J, et al. The heritage tourist: an understanding of the visitor experience at heritage attractions. Int J Herit Stud. 2017;23(4):375–92.

Ganzaroli A, De Noni I, van Baalen P. Vicious advice: analyzing the impact of TripAdvisor on the quality of restaurants as part of the cultural heritage of Venice. Tour Manage. 2017;61:501–10.

Alazaizeh MM, et al. Giving voice to heritage tourists: indicators of quality for a sustainable heritage experience at Petra, Jordan. J Tour Cult Chang. 2019;17(3):269–84.

Thanou A, Tsiropoulou EE, Papavassiliou S. Quality of experience under a prospect theoretic perspective: a cultural heritage space use case. IEEE Trans Comput Soc Syst. 2019;6(1):135–48.

Mansor N, et al. Mosque tourism certification in Waqf management: a model by Ukhwah Samara. Soc Sci Human. 2015;23:291–304.

Donthu N, Yoo B. Cultural influences on service quality expectations. J Serv Res. 1998;1(2):178–86.

Tata J, Prasad S. Cultural and structural constraints on total quality management implementation. Total Qual Manag. 1998;9(8):703–10.

Gurung A, Prater E. A research framework for the impact of cultural differences on IT outsourcing. In: Global sourcing of services: strategies, issues and challenges. World Scientific; 2017. p. 49–82.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Chen C-F, Chen F-S. Experience quality, perceived value, satisfaction and behavioral intentions for heritage tourists. Tour Manage. 2010;31(1):29–35.

Jeon MM, Kang MM, Desmarais E. Residents’ perceived quality of life in a cultural-heritage tourism destination. Appl Res Qual Life. 2016;11(1):105–23.

Lee S, et al. Heritage tourism in Singapore Chinatown: a perceived value approach to authenticity and satisfaction. J Travel Tour Mark. 2016;33(7):981–98.

Agyeiwaah E, et al. Understanding culinary tourist motivation, experience, satisfaction, and loyalty using a structural approach. J Travel Tour Mark. 2019;36(3):295–313.

Thi K, et al. The effects of service quality on international tourist satisfaction and loyalty: insight from Vietnam. Int J Data Netw Sci. 2020;4(2):179–86.

Marshall PA. Cultural influences on perceived quality of life. In: Seminars in oncology nursing. Elsevier; 1990.

Pouso S, Uyarra MC, Borja Á. The recovery of estuarine quality and the perceived increase of cultural ecosystem services by beach users: a case study from northern Spain. J Environ Manage. 2018;212:450–61.

Mohseni S, et al. Attracting tourists to travel companies’ websites: the structural relationship between website brand, personal value, shopping experience, perceived risk and purchase intention. Curr Issue Tour. 2018;21(6):616–45.

Nilson TH. Value-added marketing: marketing management for superior results. McGraw-Hill Book Company; 1992.

Pandža Bajs I. Tourist perceived value, relationship to satisfaction, and behavioral intentions: the example of the Croatian tourist destination Dubrovnik. J Travel Res. 2015;54(1):122–34.

Tom Dieck MC, Jung TH. Value of augmented reality at cultural heritage sites: a stakeholder approach. J Destinat Market Manag. 2017;6(2):110–7.

Gallarza MG, Maubisson L, Rivière A. Replicating consumer value scales: a comparative study of EVS and PERVAL at a cultural heritage site. J Bus Res. 2020;126:614–23.

Qi L, et al. Time-aware distributed service recommendation with privacy-preservation. Inf Sci. 2019;480:354–64.

Hallak R, Assaker G, El-Haddad R. Re-examining the relationships among perceived quality, value, satisfaction, and destination loyalty: a higher-order structural model. J Vacat Mark. 2018;24(2):118–35.

Cheng BL, et al. Service recovery, customer satisfaction and customer loyalty: evidence from Malaysia’s hotel industry. Int J Qual Serv Sci. 2019;11:187–203.

Hosany S, Prayag G. Patterns of tourists’ emotional responses, satisfaction, and intention to recommend. J Bus Res. 2013;66(6):730–7.

Domínguez-Quintero AM, González-Rodríguez MR, Paddison B. The mediating role of experience quality on authenticity and satisfaction in the context of cultural-heritage tourism. Curr Issue Tour. 2020;23(2):248–60.

Veasna S, Wu W-Y, Huang C-H. The impact of destination source credibility on destination satisfaction: the mediating effects of destination attachment and destination image. Tour Manage. 2013;36:511–26.

Assaker G, Vinzi VE, O’Connor P. Examining the effect of novelty seeking, satisfaction, and destination image on tourists’ return pattern: a two factor, non-linear latent growth model. Tour Manage. 2011;32(4):890–901.

San Martín H, Herrero A, García de los Salmones MdM. An integrative model of destination brand equity and tourist satisfaction. Curr Issues Tour. 2019;22(16):1992–2013.

Gómez-Zapata JD, Espinal-Monsalve NE, Herrero-Prieto LC. Economic valuation of museums as public club goods: why build loyalty in cultural heritage consumption? J Cult Herit. 2018;30:190–8.

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 Pacific J Tour Res. 2017;22(9):977–90.

Fu X. Existential authenticity and destination loyalty: evidence from heritage tourists. J Destin Mark Manag. 2019;12:84–94.

Henseler J, Chin WW. A comparison of approaches for the analysis of interaction effects between latent variables using partial least squares path modeling. Struct Equ Model. 2010;17(1):82–109.

Carmines EG, Zeller RA. Reliability and validity assessment, vol. 17. USA: Sage publications; 1979.

Book   Google Scholar  

Barclay D, Higgins C, Thompson R. The partial least squares (PLS) approach to casual modeling: personal computer adoption ans use as an Illustration. 1995.

Hair JF, Ringle CM, Sarstedt M. Partial least squares: the better approach to structural equation modeling? Long Range Plan. 2012;45(5–6):312–9.

Fornell C, Larcker DF. Structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error: algebra and statistics. USA: SAGE Publications; 1981.

Nunnally JC, Bernstein IH. Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1978.

Su L, Hsu MK, Swanson S. The effect of tourist relationship perception on destination loyalty at a world heritage site in China: the mediating role of overall destination satisfaction and trust. J Hospital Tour Res. 2017;41(2):180–210.

Santa-Cruz FG, López-Guzmán T. Culture, tourism and world heritage sites. Tour Manag Perspect. 2017;24:111–6.

Cossío-Silva F-J, Revilla-Camacho M-Á, Vega-Vázquez M. The tourist loyalty index: a new indicator for measuring tourist destination loyalty? J Innov Knowl. 2019;4(2):71–7.

Chen H, Rahman I. Cultural tourism: an analysis of engagement, cultural contact, memorable tourism experience and destination loyalty. Tour Manag Perspect. 2018;26:153–63.

Oriade A, Schofield P. An examination of the role of service quality and perceived value in visitor attraction experience. J Destin Mark Manag. 2019;11:1–9.

Sánchez-Sánchez MD, De-Pablos-Heredero C, Montes-Botella JL. A behaviour model for cultural tourism: loyalty to destination. Econ Res Ekonomska Istraživanja, 2020;1–18.

Elmoussaoui M. The phenomenological significance of dwelling in architecture. The case of Eastern Beka’a Valley-Lebanon. 2020.

Liu Y, et al. Understanding the relationship between food experiential quality and customer dining satisfaction: a perspective on negative bias. Int J Hosp Manag. 2020;87:102381.

Alnawas I, Hemsley-Brown J. Examining the key dimensions of customer experience quality in the hotel industry. J Hosp Market Manag. 2019;28(7):833–61.

Prayag G, et al. Understanding the relationships between tourists’ emotional experiences, perceived overall image, satisfaction, and intention to recommend. J Travel Res. 2017;56:41–54.

Su Y, Teng W. Contemplating museums’ service failure: extracting the service quality dimensions of museums from negative on-line reviews. Tour Manage. 2018;69:214–22.

Bodet G. Loyalty in sport participation services: an examination of the mediating role of psychological commitment. J Sport Manag. 2012;26(1):30–42.

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

This research received no external funding.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department Agricultural Economics, Sociology, and Policy, Faculty of Economics and Business Sciences, Universidad de Córdoba, Plaza de Puerta Nueva S/N, 14002, Cordoba, Spain

Ricardo David Hernández-Rojas & Juan Antonio Jimber del Río

Management, International Relations, University of Science and Technology, Fujairah, UAE

Alberto Ibáñez Fernández

Department of Research, Ecotec University, Samborondón-Ecuador and Espiritu Santo University, Samborondón, Ecuador

Arnaldo Vergara-Romero

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

Conceptualization, AV-R and RDH-R; methodology, JAJR and AI-F; software, JAJR and RDH-R; validation JAJR; RDH-R and AV-R; formal analysis, JAJR; RDH-R; AI-F; investigation, AV-R and RDH-R; resources, AV-R and RDH-R; data curation, RH-R and AI-F; writing—original draft preparation, AV-R; writing—review and editing, AV-R, AI-F; visualization, AV-R; supervision, JAJR; project administration, N/A; funding acquisition, N/A.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Juan Antonio Jimber del Río .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

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

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ . 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.

Hernández-Rojas, R.D., del Río, J.A.J., Fernández, A.I. et al. The cultural and heritage tourist, SEM analysis: the case of The Citadel of the Catholic King. Herit Sci 9 , 52 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40494-021-00525-0

Download citation

Received : 25 February 2021

Accepted : 23 April 2021

Published : 06 May 2021

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s40494-021-00525-0

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

• Heritage tourism
• Cultural heritage
• Structual ecuation model

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• PMC10058118

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

Cristy brooks.

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

Emma Waterton

2 School of Social Sciences, Western Sydney University, Sydney, Australia

3 Department of Archaeology, University of York, York, United Kingdom

Hayley Saul

Andre renzaho.

4 Maternal, Child and Adolescent Health Program, Burnet Institute, Melbourne, Australia

Associated Data

All relevant data are within the paper.

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

Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

Study rationale

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

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

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

Search strategy

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

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

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

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

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

The search covered the following bibliographic databases and electronic collections:

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

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

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

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

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

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

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

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

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

Study selection and screening

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

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

Data extraction

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

Quality assessment

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

Data synthesis

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

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

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

Identifying metaphors and themes

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

Determining how the studies were related

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

Translation and synthesis of studies

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusions

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

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

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

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

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

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

Supporting information

S1 checklist, acknowledgments.

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

Declarations

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

Funding Statement

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

Data Availability