Available via license: CC BY 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
sustainability
Article
A Review of the Role of Social Media for the Cultural
Heritage Sustainability
Xiaoxu Liang 1, Yanjun Lu 2and John Martin 3,*
Citation: Liang, X.; Lu, Y.; Martin, J.
A Review of the Role of Social Media
for the Cultural Heritage
Sustainability. Sustainability 2021,13,
1055. https://doi.org/10.3390/
su13031055
Academic Editor: Pier Luigi Sacco
Received: 23 December 2020
Accepted: 12 January 2021
Published: 20 January 2021
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affil-
iations.
Copyright: © 2021 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
1Department of Architecture and Design, Politecnico di Torino, 10129 Turin, Italy; xiaoxu.liang@polito.it
2School of Architecture & Urban Planning, Chongqing University, Chongqing 400030, China;
yanjun.luuu@gmail.com
3Sustainable Earth Institute, University of Plymouth, Plymouth PL4 8AA, UK
*Correspondence: J.Martin-2@plymouth.ac.uk
Abstract:
During the last 20 years, with the development of Information and Communication
Technologies (ICTs), an emerging interest has appeared in Digital Community Engagement (DCE) in
the process of cultural heritage management. Due to a growing need to involve a broader community
in the Historic Urban Landscape approach, social media are considered one of the most important
platforms to promote the public participation process of urban heritage conservation in the context of
rapid urbanization. Despite the growing literature on DCE, which has delivered a general overview
of different digital technologies and platforms to enhance heritage conservation, little research has
been done on taking stock of the utilization of social media in this process. This study aims to fill
the research gap by providing a more comprehensive picture of the functionalities of social media
platforms and their impacts on sustainable urban development through a systematic literature review.
As a result, 19 out of 248 DCE relevant articles are selected as objects to illustrate the contribution of
social media. The study identified the characteristics of these applied social media tools, explores
their roles and influences in cases. The article concludes that social media offers a platform for a
wider range of stakeholders to have a voice in the decision process of cultural heritage management,
and it should be widely applied to encourage citizens from all over the world.
Keywords:
digital community engagement; social media; cultural heritage management; sustainable
urban development
1. Introduction
The necessity and importance of paying attention to the participatory method in cul-
tural heritage management are enhanced in the last decades [
1
]. The 1994 Nara Document
on Authenticity cautiously opened the way to a culture-based appreciation of conservation
values [
2
], in 1998, the Stockholm Intergovernmental Conference on Cultural Policies for
Development clearly expressed the development dimension of culture [
3
]. Since then,
international practitioners have paid more attention to the diversity of cultural expressions
and recognized that an understanding of the diversity of cultures is the solution to ensure
an effective and sustainable link between a society and its heritage [
3
]. People-centered
approaches are clearly challenging the established principles defined by both material-
based approaches and values-based approaches [
4
,
5
]. In line with it, the Historic Urban
Landscape approach is recommended by UNESCO as a “bottom-up” expression of social
values and social choice which can better recognize cultural diversity and the dynamic
nature of urban heritage in the context of rapid globalization [6,7].
The role of community in sustainable cultural heritage management has been high-
lighted at UNESCO conferences since 1994 (the publication of the Nara Document on
Authenticity) and echoed in the global dimension [
8
–
10
]. The “community engagement
tools” are listed as one of the expanded conservational instruments by the Historic Ur-
ban Landscape approach among “regulatory systems”, “technical tools (knowledge and
Sustainability 2021,13, 1055. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13031055 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability
Sustainability 2021,13, 1055 2 of 17
planning tools)”, and “financial tools” of the Historic Urban Landscape approach, which
contributes to long-term sustainable and inclusive urban development [
11
,
12
]. In which,
the identification of the core and the broader community is the priority to involve stake-
holders [4,10]. The core community refers to the residents who are living in or nearby the
heritage site, while other facilitators such as authorities, experts, and economic actors are
recognized as the broader community [
13
,
14
]. Local communities can share responsibilities
of integrating heritage conservation in sustainable urban development through community
collaboration and empowerment [6,15–17].
2. Current Approaches to Engagement and Management
2.1. The New Form of Community: Online Community
The internet, as a kind of social media, could offer a crucial platform that is community-
based for sustainable and holistic heritage conservation [
18
]. It fosters an open atmosphere
such that all the motivated participants can become involved in the cultural heritage
protection easily with access to the internet [
19
,
20
]. Furthermore, ICTs offer an open-
participatory platform, in which citizens can play an active role, to a broader range of
stakeholders across scales, classes, races, genders, ages, which is crucial for collaborative
planning and conservation [21,22].
Online communities, which are formed with specific cultural practices or gathered by
a common topic based on heritage sites or other forms of cultural heritage, have emerged
recently accompanied by the arrival of the Web 2.0 era [
18
,
23
,
24
]. Compared with offline
community engagement, online community communication is totally geo-free, thus, it can
promote mutual understandings between people with different cultural backgrounds [
25
].
People can share their memories or feelings which could be part of the “sense of place” with
geographically close people or with a crowd on the other side of the earth [26]. Moreover,
it creates more opportunities and breaks the occupational boundary for collaboration
between local communities and professionals [
27
–
29
]. Taking part in this kind of online
community, people can share their knowledge of any aspects of cultural heritage with
specialists in the field [
30
,
31
], but also gain more opportunities for education outreach [
32
].
In addition, communications among online communities showcase a far efficient way
by being informed and getting feedback easier and faster [
33
]. They could also leave a
comment or chat in real-time with journalists or concerned authorities who are involved in
this collaboration [34]
2.2. Digital Tools to Promote Community Collaboration
Over time, frontier scholars have shown their interest in studying various ways
(co-production, E-education, digital archive, location-based games) that ICTs (e.g., AR,
3D modeling, VR, GIS) including social media have fostered community engagement
and collaboration in urban planning and heritage conservation [
35
,
36
]. Digital interactive
applications have been widely used in cultural heritage sites and have hitherto concentrated
on community engagement, the equity of multi voices, community empowerment.
Following with technological progress, the integration of digitized presentation and
crowdsourcing technology in terms of communication and collaboration for cultural
heritage has become a necessary trend [
37
]. Co-production (also known as co-design,
co-creation) as a way of collaborative participation has become increasingly popular in
multiple activities, including product design for museums, libraries, and heritage plan-
ning [
30
,
31
]. Aligned with it, open collections can be used in both formal and informal
educational contexts (known as E-education) to share findings and exchange perceptions
with stakeholders [
38
,
39
]. Furthermore, citizens that gathered as an online community are
empowered to create their own digital heritage landscapes, museums, and archives by
photo sharing, video-audio records, and narratives [
40
–
42
]. In addition, location-based
mobile games are utilized to foster in young visitors a larger extent of motivation to explore
museums and facilitate their meaning-making process [43–45].
Sustainability 2021,13, 1055 3 of 17
Immersive technologies, especially Augmented Reality (AR) based applications can
promote the value of industrial heritage and museums across educational, collaborative,
and digital technology sectors [
46
,
47
]. In the historical industrial site of Carpano (Italy),
an AR game was designed to improve visitors’ visiting experience by offering industrial,
artistic, and historical knowledge [
47
]. While in a museum of children’s literature (UK),
AR plays a role as a mediator between targeted audiences (7–11-year-old children) and
specialists for collaborative practice [46].
3D modeling and printing technologies are becoming more prevalent in the cultural
heritage conservation field without space and time constraints [
32
,
48
,
49
]. Jefferey argues
that a site’s physical structure can be recorded and deployed by 3D visualizations not only
by heritage professionals but also by broader local community groups [
48
,
49
]. Instead,
Champion highlighted the application of 3D models in the preservation of intangible
heritage [32].
It is said that the concept of virtual heritage refers to applying Virtual Reality (VR)
technology to cultural heritage assets for heritage communication purposes [
50
,
51
]. 3D
modeling and animations in a video sequence are also involved to represent a better legible
solution [
50
]. However, Hurley shows concern that the current VR applications in the
heritage site of Old North St. Louis largely contribute museum displays rather than real
participatory planning [51].
Various cultural heritage sites benefit from the concept of crowdsourcing, especially
by web-mapping and the analysis from a Geographic Information System (GIS) in mo-
bile [
26
,
52
,
53
]. Volunteered Geographic Information (VGI) Data is collected, computed, and
visualized based on the Share Our Cultural Heritage (SOCH) web, aiming to document and
share cultural heritage worldwide [
26
]. Meanwhile, the online geospatial heritage database
can overcome many of the limitations associated with traditional heritage catalogs [
52
],
both tangible cultural heritage and intangible ones [53].
2.3. The Role of Social Media in Sustainable Cultural Heritage Management
Social media apps contribute significantly to collective community memory by story-
telling practices and cultural expression by mapping [
25
,
54
,
55
]. It is worth mentioning that
the definition of social media in this work refers to any digital tool that allows users to
quickly create and share content with the public, encompassing a wide range of websites
and apps such as the following: (1) photo-sharing apps like Instagram, Flickr; (2) video
and audio sharing apps like YouTube; (3) short written message sharing apps like Face-
book, Twitter; (4) and other apps designed for geo-location sharing with social interaction
functions.
The eagerness of people to obtain relevant real-time information and take part in the
planning inspires a lot of potential for involvement both in the use of social media and in
addressing them to cultural heritage [
33
,
56
]. Besides, social media emphasize the equity of
discourses by being accessed easily to all Internet users to publish, communicate, read, or
broadcast information inexpensively [
57
]. In terms of time, social media products allow
users to publish information and get feedback in near-real-time [
58
]. Svensson offers a
great answer that social media can enable and strengthen people’s effective engagement
with heritage [59].
Approaches to involving social media in the museums, monuments, and urban her-
itage sites are on-going and rapidly growing in interest. Some agencies and authorities
made an effort in programming and extracting data, such as information on QR codes,
to enhance the communication among participants [
21
,
39
,
58
]. Another main approach is
storytelling by collecting and analyzing narratives, including both short-term comments
and blogs, through popular social media apps, such as Facebook, Twitter, and collective
memory websites [
25
,
34
,
54
–
56
]. In parallel, mapping is one of the crucial tools to get an
insight into the community mechanism and user’s expectations [
25
,
26
,
54
,
59
,
60
]. Moreover,
in some cases, online surveys based on selected platforms are spread to strengthen the right
and ability of multi voices [
19
,
28
,
33
,
36
,
55
] It should be noted that the methods mentioned
Sustainability 2021,13, 1055 4 of 17
above are not exclusive of each other. Instead, they are utilized as an integrated toolkit a
number of times.
3. Methodology
3.1. Publication Collection
To identify relevant publications, a stepwise review approach was employed. The
review was based on the database of Web of Science (WoS) and included all articles that
discussed and presented social media for cultural and urban heritage conservation. A
PIST tool was designed by drawing lessons from the PICOS method in the medical field
of research to define the keywords of the search preparation [
61
,
62
]. The PICOS search
tool contains five criteria initially: (1) Population: communities engaged in the cultural
heritage management process; (2) Interventions: social media; (3) Comparison: offline
community engagement; (4) Outcomes: outcomes of participatory governance; (5) Study
design: Statistical analysis of participatory methods in case studies. However, as the
PICOS tool does not accommodate terms relating to cultural heritage studies, it has been
modified into a “PIST” (population, interventions, settings, timing), a new tool where
the Comparison (C), Outcomes (O), Study design (S) were excluded to meet our needs
better. Following that, we further supplemented two criteria to limit the objects to the
cultural heritage generally: Setting (S): cultural heritage, and Timing (T): duration or date
of publication, which intends to further increase the identification of qualitative articles.
A series of keywords and their synonyms is involved, namely public participation,
community engagement, civic collaboration/participation, audience collaboration; cultural
heritage, urban heritage, historic city, historic district, historic settlement, historic area,
historic plan; social media, social network, digital, online. The key features and criteria
which lead to corresponding keywords and synonyms are shown in Table 1. In line with it,
the search string is defined as “Ts = (((Public or communit* or civic or audience*)Near/3
(participat* or engage* or collaborat*))and(((cultur* or urban*) Near/3 (historic* Near/2
(Cit* or district* or settlement* or area* or plan*)) or heritage))and((social Near/3 (media
or network*) or digital or online)))”. The defined search string was further refined by
adding a date range limit (1985–now) and a language setting (English only). In this phase,
248 document results returned by 26 July 2020.
Table 1. PIST tool and its progress.
Concepts Content Keywords/Synonyms
Original criteria
setting
P Population
Communities engaged in the
cultural heritage
management process
(Public or communit* or civic or
audience*) Near/3 (participat* or engage*
or collaborat*)
I Intervention Social media ((social Near/3 (media or network*) or
digital or online))
C Comparison Offline community
engagement
We excluded this part because this did not
add value to the search
O Outcomes Outcomes of participatory
governance
We excluded this part because this did not
add value to the search
S Study design
Statistical analysis of
participatory methods in
case studies
We excluded this part because this did not
add value to the search
Additional
criteria setting
S Setting Urban cultural heritage
(culture* or urban*) Near/3 (historic*
Near/2 (Cit* or district* or settlement* or
area* or plan*))
T Timing Duration or date of
publication 1985–present
Sustainability 2021,13, 1055 5 of 17
3.2. Publication Selection
In order to select accurate relevant-topic cases for analysis, a semi-quantitative method-
ology was designed and used to draw up low-relevance publications and refine the gained
documents. The selection process is detailed into seven steps and two phases related to the
accessibility of full paper, language, and content relevance.
The first phase aims to narrow the gained retrieval database by examining the written
language and the ability to access it. Firstly, the duplicated articles and chapters by the
same author, and with the same abstract and keywords published by different publishers
were excluded automatically by the reference management software. Following that,
publications produced by the same author on the same case study were excluded after a
cautious cross-comparison. Then, four non-English publications were removed. Although
restricting the retrieval language as English, there are still some non-English articles
involved in the retrieval result with only an English title and abstract, in which one
publication was written in Italian and three publications in Korean. The publications with
inaccessible full text were excluded due to the lack of detailed case study descriptions.
Following this step, the retrieval returned 195 documents.
Aiming to further refine the targeted articles, the irrelevant-content publications were
eliminated manually. Studies were first judged as available resources from the title as well
as the abstract. Then, the full texts were downloaded and filtered further by skimming.
Lastly, some complementary publications were added by manual screening, for which one
of the four criteria in PIST is not explicitly mentioned but alternated with metaphors. To
be more specific, the “I” of PIST was omitted to retrieving those in which the keyword
Social Media was replaced by other phrases such as Digital Storytelling, New Media, etc.
The retrieved publications were ordered by relevance and selected manually according to
research topics. Studies where the title referred to but did not include specifically two of
the subjects (social media, cultural heritage, community engagement) are anyway listed
in our extended references, such as those using Digital Storytelling, and New Media to
indicate the keyword Social Media. By now, 19 items were finally retained. The result of
each selection process is shown in Table 2.
Table 2. The result of each selection progress.
Step Number of Publications
Retrained Selection Progress
248 Publications that were retrieved from Wos
1 240 Publications retained after 8 duplicate publications
were excluded
2 238
Publications retained after 2 publication that has the
same case as another publication was excluded
3 234 Publications retained after 4 non-English
publications were excluded
4 195 Publications retained after 39 inaccessible
publications were excluded
5 14 Publications retained after 181 irrelevant-topic
publications were excluded
6 19 Publications retained after 5 relevant-topic articles
that involve linked case studies were supplemented
3.3. Quantitative Analyzing Method
The following criteria were applied to every case study; publication time, case location,
the name of cultural heritage object, applied social media, interactive method, direct object,
and impact on sustainable cultural heritage management. However, for most publications,
there is only one case involved and one cultural heritage object studied so that it is easy to
Sustainability 2021,13, 1055 6 of 17
manage the information. However, there are still some works containing multi-practical
cases. To follow the same set of data collection and analysis logic, we compress multiple
cultural heritage objects into one item (e.g., 19 museums in the Netherlands from the same
article) but later on, those cases are listed individually for further study.
All the social media tools involved in the practice are listed for further quantita-
tive statistics of the usage frequency of each digital way. Main interactive methods are
summarized and classified by interactive forms of expression into seven ways: Official
announcement; Exhibition; Communication; Photosharing; Mapping; Storytelling; Crowd-
sourcing. By listing interactive methods of every case, we can obtain the applying frequency
and identify the characteristics of each interactive method. We marked all the social me-
dia that were mentioned in the selected articles and summed the amount (weight = 1).
Even if there are several different kinds of apps mentioned in the same article, we just
consider it as 1 point. For example, in the case of Thessaloniki, a series of apps, such as
Collective City Memory App, i-Guide App, and the website http://thesswiki.com/ are
used to equip Thessaloniki as a Digital City. Therefore, App and Web would be marked as
1 point respectively. In addition, we evaluated the function of social media on sustainable
cultural heritage management both from direct and indirect perspectives, in that way we
can explore the availabilities of social media in future urban development. Three main
objects (Collective memory, Heritage interpretation, and Enhance communication) and
three aspects of the possible impact on sustainable cultural heritage management (Shared
heritage and collective memory, People-centered approach, Cultural expression) were
expected initially with a possibility to be extended.
4. Findings
4.1. Outcome 1
Based on the research design, a total of 19 articles consistently corresponded to the
requirements as shown in Table 3. The publication time ranged from 2006 until the present,
and the quantity of published articles shows an upward trend along with the time (2006
n= 1, 2010 n= 1, 2015 n= 2, 2016 n= 2, 2017 n= 5, 2018 n= 4, 2019 n= 3). Publications since
2015 take a noticeably high proportion (90%) as compared to the ones published before
(10%), which demonstrates the rising attention from scholars and practitioners on testing
social media in cultural heritage set in the recent five years.
Moreover, 39 cases from 12 countries all over the world with Australia (n= 1), China
(n= 1), Denmark (n= 1), Finland (n= 1), Greece (n= 1), Italy (n= 3), Jordan (n= 1), Lebanon
(n= 1), Nepal (n= 1), the Netherlands (n= 20), New Zealand (n= 1), the UK (n= 4), the
US (n= 1), and Vienna (n= 1) are extracted from the articles as shown in Table 4. The
review shows that the highest number of social media engaged heritage sites are located
in Europe (30 in total, including Denmark, Finland, Greece, Italy, the Netherlands, and
the UK), which represents 75% of the total. However, according to the UNESCO World
Heritage List (2019), properties located in Europe represent just under half (47%) of the
list, which indicates that using social media on cultural heritage conservation in other
regions is still underexplored. Moreover, China, as one of the countries which own the
most inscribed heritages, presents unsatisfactory results with only one case. It should be
taken into consideration that there could be some statistical bias as the method for retrieval
is by no means fully comprehensive, and more suitable cases could be included to expand
our current list.
Sustainability 2021,13, 1055 7 of 17
Table 3. Case collection.
No. Publication
Time
Location
(Nation) Cultural Heritage Object Applied Social Media Interactive Method Object
Impact on Sustainable
Cultural Heritage
Management
1 2019 Greece Thessaloniki Website, APP
Storytelling;
Mapping;
Exhibition;
Crowdsourcing
Collective memory Shared heritage and
collective memory
2 2019 Nether-lands
19 Dutch heritage projects and
organizations (eg. Amsterdam
Museum, Museum Rotterdam,
etc)
Twitter Facebook Flickr
YouTube Pinterest blogs
Instagram Linkedin
TripAdvisor Website
Interactive map
Storytelling; Mapping Collective memory Shared heritage and
collective memory
3 2019 Lebanon Tripoli and El-Mina municipal
boundaries Flickr Mapping Heritage interpretation People-centered approach
4 2018 Finland Nikkilä Instagram, Twitter,
Facebook, Interactive map
Communication;
Crowdsourcing Enhance communication People-centered approach
5 2018 Italy Puglia Facebook, Twitter Communication;
Crowdsourcing Enhance communication People-centered approach
6 2018
Nepal Kathmandu Valley
Website Mapping Heritage interpretation Cultural expression
UK Newcastle University
Quadrangle Gateway
7 2018 New Zealand A Museum Website Photo sharing;
Crowdsourcing
Maintain community
archives
Shared heritage and
collective memory
8 2018 United
Kingdom the North East of Scotland Facebook Photo sharing;
Storytelling Collective memory People-centered approach
9 2017 United
Kingdom UCL’s Grant Museum Website, Twitter, APP Exhibition;
Crowdsourcing Heritage interpretation Cultural expression
Sustainability 2021,13, 1055 8 of 17
Table 3. Cont.
No. Publication
Time
Location
(Nation) Cultural Heritage Object Applied Social Media Interactive Method Object
Impact on Sustainable
Cultural Heritage
Management
10 2017
Netherlands Anne Frank House
Facebook (Messen-ger) Communication Heritage interpretation Cultural expression
Italy The House Museums of Milan
Italy The National Museum of the
21st Century Arts
11 2017 United
Kingdom
Prehistoric Rock Carvings in
Northumberland Facebook; Website Exhibition;
Storytelling Enhance communication People-centered approach
12 2017 United State
Smithsonian National Museum
of African American History
and Culture
Twitter Exhibition;
Storytelling
Increase access for
visitors of color People-centered approach
13 2017 Jordan Amman Facebook Crowdsourcing;
Official announcement Enhance communication People-centered approach
14 2016 Australia Brisbane’s built heritage Facebook, Instagram,
Pinterest, Twitter
Storytelling;
Crowdsourcing Heritage interpretation Cultural expression
15 2016 Vienna The Vienna Werkbund estate Website, Facebook,
Pinterest, Flickr Photo sharing Equity of the discourse People-centered approach
16 2015 China Dafo Temple Weibo
Photo sharing;
Communication;
Crowdsourcing
Equity of the discourse People-centered approach
17 2015 Denmark Contemporary Danish Urban
Cemetery Interactive map Mapping Heritage interpretation Cultural expression
18 2010 Australia Sydney Opera House Flickr Photo sharing Collective identity
representation Cultural expression
19 2006 UK South-east of England Website
Communication;
Crowdsourcing;
Official announcement
Heritage interpretation Cultural expression
Sustainability 2021,13, 1055 9 of 17
Table 4. The types of applied social media to cultural heritage objects.
No. Location Cultural Heritage Object Applied Social Media
App Blg FB FK Ins Lin Map Pin TA Twi WB Web YT
1 Greece Thessaloniki •
2 Lebanon TripoliandEl-Minamunicipalboundaries •
3 Finland Nikkilä • • • •
4 Italy Puglia • •
5 NewZealand amuseum •
6 UK theNorthEastofScotland •
7 UK UCL’sGrantMuseum • • •
8 UK PrehistoricRockCarvingsinNorthumberland •
9 US
NationalMuseumofAfricanAmericanHistoryandCulture
•
10 Jordan Amman •
11 Australia Brisbane’sbuiltheritage • • • •
12 Vienna theViennaWerkbundestate • • • •
13 China DafoTemple •
14 Danmark ContemporaryDanishUrbanCemetery •
15 Australia SydneyOperaHouse •
16 Netherlands AmsterdamMuseum • • • • • • •
17 Netherlands MuseumhetSchip • • • • •
18 Netherlands BelvédèreRotterdam • • • •
19 Netherlands BijlmerMuseum • •
20 Netherlands FinancieelErfgoedopdeKaart • • •
21 Netherlands GeheugenvanOost • • • •
22 Netherlands TheHistoricalMuseumofThe • • • • •
Sustainability 2021,13, 1055 10 of 17
Table 4. Cont.
No. Location Cultural Heritage Object Applied Social Media
App Blg FB FK Ins Lin Map Pin TA Twi WB Web YT
23 Netherlands HagueImagineIC • • • •
24 Netherlands MuseumRotterdamMuseumZonder • • •
25 Netherlands MurenTransvaal •
26 Netherlands OngekendBijzonder • • •
27 Netherlands OudAmsterdam • •
28 Netherlands RotterdaminKaart •
29 Netherlands RotterdamVertelt •
30 Netherlands StadsarchiefRotterdam • • • •
31 Netherlands WederopbouwRotterdam • •
32 Netherlands ZichtopMaastricht • • • •
33 Netherlands HaagseHerinneringen • • •
34 Netherlands Mappingslavery • • •
35 Nepal KathmanduValley •
36 UK NewcastleUniversityQuadrangleGateway •
37 Netherlands AnneFrankHouse •
38 Italy TheHouseMuseumsofMilan •
39 Italy TheNationalMuseumofThe21stCenturyArts •
Note. Blg = blogs, FB = Facebook, FK = Flickr, Ins = Instagram, Lin = LinkedIn, Pin = Pinterest, TA = Trip Advisor, Twi = Twitter, WB = Weibo, YT = YouTube.
Sustainability 2021,13, 1055 11 of 17
In addition, the study further categorized all the extracted 39 cultural heritage objects
into four topics according to their attribution and features as shown in Table 5. We ranked
the social media, according to the usage frequency of each social media platform. Building
(n= 5), City (n= 6), Landscape (n= 4), Museum (n= 24). Seeing Figure 1, it is easy to
find out that museums are the pioneers of involving social media tools (62%) and play an
important role in managing digital heritage. In the opposite case, the focus on involving
social media in conserving buildings, cities, and landscapes is relatively less.
We suggest that museums are seen as core facilitators of cultural heritage for the
general public. As museums usually play a role in daily life as the carriers of the exhibi-
tions, cultural events, archives, collections of cultural relics, etc. Such activities are often
associated with budgets for public engagement, which allows social media tools to be
developed and promoted.
Table 5. Analysis and Categorization of the Extracted Cultural Heritage Objects.
Categories No. Cultural Heritage Object
Museum
1 A museum
2 Amsterdam Museum
3 Belvédère Rotterdam
4 Bijlmer Museum
5 Financieel Erfgoed op de Kaart
6 Geheugen van Oost
7 Haagse Herinneringen
8 Hague Imagine IC
9 Mapping slavery
10 Muren Transvaal
11 Museum het Schip
12 Museum Rotterdam Museum Zonder
13 Ongekend Bijzonder
14 Oud Amsterdam
15 Rotterdam in Kaart
16 Rotterdam Vertelt
17 Smithsonian National Museum of African American History and Culture
18 Stadsarchief Rotterdam
19 The Historical Museum of The
20 The House Museums of Milan
21 The National Museum of The 21st Century Arts
22 UCL’s Grant Museum
23 Wederopbouw Rotterdam
24 Zicht op Maastricht
City
1 Thessaloniki
2 Amman
3 Nikkilä
4 Puglia
5 the North East of Scotland
6 Tripoli and El-Mina municipal boundaries
Building
1 Anne Frank House
2 Brisbane’s built heritage
3 Dafo Temple
4 Sydney Opera House
5 the Vienna Werkbund estate
Landscape
1 Contemporary Danish Urban Cemetery
2 Kathmandu Valley
3 Newcastle University Quadrangle Gateway
4 Prehistoric Rock Carvings in Northumberland
Sustainability 2021,13, 1055 12 of 17
Sustainability 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 15
23 Wederopbouw Rotterdam
24 Zicht op Maastricht
City
1 Thessaloniki
2 Amman
3 Nikkilä
4 Puglia
5 the North East of Scotland
6 Tripoli and El-Mina municipal boundaries
Building
1 Anne Frank House
2 Brisbane’s built heritage
3 Dafo Temple
4 Sydney Opera House
5 the Vienna Werkbund estate
Landscape
1 Contemporary Danish Urban Cemetery
2 Kathmandu Valley
3 Newcastle University Quadrangle Gateway
4 Prehistoric Rock Carvings in Northumberland
Figure 1. The proportion of the 4 identified aspects of the selected cases.
4.2. Outcome 2
Regarding participatory social media tools, Figure 2 demonstrates that Facebook
ranks in first place (30%), followed by Twitter (19%), and customized websites (12%), in-
dicating that text-based platforms are the most popular ones among the global audience.
Furthermore, photo and video sharing apps, YouTube (10%), Flickr (7%), Instagram (5%),
Pinterest (3%), and GIS-based interactive maps (5%) h ave als o been a pplied . Besid es, oth er
digital platforms listed as Blog, Pinterest, interactive apps, LinkedIn, TripAdvisor, Weibo
took only a small part of this field. Some researchers and developers admitted that popu-
larity is the main decisive factor to target their choices [50]. Thus, it is not a surprise that
Facebook becomes their favorite testing field because it is currently the most popular plat-
form with 2.3 billion users.
building
13%
city
15%
Landscape
10%
museum
62%
building city Landscape museum
Figure 1. The proportion of the 4 identified aspects of the selected cases.
Whereas on a wider scale, citizens are not always aware that the historic buildings,
cities, or landscapes that they use or live in should be part of the need-to-be-conserved
heritage. This is often due to a lack of engagement at a city or landscape scale. Therefore,
it is important that local governments, planners, and developers raise awareness on this
issue with the general public so that there is a good understanding of the broader definition
of cultural heritage and its importance. This requires the need for citizen participation in
the planning and development process of both urban and rural landscapes. This requires
investment and capacity-building-type activities that equip citizens with knowledge and
skills to offer helpful feedback, suggestions, and practices. Social media tools provide an
ideal platform for this approach.
4.2. Outcome 2
Regarding participatory social media tools, Figure 2demonstrates that Facebook
ranks in first place (30%), followed by Twitter (19%), and customized websites (12%),
indicating that text-based platforms are the most popular ones among the global audience.
Furthermore, photo and video sharing apps, YouTube (10%), Flickr (7%), Instagram (5%),
Pinterest (3%), and GIS-based interactive maps (5%) have also been applied. Besides,
other digital platforms listed as Blog, Pinterest, interactive apps, LinkedIn, TripAdvisor,
Weibo took only a small part of this field. Some researchers and developers admitted that
popularity is the main decisive factor to target their choices [
50
]. Thus, it is not a surprise
that Facebook becomes their favorite testing field because it is currently the most popular
platform with 2.3 billion users.
The result of the interactive method analysis as shown in Figure 3presents a relatively
equal frequency of involving each way. Data analysis by crowdsourcing or other computing
means ended up with the highest score (n= 9), while Communication (n= 5); Photosharing
(n= 5); Mapping (n= 5); Storytelling (n= 5); Exhibition (n= 3); Official announcement
(n= 2) are noticeably lower. It reveals that there is almost no bias concerning the operation
process, which means researchers and experts examine and explore various aspects and
directions led by social media.
The objects are briefly categorized into five groups: Heritage interpretation (n= 8),
Enhance communication (n= 5), Collective memory (n= 4), Equity of the discourse (n= 2),
and Maintain community archives (n= 1). Meanwhile, within the column Impact on
Sustainable Cultural Heritage Management, People-centered approach (n= 9) and Cultural
expression (n= 9) are the most popular rungs achieved within global heritage management.
While the aspect of Shared heritage and collective memory (n= 3) received less attention.
Although Cultural expression and heritage interpretation are absolutely the main streams,
Sustainability 2021,13, 1055 13 of 17
the efforts of scholars to Enhance community communication in the People-centered
approach is not ignorable.
Sustainability 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 15
Figure 2. The usage frequency of each social media tool.
The result of the interactive method analysis as shown in Figure 3 presents a rela-
tively equal frequency of involving each way. Data analysis by crowdsourcing or other
computing means ended up with the highest score (n = 9), while Communication (n = 5);
Photosharing (n = 5); Mapping (n = 5); Storytelling (n = 5); Exhibition (n = 3); Official an-
nouncement (n = 2) are noticeably lower. It reveals that there is almost no bias concerning
the operation process, which means researchers and experts examine and explore various
aspects and directions led by social media.
The objects are briefly categorized into five groups: Heritage interpretation (n = 8),
Enhance communication (n = 5), Collective memory (n = 4), Equity of the discourse (n = 2),
and Maintain community archives (n = 1). Meanwhile, within the column Impact on Sus-
tainable Cultural Heritage Management, People-centered approach (n = 9) and Cultural
expression (n = 9) are the most popular rungs achieved within global heritage manage-
ment. While the aspect of Shared heritage and collective memory (n = 3) received less
attention. Although Cultural expression and heritage interpretation are absolutely the
main streams, the efforts of scholars to Enhance community communication in the People-
centered approach is not ignorable.
Figure 3. The quantitative result of the interactive method.
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Facebook
Twitter
Website
YouTube
Flickr
Instagram
Map
App
Blog
Pinterest
Linkedin
TripAdvisor
WeiBo
0246810
Crowdsourcing
Storytelling
Mapping
Photosharing
Communication
Exhibition
Official announcement
People-centered approach
Cultural expression
Shared heritage and collective…
Heritage interpretation
Enhance community communication
Collective memory
Equity of the discourse
Figure 2. The usage frequency of each social media tool.
Sustainability 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 15
Figure 2. The usage frequency of each social media tool.
The result of the interactive method analysis as shown in Figure 3 presents a rela-
tively equal frequency of involving each way. Data analysis by crowdsourcing or other
computing means ended up with the highest score (n = 9), while Communication (n = 5);
Photosharing (n = 5); Mapping (n = 5); Storytelling (n = 5); Exhibition (n = 3); Official an-
nouncement (n = 2) are noticeably lower. It reveals that there is almost no bias concerning
the operation process, which means researchers and experts examine and explore various
aspects and directions led by social media.
The objects are briefly categorized into five groups: Heritage interpretation (n = 8),
Enhance communication (n = 5), Collective memory (n = 4), Equity of the discourse (n = 2),
and Maintain community archives (n = 1). Meanwhile, within the column Impact on Sus-
tainable Cultural Heritage Management, People-centered approach (n = 9) and Cultural
expression (n = 9) are the most popular rungs achieved within global heritage manage-
ment. While the aspect of Shared heritage and collective memory (n = 3) received less
attention. Although Cultural expression and heritage interpretation are absolutely the
main streams, the efforts of scholars to Enhance community communication in the People-
centered approach is not ignorable.
Figure 3. The quantitative result of the interactive method.
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Facebook
Twitter
Website
YouTube
Flickr
Instagram
Map
App
Blog
Pinterest
Linkedin
TripAdvisor
WeiBo
0246810
Crowdsourcing
Storytelling
Mapping
Photosharing
Communication
Exhibition
Official announcement
People-centered approach
Cultural expression
Shared heritage and collective…
Heritage interpretation
Enhance community communication
Collective memory
Equity of the discourse
Figure 3. The quantitative result of the interactive method.
5. Conclusions
Using digital tools to engage the local community in protecting and promoting the
values of cultural heritage is gaining more and more attention [
13
,
48
]. Digital technologies
can improve conservation and preservation techniques, enrich archives with interactive
media, map heritage with the Geographic Information System, augment participatory ex-
periences, promote communication among stakeholders, and deepen the understanding of
the cultural attachment [
63
,
64
]. Social media is considered to be one of the most important
facilitators to promote the double side collaboration of authorities and citizens [65].
The study aimed to offer a comprehensive global review of the availability and
functionalities of social media and to identify tools and platforms that are applied currently
to the current cultural heritage management process. The approach of the systematic
review was structured with a PIST tool. A total of 19 articles were eventually selected, from
Sustainability 2021,13, 1055 14 of 17
which 39 cases were extracted, identified, and analyzed. The review indicates that almost
three-quarters of the identified practices are mainly concentrated in Europe. However,
taking into account the development of digital technology and the economy, further efforts
toward digital-enabled heritage conservation could be undertaken by other governments,
agencies, NGOs, and communities around the world.
Overall, social media tools are generally applied to museums instead of urban heritage
buildings (monuments), and landscapes. The 39 cases have been analyzed with regard to
the applied social media tools, interactive methods for the heritage objects, and the impact
on sustainable cultural heritage management. Facebook is considered as the most popular
social media out of 13, while the assessment of interactive ways of social media and heritage
management shows a relatively average score. Meanwhile, heritage interpretation is re-
garded as the most involved purpose as compared to enhancing communication, collective
memory, equity of the discourse, and maintaining community archives. The application of
social media tools also shows a greater impact on the two aspects of the sustainability of
heritage conservation: the people-centered approach and cultural expression.
The people-centered approaches, such as the equity of discourses across cultural
diversity, nation, religion, gender, etc., should be supported and highlighted widely on
social media platforms. Despite UNESCO emphasizing community communication and
collaboration in heritage management as a key priority, the global application of social
media currently still tends to broadcast the heritage value instead of strengthening the
collaboration among stakeholders. However, some countries with centralized governance
and regulatory systems, such as China, recommend a localized and contextualized bottom-
up approach for social media in order to encourage local residents to better engage in both
decision-making and benefit-sharing process.
Based on the extensive literature inventory, the study has not only contributed to
a comprehensive picture of the current research in this area but also detailed a series
of practical cases and defined the involved approaches, objects, and main significance.
However, further studies and cases are required to explore how the sector can make the
most out of the current social media platforms in diverse cultural backgrounds, within the
context of rapid urbanization context.
Author Contributions: X.L.: Conceptualization, Methodology, Formal analysis, Investigation, Data
curation, Writing original draft; Y.L.: Formal analysis, Investigation, Data curation, Writing—original
draft; J.M.: Methodology, Writing—review and editing, Supervision. All authors have read and
agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Conflicts of Interest:
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or
personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
References
1.
Li, J.; Krishnamurthy, S.; Pereira Roders, A.; van Wesemael, P. Community participation in cultural heritage management: A
systematic literature review comparing Chinese and international practices. Cities 2020,96, 102476. [CrossRef]
2.
Jokilehto, J. Definition of Cultural Heritage: References to Documents in History; ICCROM Working Group Heritage and Society:
Rome, Italy, 2005.
3.
Roders, P.; Bandarin, F. Reshaping Urban Conservation: The Historic Urban Landscape Approach in Action; Springer: Berlin, Germany,
2019.
4.
Court, S.; Wijesuriya, G. People-centred approaches to the conservation of cultural heritage: Living heritage. In Heritage,
Conservation and Communities: Engagement, Participation and Capacity Building; Chitty, G., Ed.; Routledge: New York, NY, USA,
2017; pp. 34–50.
5.
Poulios, I. Discussing strategy in heritage conservation: Living heritage approach as an example of strategic innovation. J. Cult.
Herit. Manag. Sustain. Dev. 2014,4, 16–34. [CrossRef]
6.
Bideau, F.G.; Yan, H. Historic urban landscape in Beijing: The gulou project and its contested memories. In Chinese Heritage in the
Making; Maags, C., Svensson, M., Eds.; Amsterdam University Press: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2018; pp. 93–118.
7.
Taylor, K. The Historic Urban Landscape paradigm and cities as cultural landscapes. Challenging orthodoxy in urban conservation.
Landsc. Res. 2016,41, 471–480. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2021,13, 1055 15 of 17
8.
Bandarin, F.; van Oers, R. Reconnecting the City: The Historic Urban Landscape Approach and the Future of Urban Heritage; John Wiley
& Sons: New York, NY, USA, 2014.
9.
Borona, G.; Ndiema, E. Merging research, conservation and community engagement. J. Cult. Herit. Manag. Sustain. Dev.
2014
,4,
184–195. [CrossRef]
10.
Chitty, G. Heritage, Conservation and Communities: Engagement, Participation and Capacity Building; Taylor & Francis: Abingdon, UK,
2016.
11.
Bandarin, F.; van Oers, R. The Historic Urban Landscape: Managing Heritage in an Urban Century; John Wiley & Sons: New York, NY,
USA, 2012.
12.
Settis, S. We the Citizens, English Translation of chapter 7 of Paesaggio, Costituzione, Cemento: La Battaglia per L’ambiente
Contro il Degrado Civile (Einaudi, 2010). Calif. Ital. Stud.
2011
,2. Available online: https://escholarship.org/content/qt7c90g6
dp/qt7c90g6dp.pdf (accessed on 23 September 2019).
13.
Affleck, J.; Kvan, T. A Virtual community as the context for discursive interpretation: A role in cultural heritage engagement. Int.
J. Herit. Stud. 2008,14, 268–280. [CrossRef]
14.
Li, J.; Krishnamurthy, S.; Pereira Roders, A.; van Wesemael, P. State-of-the-practice: Assessing community participation within
Chinese cultural World heritage properties. Habitat Int. 2020,96, 102–107. [CrossRef]
15.
Ferreira, T.C. Bridging planned conservation and community empowerment: Portuguese case studies. J. Cult. Herit. Manag.
Sustain. Dev.
2018
. Available online: https://repositorio-aberto.up.pt/bitstream/10216/119597/2/330445.pdf (accessed on
25 December 2020).
16.
MacRae, G. Universal heritage meets local livelihoods: “awkward engagements” at the world cultural heritage listing in Bali. Int.
J. Herit. Stud. 2017,23, 846–859. [CrossRef]
17.
Verdini, G.; Frassoldati, F.; Nolf, C. Reframing China’s heritage conservation discourse. Learning by testing civic engagement
tools in a historic rural village. Int. J. Herit. Stud. 2017,23, 317–334. [CrossRef]
18.
Ginzarly, A.; Roders, P.; Teller, J. Mapping historic urban landscape values through social media. J. Cult. Herit.
2019
,36, 1–11.
[CrossRef]
19.
Diaz-Andreu, M. Introduction to the themed section “digital heritage and the public”. Int. J. Herit. Stud.
2017
,23. Available
online: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/13527258.2017.1286780?needAccess=true (accessed on 25 December
2020). [CrossRef]
20. Kitchin, R.; Dodge, M. Code/Space: Software and Everyday Life; MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2011.
21.
Corallo, A.; Trono, A.; Fortunato, L.; Pettinato, F.; Schina, L. Cultural event management and urban e-planning through bottom-up
user participation. Int. J. E Plan. Res. 2018,7, 15–33. [CrossRef]
22.
Muhammad, T.; Kim, K. Sustainable and ICT-enabled development in developing areas: An e-heritage e-commerce service for
handicraft marketing. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Sustainable Development and Green Technology (SDGT
2017), Chiayi, Taiwan, 24–26 November 2017; Volume 989. Available online: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1742-659
6/989/1/012009/pdf (accessed on 10 January 2021).
23.
Garduño Freeman, C. Photosharing on Flickr: Intangible heritage and emergent publics. Int. J. Herit. Stud.
2010
,16, 4–5.
[CrossRef]
24. Giaccardi, E. Heritage and Social Media: Understanding Heritage in a Participatory Culture; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2012.
25.
Psomadaki, I.; Dimoulas, C.A.; Kalliris, G.M.; Paschalidis, G. Digital storytelling and audience engagement in cultural heritage
management: A collaborative model based on the Digital City of Thessaloniki. J. Cult. Herit. 2019,36, 12–22. [CrossRef]
26.
Dhonju, H.K.; Xiao, W.; Mills, J.P.; Sarhosis, V. Share our cultural heritage (SOCH): Worldwide 3D heritage reconstruction and
visualization via web and mobile GIS. ISPRS. Int. J. Geo. Inf. 2018,7, 360. [CrossRef]
27.
Lafreniere, D.; Weidner, L.; Trepal, D.; Scarlett, S.F.; Arnold, J.; Pastel, R. Public participatory historical GIS. Hist. Methods J. Quant.
Interdiscip. Hist. 2019,52, 132–149. [CrossRef]
28.
Nummi, P. Crowdsourcing local knowledge with PPGIS and social media for urban planning to reveal intangible cultural heritage.
Urban. Plan. 2018,3, 100–105. [CrossRef]
29.
Shaw, B.J.; Draux, H.; Martín, M.G.; Martin, J.; Bieling, C. Contributions of citizen science to landscape democracy: Potentials and
challenges of current approaches. Landsc. Res. 2017,42, 831–844. [CrossRef]
30.
Claisse, C.; Ciolfi, L.; Petrelli, D. Containers of stories: Using co-design and digital augmentation to empower the museum
community and create novel experiences of heritage at a house museum. Des. J. 2017,20, S2906–S2918. [CrossRef]
31. Sanders, E.B.-N.; Stappers, P.J. Co-creation and the new landscapes of design. CoDesign 2008,4, 5–18. [CrossRef]
32.
Champion, E.; Rahaman, H. 3D digital heritage models as sustainable scholarly resources. Sustainability
2019
,11, 2425. [CrossRef]
33.
Deng, Z.; Lin, Y.; Zhao, M.; Wang, S. Collaborative planning in the new media age: The Dafo temple controversy, China. Cities
2015,45, 41–50. [CrossRef]
34.
Hood, C.; Reid, P. Social media as a vehicle for user engagement with local history: A case study in the North East of Scotland.
J. Doc.
2018
,74. Available online: https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/JD-12-2017-0167/full/pdf?title=
social-media-as-a- vehicle-for-user-engagement-with-local-history-a-case-study- in-the-north- east-of-scotland (accessed on
26 December 2020). [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2021,13, 1055 16 of 17
35.
de Filippi, F.; Coscia, C.; Guido, R. MiraMap: A collective awareness platform to support open policy-making and the integration
of the citizens’ perspective in urban planning and governance. In Technologies for Development; Springer: Cham, Germany, 2018;
pp. 127–139. [CrossRef]
36.
Kleinhans, R.; Ham, M.V.; Evans-Cowley, J. Using social media and mobile technologies to foster engagement and self-organization
in participatory urban planning and neighbourhood governance. Plan. Pract. Res. 2015,30, 237–247. [CrossRef]
37. Sroczynska, J. Role of ICT Technologies in the Conservation of Building Monuments; DWE: Wroclaw, Poland, 2012; pp. 1309–1316.
38.
Cotterill, S.; Hudson, M.; Lloyd, K.; Outterside, J.; Peterson, J.; Coburn, J.; Thomas, U.; Tiplady, L.; Robinson, P.; Heslop, P.
Co-curate: Working with schools and communities to add value to open collections. J. Interact. Media Educ.
2016
,14, 1–9.
[CrossRef]
39.
Yeates, R.; Guy, D. Collaborative working for large digitisation projects. Program. Electron. Libr. Inf. Syst.
2006
,40, 137–156.
[CrossRef]
40.
Aigner, A. Heritage-making “from below”: The politics of exhibiting architectural heritage on the Internet—A case study. Int. J.
Herit. Stud. 2016,22, 181–199. [CrossRef]
41.
Beel, D.E.; Wallace, C.D.; Webster, G.; Nguyen, H.; Tait, E.; MacLeod, M.; Mellish, C. Cultural resilience: The production of rural
community heritage, digital archives and the role of volunteers. J. Rural Stud. 2017,54, 459–468. [CrossRef]
42.
Prictor, S.; Huebner, H.J.; Teare, A.; Burchill, L.; Kaye, J. Australian aboriginal and torres strait Islander collections of genetic
heritage: The legal, ethical and practical considerations of a dynamic consent approach to decision making. J. Law. Med. Ethics
2020,48, 137–156. [CrossRef]
43.
Prastyawan, A.; Isbandono, P. The Efforts of Joyoboyo Citizens in Preserving Traditional Children’s Games through Dolanan
Village. In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Social Sciences (ICSS 2018), Bali, Indonesia, 18–19 October 2018;
pp. 378–381. [CrossRef]
44.
Rubino, I.; Barberis, C.; Xhembulla, J.; Malnati, G. Integrating a location-based mobile game in the museum visit: Evaluating
visitors’ behaviour and learning. JOCCH 2015,8, 15. [CrossRef]
45.
Yamamura, T. Revitalization of historical heritage using pop culture in Japan: Shiroishi city and the game/anime Sengoku Basara.
Tour. Anal. 2015,20, 1–18. [CrossRef]
46.
Arrigoni, G.; Schofield, T.; Pisanty, D.T. Framing collaborative processes of digital transformation in cultural organisations: From
literary archives to augmented reality. Mus. Manag. Curatorship 2019,35, 424–445. [CrossRef]
47.
Spacca, S.; Dellapiana, E.; Sanna, A. Promoting industrial cultural heritage by augmented reality: Application and assessment.
Open Cybern. Syst. J. 2018,12, 61–71. [CrossRef]
48.
Jeffrey, S.; Jones, S.; Maxwell, M.; Hale, A.; Jones, C. 3D visualisation, communities and the production of significance. Int. J. Herit.
Stud. 2020,3, 885–900. [CrossRef]
49. Statham, N. Scientific rigour of online platforms for 3d visualisation of heritage. Virtual Archaeol. Rev. 2019,10. [CrossRef]
50.
Fernandez, G.; Tammi, K.; Joutsiniemi, A. Extending the life of virtual heritage: Reuse of Tls point clouds in synthetic stereoscopic
spherical images. Int. Arch. Photogramm. Remote Sens. Spat. Inf. Sci. 2017,42, 317–323. [CrossRef]
51.
Hurley, A. Chasing the frontiers of digital technology public history meets the digital divide. Publ. Hist.
2016
,38, 69–88.
[CrossRef]
52.
Loren-Mendez, M.; Pinzon-Ayala, D.; Ruiz, R.; Alonso-Jimenez, R. Mapping heritage: Geospatial online databases of historic
roads. The case of the N-340 roadway corridor on the Spanish Mediterranean. ISPRS Int. J. Geo Inf. 2018,7, 134. [CrossRef]
53.
Yang, W.B.; Yen, Y.N. A planning by using digital technology in the reconstruction of cultural heritage sites—A case study
of qiong-lin settlement in Kinmen area. In ICOMOS/ISPRS International Scientific Committee on Heritage Documentation (CIPA),
Proceedings of the 26th International CIPA Symposium—Digital Workflows for Heritage Conservation, Ottawa, ON, Canada, 28 August–1
September 2017; Hayes, J., Ouimet, C., Quintero, M.S., Fai, S., Smith, L., Eds.; ISPRS: Hannover, Germany, 2017; Volume 42-2,
pp. 719–724. [CrossRef]
54.
van der Hoeven, A. Historic urban landscapes on social media: The contributions of online narrative practices to urban heritage
conservation. City Cult. Soc. 2019,17, 61–68. [CrossRef]
55.
Wilson, K.; Desha, C. Engaging in design activism and communicating cultural significance through contemporary heritage
storytelling A case study in Brisbane, Australia. J. Cult. Herit. Manag. Sustain. Dev. 2016,6, 271–286. [CrossRef]
56. Spruce, L.; Leaf, K. Social media for social justice. J. Mus. Educ. 2017,42, 41–53. [CrossRef]
57. Magro, J. A review of social media use in e.-government. Adm. Sci. 2012,2, 148–161. [CrossRef]
58.
Tzouganatou, A. Can heritage bots thrive? Toward future engagement in cultural heritage. Adv. Archaeol. Pract.
2018
,6, 377–383.
[CrossRef]
59.
Svensson, M.; Maags, C. Mapping the Chinese heritage regime: Ruptures, governmentality, and agency. In Chinese Heritage in the
Making: Experiences, Negotiations and Contestations; Svensson, M., Maags, C., Eds.; Amsterdam University Press: Amsterdam,
The Netherlands, 2018; pp. 11–38. [CrossRef]
60.
Sabra, J.B.; Andersen, H.J.; Rodil, K. Hybrid cemetery culture: Making death matter in cultural heritage using smart mobile
technologies. In Proceedings of the 2015 International Conference on Culture and Computing (Culture Computing), Kyoto, Japan,
17–19 October 2015; pp. 167–174. [CrossRef]
61.
Eriksen, M.B.; Frandsen, T.F. The impact of patient, intervention, comparison, outcome (PICO) as a search strategy tool on
literature search quality: A systematic review. J. Med. Libr. Assoc. JMLA 2018,106, 420–431. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Sustainability 2021,13, 1055 17 of 17
62.
Methley, M.; Campbell, S.; Chew-Graham, C.; McNally, R.; Cheraghi-Sohi, S. PICO, PICOS and SPIDER: A comparison study of
specificity and sensitivity in three search tools for qualitative systematic reviews. BMC Health Serv. Res.
2014
,14, 579. [CrossRef]
63.
Miles, H.C.; Wilsont, A.T.; Labrosse, F.; Tiddeman, B.P. Alternative representations of 3D-reconstructed heritage data. ACM J.
Comput. Cult. Herit. 2016,9. [CrossRef]
64.
Popple, S. The new Reithians: Pararchive and citizen animateurs in the BBC digital archive. Converg. Int. J. Res. New Media
Technol. 2015,21, 132–144. [CrossRef]
65.
Falco, E.; Kleinhans, R. Digital participatory platforms for co-production in urban development: A systematic review. In
Crowdsourcing: Concepts, Methodologies, Tools, and Applications; IGI Global: Hershey, PA, USA, 2019; pp. 663–690. [CrossRef]
