ArticlePDF Available

A Review of the Role of Social Media for the Cultural Heritage Sustainability

Authors:

Abstract and Figures

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.
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 [6,1517].
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 [4345].
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]
... Como destacam Amato, Bevilacqua e Uras (2018) Deste modo, neste campo, o avanço das TICs e das ações em crowdsourcing têm sido importantes para mapear, registrar, reinterpretar, armazenar dados ou promover atividades de difusão e educação patrimonial. Estes recursos ajudam a explorar sítios culturais e museus virtualmente, produção de comunidades engajadas em redes sociais na conservação do patrimônio, educação patrimonial de modo remoto (E-educação), construção de meios para participação e diálogo com as autoridades competentes nas tomadas de decisão relativas à preservação patrimonial, entre inúmeras outras estratégias (RIGANTI, 2017;CHANDA, CHAUDURI, CHAUDURY, 2018;LIANG;LU;MARTIN, 2021). Como observam Adrian e Kurniawan (2020), o emprego de TICs no processo de conservação do patrimônio, na era da Smart City, pode ser dividida em três fases: pré-conservação, conservação e pós-conservação. ...
... Como destacam Amato, Bevilacqua e Uras (2018) Deste modo, neste campo, o avanço das TICs e das ações em crowdsourcing têm sido importantes para mapear, registrar, reinterpretar, armazenar dados ou promover atividades de difusão e educação patrimonial. Estes recursos ajudam a explorar sítios culturais e museus virtualmente, produção de comunidades engajadas em redes sociais na conservação do patrimônio, educação patrimonial de modo remoto (E-educação), construção de meios para participação e diálogo com as autoridades competentes nas tomadas de decisão relativas à preservação patrimonial, entre inúmeras outras estratégias (RIGANTI, 2017;CHANDA, CHAUDURI, CHAUDURY, 2018;LIANG;LU;MARTIN, 2021). Como observam Adrian e Kurniawan (2020), o emprego de TICs no processo de conservação do patrimônio, na era da Smart City, pode ser dividida em três fases: pré-conservação, conservação e pós-conservação. ...
... Como destacam Amato, Bevilacqua e Uras (2018) Deste modo, neste campo, o avanço das TICs e das ações em crowdsourcing têm sido importantes para mapear, registrar, reinterpretar, armazenar dados ou promover atividades de difusão e educação patrimonial. Estes recursos ajudam a explorar sítios culturais e museus virtualmente, produção de comunidades engajadas em redes sociais na conservação do patrimônio, educação patrimonial de modo remoto (E-educação), construção de meios para participação e diálogo com as autoridades competentes nas tomadas de decisão relativas à preservação patrimonial, entre inúmeras outras estratégias (RIGANTI, 2017;CHANDA, CHAUDURI, CHAUDURY, 2018;LIANG;LU;MARTIN, 2021). Como observam Adrian e Kurniawan (2020), o emprego de TICs no processo de conservação do patrimônio, na era da Smart City, pode ser dividida em três fases: pré-conservação, conservação e pós-conservação. ...
... It is worth mentioning that, given the potential of social networks, information management can be specialised by domain of interest, such as in culture, through the existing dissemination capabilities. Social networks have provided new fields for analysis of unique data types, which depicts structures of the relations Cultural heritage management through social media engagement [9,10] can contribute to the development of numerical graph segmentation and automatic topic detection algorithms. In addition, they allow researchers to shed light on members' personal preferences on specific topics of interest related to culture in general. ...
Article
Full-text available
Exploring a community is an important aspect of social network analysis because it can be seen as a crucial way to decompose specific graphs into smaller graphs based on interactions between users. The process of discovering common features between groups of users, entitled “community detection”, is a fundamental feature for social network analysis, wherein the vertices represent the users and the edges their relationships. Our study focuses on identifying such phenomena on the Twitter graph of posts and on determining communities, which contain users with similar features. This paper presents the evaluation of six established community-discovery algorithms, namely Breadth-First Search, CNM, Louvain, MaxToMin, Newman–Girvan and Propinquity Dynamics, in terms of four widely used graphs and a collection of data fetched from Twitter about man-made and physical data. Furthermore, the size of each community, expressed as a percentage of the total number of vertices, is identified for the six particular algorithms, and corresponding results are extracted. In terms of user-based evaluation, we indicated to some students the communities that were extracted by every algorithm, with a corresponding user and their tweets in the grouping and considered three different alternatives for the extracted communities: “dense community”, “sparse community” and “in-between”. Our findings suggest that the community-detection algorithms can assist in identifying dense group of users.
... The theme of community participation in cultural heritage management is based on the degree of participation, engagement of communities, and methods of participation. Therefore, the significance of the support of an assortment of participants in the preservation, identification, and protection of cultural heritage could be achieved by the comprehensive usage of the internet i.e., social media [55][56][57]. Since, media, civil societies, and people are vital in highlighting and providing arrangements for the protection of archaeological sites. Local participation should be encouraged to promote and properly ensure the maintenance of archaeological sites. ...
Article
Full-text available
This paper discusses the contribution of individuals and their effects on the protection and management of archaeological sites found in the British colonies at the beginning of the 19th Century. Despite all these contributions, the most important bequest is the formation of comprehensive legislation on cultural properties that are still applicable and considered essential to the historic, standing, or ruined, monuments located in Pakistan. It should be noted that Pakistan’s heritage laws are uniformly applicable to all kinds of architectural heritage, archaeological sites, and monuments, irrespective of their nature, state, and classification. This contrasts with the lack of updates and amendments of rules and guidelines for the preservation of heritage sites and monuments across the country from further damages. The paper focuses on the current architectural and heritage management rules and policies of Pakistan, which are based on the British colonial legacy with some (partial) changes introduced since Pakistan’s independence in 1947. Finally, the paper emphasizes the need for the development of advanced management policies and proposed heritage management rules for the preservation of heritage constructions, archaeological sites, and architectural monuments to establish the link between the present and past to remain for future generations.
... In heritage studies, Liang et al., (2021) have argued that as discussions about cultural heritage are increasingly transferred to the digital sphere, they are generating a rapid change in the production and consumption of cultural heritage. When members of virtual communities share content, discuss meanings, and generate heritage narratives, their digitally-mediated heritage practices provide new prospects for digitally-enabled forms of social production of cultural heritage values as well as a paradigm shift in the way communities engage with heritage (Liew, 2014;Gregory, 2015;Freeman, 2017Freeman, , 2018. ...
Article
Full-text available
This study examines the discourse emerging from cultural heritage content shared online during the COVID-19 pandemic. It aims to understand the different affective and cognitive dynamics that are associated with the online sharing of cultural heritage in difficult times. To do so, we analyzed two Instagram hashtags – #ShareOurHeritage and #ShareCulture – that are promoted by UNESCO on a global scale. We applied a comprehensive quantitative method for qualitative data analysis. This method relied on Latent Dirichlet Allocation for topic modeling to generate automated induction of semantic topics and understand the underlying cognitive and affective dimensions of Instagram posts under each topic. Social values — including safety, inclusion, participation, and resilience — positive emotional language, and diverse cultural expressions were the most shared by the investigated hashtag community during the COVID-19 pandemic. In addition, results showed that users approach the virtual space as a substitute for the loss of their physical place through terms like home, virtual, online, travel tomorrow, and museums from home. Results are discussed in the context of the global digital divide, the social value of heritage to hashtag communities, and the use of Instagram as a longitudinal record of how cultural heritage values change across time. Free access to the article till December 20, 20210 via the beIow Iink: https://authors.elsevier.com/a/1d-cp,6w-XnDdU
... For instance, de Asís López-Fuentes and Ibañez-Ramírez (2018) developed a multimedia platform for the creation, edition and dissemination of historical CH in Mexico, but the respondents were not enthusiastic about the platform because the media type did not satisfy their preferences. Besides, Liang et al., (2021) describe the online platform is geo-free, which creates more opportunities and breaks the occupational boundary for collaboration between local communities and professionals. But the online platforms are controlled by the governmental authorities, lack inviting citizens to participant. ...
Article
Full-text available
As stated by UNESCO, cultural heritage (CH) (tangible and intangible) plays an important role in inheriting, maintaining and passing the values and knowledge from past generations to the next ones. To create an interest and raise the awareness of CH, variety of media sources (i.e., maps, text, 3D models, virtual reality) are exploited. These multimedia sources are brought together on web platforms that preserve and disseminate tangible and intangible CH information, with the aim to reach to large audiences. Although there are many examples of these multimedia web platforms, there is little research on understanding people’s willingness to use such multimedia web platforms and which media type people prefer for understanding and learning about CH. This is important to address since the success and sustainability of such platforms lies on their acceptance by the target audience in terms of data representation and the ease of information provision. To address this problem, this research applied a stated choice experiment to represent a hypothetical multimedia web platform to respondents. Different media types were tested for the description of CH (spatial content and historical content). The collected data from 630 respondents was analysed by a mixed logit model in order to determine the preference towards different media in a given hypothetical multimedia web platform to increase awareness of CH. The results indicate that people prefer multiple media rather than a single medium. Especially, adding dynamic media (i.e., 3D models and videos) to static media (i.e., 2D map and text) increase people’s willingness to use the multimedia web platform. The results help to formulate a new multimedia web platform and can help representatives of heritage sites to create a more sustainable way to broadcast information about CH to the public.
... The primary motivation of this study is that social media, such as Twitter, play a crucial role in cultural heritage management [16], [26]. A plethora of graph partitioning algorithms and topics automatic detection have been developed; these help scientists get insight into the users' interests/preferences about museums, monuments, and urban heritage sites through communities and topics discovery. ...
Conference Paper
Full-text available
Twitter is considered a major and very popular social network providing an abundance of data generated by users’ interactions through tweets. After an appropriate analysis of this information, sets consisting of users who share similar attributes, and preferences can be identified. Massive cultural content management is important because reviews can be analyzed for extracting significant representations. In this study, an aspect mining method of a cultural heritage approach by incorporating big data methods, is proposed. We propose the combination of a community detection algorithm, i.e., the Parallel Structural Clustering Algorithm for Networks (PSCAN), with topic modelling methods, i.e., the Latent Dirichlet Allocation (LDA), for performing large-scale data analysis in Twitter.
... For instance, virtual reality and augmented reality can provide a sustainable solution to various forms of resource-intense tourism (Dewailly, 1999;Han et al., 2014). Social media impacts sustainability by providing a platform for stakeholders to voice their opinions in decision-making on cultural heritage conservations (Liang et al., 2021). Digital exhibitions utilising virtual reality in museums are proposed to preserve intangible cultural heritage (Kim et al., 2019). ...
... Zhang et al. [34] reviewed 58 articles using geolocated SMD to evaluate cultural ecosystem services, such as aesthetics, recreation, sense of place, and local identity. Liang et al. [35] reviewed 19 articles on digital community engagement to illustrate the contribution of social media in the process of cultural heritage management. ...
Chapter
This study attempts to frame the contribution of social media data (SMD) to the conservation and management of historic urban landscapes with a focus on the dynamics of heritage co-production. It particularly addresses bottom-up digitally mediated heritage practices aside from institutional structures. To this end, it addresses two key issues: the co-construction of meanings of everyday landscape on social media and the heritage appropriation by online communities. The first employs SMD to study human-environment interactions and provides insights on individuals’ encounters with the historic urban landscape. The second explores the contribution of online narratives to heritage conservation. The discussion focuses on the opportunities and challenges in analyzing big data on social media and the implications of knowledge gained for the scope of what is defined as heritage at the intersection of the heritage by appropriation and the authorized heritage discourse (AHD) as well as for sustainable heritage conservation and management.
... Tourism is currently in a transition, changes are happening worldwide, and new ways of more responsible, more sustainable, and more inclusive tourism are being shaped with a focus on learning about the local culture [75]. Virtualization brings potential solutions in this difficult pandemic situation, social media not excluded [107]. ...
Article
Full-text available
Cultural tourism has undergone fundamental changes in several countries of post-socialist Europe. In Slovakia, this fact concerns, for example, localities with a strong connection to the church and its cultural heritage. These monuments belong to the foundations of cultural tourism, yet the state intentionally did not prefer them as tourist destinations until 1989. Only after political and social changes were such localities exploited by tourism with a qualitative and quantitative increase in cultural tourism. The aim of this paper is to investigate the recent changes in cultural tourism in urban areas and to address alternative cultural tourism products to diversify the offerings. To do so, Nitra (Slovakia) was used as a case study area. The main used methods were comparative analysis of information sources and questionnaire surveys, aimed at residents, entrepreneurs, and tourists. The main result is that Nitra has the potential to become an important center of cultural tourism/stage destination of various cultural routes. The presented results will increase awareness of the present and future of cultural tourism; they can be beneficial for organizations dealing with tourism management in the city (city office) and its marketing (Nitra Tourism Organization) for the academic and public sphere.
Article
The ability to publish and provide access to cultural resources via free, open source digital platforms is empowering Vietnamese cultural professionals to promote their culture to local and international audiences. Digitization projects now include the use of 3D, VR, and AR digital technologies for the purpose of being published on digital platforms. This is creating an emergent digital culture in Vietnam, with an increasing amount of available resources online. Digitization projects are now used to preserve cultural heritage as well as to present and promote contemporary art and culture. This reflects a change in practices amongst cultural professionals in Hanoi, in terms of how digital technologies are used and the value placed on making cultural resources publicly accessible online. However, as new content, knowledge, and voices are able to participate in the online discourse on art and culture, the question remains as to whether this digital transition is creating greater equality and inclusion in the cultural sector or if it is exacerbating already existing forms of digital cultural colonialism. This paper presents findings from 50 interviews with cultural professionals working in the cultural sector in Hanoi about their digitization projects and digital work practices, the developments in digitization in Hanoi’s cultural sector over the past five years, how cultural professionals are utilizing the opportunities afforded by digital technologies for cultural preservation and promotion, as well as the challenges they face in carrying out digitization projects.
Article
Full-text available
In this paper, we discuss how community co-production of heritage records facilitates the production and negotiation of new forms of value and significance. We draw on case studies from the ACCORD project, which used 3D digital technologies for community engagement through co-creation, to explore how a site’s significance can be affected and challenged through community recording. Whilst multiple modes of recording operate in this way, digital 3D recording, long held as the sole domain of the technical expert, is often deployed by heritage professionals as a means of enhancing authorised historic and scientific values through the sophisticated and precise recording of a site’s physical structure. Here we argue that these recording techniques can also offer a means of exploring and challenging existing authorised regimes of significance and insignificance, giving voice to alternative and richer perspectives through the recording process itself, as much as through the resultant record. This challenges orthodox thinking about both the primary purpose and effects of digital recording and opens up new directions for their use in heritage practice.
Article
Full-text available
Community participation is a key part of heritage management. However, in practice, unlike natural heritage, the nature of community participation within cultural heritage is seldom assessed, nor are there theoretical frameworks developed to baseline such assessments. To fill this knowledge gap, this paper developed and tested an assessment framework, to assess community participation within cultural heritage. Based on the conceptualisation of community participation from heritage management policies, a literature review was conducted to develop an assessment framework, including four criteria and 23 indicators. This assessment framework was tested on the management practices of 36 Chinese cultural heritage properties inscribed on the UNESCO World Heritage List from 1987 to 2018. Using content analysis as a method, this research applied this assessment framework to UNESCO documents, reporting on the state-of-the-practice of heritage management as applied to Chinese World Heritage. The results provide an overview of the current situation on how community participation is positioned within World Heritage management in China. Several World Heritage properties in China have reported relatively high community participation in examples such as Honghe Hani Rice Terraces and Kulangsu. However, most of them demonstrate minimal community participation, such as the Yungang Grottoes and Lushan National Park. Moreover, the assessment framework of community participation in heritage management has been extended and improved, which is relevant to heritage management practices worldwide.
Article
Full-text available
If virtual heritage is the application of virtual reality to cultural heritage, then one might assume that virtual heritage (and 3D digital heritage in general) successfully communicates the need to preserve the cultural significance of physical artefacts and intangible heritage. However, digital heritage models are seldom seen outside of conference presentations, one-off museum exhibitions, or digital reconstructions used in films and television programs. To understand why, we surveyed 1483 digital heritage papers published in 14 recent proceedings. Only 264 explicitly mentioned 3D models and related assets; 19 contained links, but none of these links worked. This is clearly not sustainable, neither for scholarly activity nor as a way to engage the public in heritage preservation. To encourage more sustainable research practices, 3D models must be actively promoted as scholarly resources. In this paper, we also recommend ways researchers could better sustain these 3D models and assets both as digital cultural artefacts and as tools to help the public explore the vital but often overlooked relationship between built heritage and the natural world.
Article
Dynamic Consent (DC) is both a model and a specific web-based tool that enables clear, granular communication and recording of participant consent choices over time. The DC model enables individuals to know and to decide how personal research information is being used and provides a way in which to exercise legal rights provided in privacy and data protection law. The DC tool is flexible and responsive, enabling legal and ethical requirements in research data sharing to be met and for online health information to be maintained. DC has been used in rare diseases and genomics, to enable people to control and express their preferences regarding their own data. However, DC has never been explored in relationship to historical collections of bioscientific and genetic heritage or to contexts involving Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people (First Peoples of Australia). In response to the growing interest by First Peoples throughout Australia in genetic and genomic research, and the increasing number of invitations from researchers to participate in community health and wellbeing projects, this article examines the legal and ethical attributes and challenges of DC in these contexts. It also explores opportunities for including First Peoples' cultural perspectives, governance, and leadership as a method for defining (or redefining) DC on cultural terms that engage best practice research and data analysis as well as respect for meaningful and longitudinal individual and family participation.
Article
Community participation is an essential issue in heritage management. The international heritage organisation ICCROM published a guidance document discussing people-centred approaches to heritage management in 2015. Cultural heritage management is recommended to be carried out through a community participation process. Despite the growing literature on community participation in cultural heritage management, little research has been done on comparing Chinese to international approaches. Although in China several pilot projects have conducted effective community participation and achieved excellent outcomes. This paper aims to fill this gap by providing an overview that compares and discusses the similarities and differences between Chinese and international approaches. A systematic literature review of the state-of-the-art was conducted to explore these differences based on four themes: engaged communities, participatory methods, degrees of participation and steps taken within cultural heritage management. This review concludes both Chinese and international practices seek to collaborate with and empower local communities in their approaches, with Chinese pilot cases, such as Tianzifang in Shanghai. However, in general, Chinese cultural heritage management is government-led, in which community participation is happening to a minimal degree. China is encouraged to learn from international practices when developing contextualised management approaches, to better face the challenges of rapid urbanisation.
Article
At a time when it is particularly urgent to identify models of intersection across the digital and cultural sector to respond to an emergent funding and policy environment, this article contributes to a body of scholarly work around designing digital interventions for museums by identifying the role of cultural content in shaping design spaces for collaboration. The context of the article is a research project that brought together magical realist literature and the development of an Augmented Reality smartphone application realised through a public programme held at a museum of children’s literature. This process created an open-ended design space within the organisation embedded into the development of public engagement workshops around magical realism and place making. It investigates how the cultural content (from archival material) occupied a key role in shaping technological development and suggests strategies that could grant autonomy and sustainability to cultural organisations in engaging in digital transformation.
Chapter
A renewed interest has appeared in citizen co-production of public services due to financial pressure on governments. While social media are considered an important facilitator, many digital participatory platforms (DPPs) have been developed to facilitate co-production between citizens and governments in the context of urban development. Previous studies have delivered a fragmented overview of DPPs in a few socio-spatial contexts and failed to take stock of the rise of DPPs. This article aims to provide a more comprehensive picture of the availability and functionalities of DPPs. Through a systematic review, 113 active DPPs have been identified, analysed, and classified within a citizen-government relationship typology. Almost a quarter of these DPPs demonstrate a realistic potential for online and offline co-production between governments and citizens. The article critically analyses the characteristics of these DPPs and explores their real-world applications in urban development. The article concludes with directions for further research.
Article
Building historical geographic information system (HGIS) datasets is time consuming and very expensive, especially when built at the scales that permit analysis of the lived experiences of individuals or the morphology of buildings or streets. Further, these datasets are often built exclusively in the academy, with little input from the contemporary communities they represent. In this paper, we review the use of the public in crowdsourcing historical data creation, and using the Keweenaw Time Traveler set in Michigan’s Copper Country as a case study, we call for a new approach to HGIS scholarship that includes a robust public partnership to building HGIS datasets. The creation of a public participatory HGIS approach to HGIS scholarship can increase efficiencies of, public relevance in, and extend the reach of, HGIS projects beyond the academy. We have established a set of best practices that include, incorporating the public in the HGIS interface design, providing immediate public data access, contextualization of spatial data in space-time, comprehensive public history outreach in person and online, and creating affordances for the public to contribute their own historical spatial knowledge through spatial storytelling. Together, these activities can promote the long-term sustainability and success of historical data crowdsourcing projects.
Chapter
The paper examines the process that led, throughout over 30 years of policy evolution, to the integration of culture in the International Development Agenda. It also looks at how the Recommendation on the Historic Urban Landscape (HUL Recommendation) has reflected the new policy framework and has transferred it into the field of urban conservation. From the Decade for Cultural Development (1988–1997) to Agenda 2030 adopted by the United Nations in 2015, a major shift has occurred in cultural policies. During the 1990s and the 2000s, several important innovations have come about, ranging from the adoption of two new international conventions, for intangible heritage (2003) and the diversity of cultural expressions (2005). Parallel to this shift, the World Heritage Convention has evolved, with the inclusion of new heritage types such as cultural landscapes. Within this Convention a debate on the conservation of urban heritage has led to the Vienna Memorandum of 2005 and later to the adoption by UNESCO of the HUL Recommendation. This has prompted a broader reflection on the role of cities and urban heritage in cultural policies, currently under way. The adoption of the New Urban Agenda in 2016 has opened up new perspectives on urban heritage policies and on the role of culture in promoting urban regeneration and resilience.