An Attempt to Estimate the Social Value Resulting from Making Cultural Heritage Available in the Form of a Tourist Product

Abstract

Cultural heritage tourism is a multidimensional tourist activity because, apart from the advantages associated with practicing tourist activity, it is particularly associated with cognitive motives when it comes to practicing it, and even with discovering cultural identity. Such an activity has a specific value in relation to the adopted perspective. Researchers often attempt to determine the value that a tourism-related product has for the customer (tourist). Sometimes, it is defined as the value captured by the entity providing the tourism product. However, it is extremely rare for research to assess the social value of tourism. The aim of this work is to identify issues that can be used in measuring the social value resulting from cultural heritage made available in the form of a tourist product. The authors review the literature on cultural heritage and cultural identity, and then use a particular methodology to develop a tool for assessing social value. To develop their own research tool, the authors use the results of research conducted in 2021/2022 among managers of 70 cultural heritage tourism facilities in Europe. As a result, a tool was created that includes six statements that can contribute to the assessment of the social value resulting from the provision of material cultural heritage in the form of a tourist product. The reliability of the tool was estimated at 0.69 and its standardized rating at 0.71. The social value of cultural heritage, in the opinion of experts, achieved an average rating of 4.06 (on a scale from 1 to 5), with the 6-item version of the tool attaining an average rating of 4.10. Taking into account the usefulness of the proposed solutions, remember that the paper reflects only the European vision, which is one of many possible views.

Full text

Citation: Szromek, A.R.; Bugdol, M.
An Attempt to Estimate the Social
Value Resulting from Making
Cultural Heritage Available in the
Form of a Tourist Product. Heritage
2023,6, 7427–7445. https://doi.org/
10.3390/heritage6120389
Academic Editors: Dmitry A. Ruban,
Deepak Chhabra and
Francesco Soldovieri
Received: 26 September 2023
Revised: 8 November 2023
Accepted: 25 November 2023
Published: 28 November 2023
Copyright: © 2023 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/).
heritage
Article
An Attempt to Estimate the Social Value Resulting from Making
Cultural Heritage Available in the Form of a Tourist Product
Adam R. Szromek 1, * and Marek Bugdol 2
1Department of Organization and Management, Institute of Economy and Informatics, Silesian University of
Technology, 44-100 Gliwice, Poland
2Faculty of Management and Social Communication, Jagiellonian University, 30-348 Cracow, Poland;
marek.bugdol@uj.edu.pl
*Correspondence: szromek@polsl.pl; Tel.: +48-32-277-7336
Abstract:
Cultural heritage tourism is a multidimensional tourist activity because, apart from the
advantages associated with practicing tourist activity, it is particularly associated with cognitive
motives when it comes to practicing it, and even with discovering cultural identity. Such an activity
has a specific value in relation to the adopted perspective. Researchers often attempt to determine
the value that a tourism-related product has for the customer (tourist). Sometimes, it is defined as
the value captured by the entity providing the tourism product. However, it is extremely rare for
research to assess the social value of tourism. The aim of this work is to identify issues that can be
used in measuring the social value resulting from cultural heritage made available in the form of
a tourist product. The authors review the literature on cultural heritage and cultural identity, and
then use a particular methodology to develop a tool for assessing social value. To develop their
own research tool, the authors use the results of research conducted in 2021/2022 among managers
of 70 cultural heritage tourism facilities in Europe. As a result, a tool was created that includes six
statements that can contribute to the assessment of the social value resulting from the provision of
material cultural heritage in the form of a tourist product. The reliability of the tool was estimated at
0.69 and its standardized rating at 0.71. The social value of cultural heritage, in the opinion of experts,
achieved an average rating of 4.06 (on a scale from 1 to 5), with the 6-item version of the tool attaining
an average rating of 4.10. Taking into account the usefulness of the proposed solutions, remember
that the paper reflects only the European vision, which is one of many possible views.
Keywords: cultural heritage; heritage tourism; social value; tourism product
1. Introduction
Cultural heritage made available in the form of a tourism-related product holds great
value for many beneficiaries, including tourism enterprises, tourists, and even the local
community. Stakeholders of a tourist destination in an area where cultural heritage tourism
dominates, for example, receive substantial benefits. The literature classifies these values
within three dimensions [
1
–
3
]. We can mention the economic dimension, which provides
economic value to enterprises and organizations, offering access to heritage (in the form
of profit, market shares, etc.). Cultural heritage may also be of significant use to recipi-
ents (tourists) by providing them with many impressions and other elements. However,
the least researched dimension is the social dimension, expressed in the benefits deriv-
ing from cultural heritage tourism. Although this issue has been the subject of research,
little is still known about the elements that should be taken into account when construct-
ing a measurement tool that can be used to assess the value of cultural heritage in the
social dimension.
The research problem addressed here requires the development of a set of statements
assessing the social dimension of cultural heritage, as well as the verification of this tool
Heritage 2023,6, 7427–7445. https://doi.org/10.3390/heritage6120389 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/heritage

Heritage 2023,67428
by estimating its reliability and discriminatory power. Therefore, the aim of this work is
to identify issues that can be used in measuring the social value resulting from cultural
heritage made available in the form of a tourist product. This is a very complex research
task, but it is also undertaken to contribute to the discussion on the development of tools for
measuring social values, which are extremely difficult to estimate due to their elusiveness.
This article is limited to the value resulting from tangible cultural heritage. Before this
happens, however, it is necessary to mention key issues regarding cultural heritage and
tourism for cognitive reasons.
2. Heritage Tourism
Contemporary data on the world heritage that humanity protects in a special way
includes 1154 objects of diverse nature [
4
]. The vast majority of them are cultural heritage
objects, while the rest constitute natural and mixed heritage. However, it is worth noting
that cultural values are divided into four categories [
5
]. The first is material heritage in the
form of movable, immovable, and underwater heritage. The second group is intangible
heritage, i.e., oral traditions, rituals, and crafts, while the third category consists of natural
heritage, within which literature includes geological, biological, and physical formations,
as well as landscapes. The last category is cultural heritage at risk of destruction and
destruction in armed conflicts.
One of the key forms of popularization of and learning about cultural heritage is
the activity of visiting heritage sites through tourism. Thanks to the undertaken tourist
activity in places of cultural heritage, it becomes both an important cultural resource of
contemporary communities and an economic resource in the form of value.
The literature on business models cites many studies on value. Generally, value in the
model approach is divided in three categories—value for the customer, value captured by
the organization providing it, and social value, i.e., a set of values for the local community.
A. Szromek’s [
6
] research on values resulting from cultural heritage in Europe proves
that among the key values from the first group, i.e., customer values, is the satisfaction
of cognitive needs by cultural heritage. The values captured by the organization were
dominated by the strengthening of the brand thanks to the presented heritage, but also
satisfaction with the implementation of the social mission, as well as direct customer
satisfaction. Finally, the category of social values is dominated by the promotion of historical
industrial heritage and by the fact that cultural heritage serves as a local symbol.
F. Varet et al. [
7
] remind us that social value can be considered in two dimensions, as
social desirability and social utility. The social desirability dimension refers to the perceived
quality of the person’s interpersonal relationships, while the social utility dimension refers
to the perceived competence and resources investigated by the person in its activities [8].
In turn, L. Franchin et al. [
9
] emphasize that various profiles of social value orienta-
tion can be found in the literature: individualist, competitor, cooperator, egalitarian, and
altruist. However, they can be grouped into two macro-labels: proself (individualists and
competitors), i.e., people who tend to accept unfair distribution of resources, but only to
their advantage, and prosocial (cooperators, egalitarians, and altruists), i.e., people who
prefer a fair division, even if they could benefit from an unfair division. In the context of
the conducted research, it is about the social value generated by the activities of cultural
heritage tourism, which, similarly to the human dimension, can take prosocial and antiso-
cial forms. The first one favors the environment of heritage tourism sites, cooperating both
for their own benefit and for the benefit of the residents, and the second one degrades the
local community by draining local resources.
However, social value in the economic context is determined by two basic meanings,
discussed by D. Mihailov [
10
]. The first meaning concerns the value that tourism activity
brings to society, then social benefit is one of the goals of that activity. The second meaning
refers to social processes as new ways of taking action, as new social practices, behaviors
and institutions, or new relationships between stakeholders [11].

Heritage 2023,67429
A very important contribution to the measurement of heritage value was made by Q.
Fang and Z. Li [
12
], who, in response to the unclear definition of heritage value, developed a
conceptual model and a system of indicators for the value of traditional rural heritage based
on cultural ecology. The measurements allowed them to introduce their own typology of
traditional villages and propose improvements to their management processes.
In turn, A.R. Szromek and R.W. Butler [
13
] discuss the value and importance of
heritage through the prism of the Industrial Monuments Route in Poland (IMR)—one of
the largest post-industrial heritage tourism routes in Europe. However, L. Weng et al. [
14
]
decided to study the impact of tour interpretation on perceived heritage values. Thanks
to this, it is known that tourists focus more on the contents of the interpretation than on
the media through which the interpretation is delivered. Moreover, this research analyzed
the differences in the values of cultural heritage perceived by tourists in interpersonal
and impersonal interpretation scenarios. It turns out that interpersonal interpretation is
superior to impersonal interpretation in providing heritage value.
Still, further research is presented by the team of R. Lawton et al. [
15
], who mea-
sured the economic value of heritage. They designed an online survey tool used to col-
lect information on many heritage objects. A valuation scenario and payment vehicle
were used.
2.1. Heritage Tourism Functions
Heritage tourism, one of the oldest leisure travel practices, is a significant tourism
industry sector. It refers to the practice of visiting places because of their links to cultural,
natural, and intangible heritage [
16
]. Travelers practice heritage tourism to experience
places, artifacts, and activities that are authentic and represent the stories and people of
the past and the present [
17
]. Recently, we have seen a tendency to expand research on
heritage tourism, which is dictated by a rapidly growing heritage tourism industry [18].
One of the important attributes of heritage tourism is authenticity, which is recognized
as a universal value and an important driving force motivating tourists to travel to remote
places [
19
]. Research on heritage in tourism has focused on specific ecological, economic,
political, cultural, and health impacts.
Heritage can contribute to economic development (including the tourism economy).
It is a tool for the enhancement of social cohesion [
20
]. What unites people testifies to their
separateness and history; it is a huge value on the basis of which various prosocial and
proeconomic activities can be undertaken.
Cultural heritage (including culinary heritage) is of great importance for the level
of satisfaction with services [
21
]. Research by C. Brooks et al. [
16
] showed that cultural
tourism had both positive and negative effects on the social determinants of health. Positive
effects were related to economic benefits, infrastructure development and improvement of
social services. However, cultural tourism has also had a negative impact on community
health, a phenomenon which has been ascribed to loss of access to land, loss of livelihoods,
relocation and/or fragmentation of communities, increased migration, increased crime,
and the erosion of culture. Therefore, while heritage tourism can be a poverty alleviation
strategy, its success depends on the right governance processes—a holistic view of the
benefits and harms of sustainable tourism [16].
The benefits that can be obtained from heritage tourism depend on several factors—not
only the attractiveness of the place, customs, historical, or sentimental values, but also
the involvement of all stakeholders in the tourism area. For example, research on the
effectiveness of pilgrimage tourism has shown that itineraries depend on several factors,
including travel convenience, accommodation options, ability to perform pilgrimage rituals,
and institutional management for tourism [22]. Managers of cultural heritage sites need to
remember to ensure authenticity, culinary appeal, atmosphere, and quality of service [
23
].
Other research conducted in Indonesia has shown that the visual qualities, atmosphere, and
spaciousness of a place are important in enhancing the attractiveness of cultural heritage.
These factors were especially important to young people [24].

Heritage 2023,67430
It is important to notice the positive and negative effects of tourism development
in economic and natural terms. When writing about the functions of heritage tourism,
one should bear in mind the compromise and synergy between heritage protection and
tourism development [
25
]. B. McKercher and H. Du Cros [
26
] point out that some time
ago it was claimed that the benefits of economic development outweigh any unfavorable
costs that such development may incur. This is now considered to be a myopic view and
emphasizes a balanced approach, encompassing both beneficial and harmful impacts on
host communities and their cultures. These negative effects include overuse by tourists,
tourism dependency, tourist behavior, unplanned tourism infrastructure development,
limited beneficiaries, loss of control over cultural property, and physical deterioration of
assets. However, the positive effects include awareness of the need to protect and preserve
cultural heritage, development of local economies, co-financing of local infrastructure,
revival of traditional culture, increased tolerance for cultural differences in multicultural
societies, and increased investment in documentation, planning, and management of
cultural heritage assets.
Research in cultural heritage tourism is carried out by researchers dealing with culture
as well as tourism economics, history, and many other scientific trends. This is evidenced by
numerous conferences, discussed in scientific communications, for example, by researchers
such as B. Weiler and S.F. Witt [
27
], as well as I.P. Tussyadiah [
28
]. G. Ashworth [
29
]
cites conference reports containing even a whole volume of case studies, usually from a
single site.
There are other studies in the literature, not discussed here, which also deserve at
least a mention. These are studies described by M.P. Hampton [
30
], D.J. Timothy and
S.W. Boyd [
31
], J. Tribe [
32
], N. Ginting [
33
], and G. Richards [
34
]. Noteworthy is also
research by Y. Li and R. Lap Bong Lo [
35
] on heritage tourism in Hong Kong, research by D.
Rahmawati et al. [
36
], and classifications cited by G. Ismagilov et al. [
37
]. The interesting
research by M.-R. Surugiu and C. Surugiu [
38
], who discuss the role of social media in
supporting the development of entrepreneurship related to cultural heritage tourism in
Romania, or the work by the team of Z. Bujdosóet al. [
39
], which identifies changes in
the perception of cultural heritage development experiences, should not be omitted. J.
Franczuk et al. [
40
] cite interesting research on the use of virtual reality in heritage tourism.
Among the advantages of such a solution, they indicate the unlimited time of visiting and
getting to know the object, its history, and details. It is also an important channel for the
promotion of the region and the creation of its tourist brand.
Interesting research and an applicable methodology were proposed by L. Wang and
S. Xiao [
41
], who investigated the South China Karst World Natural Heritage Area using
actor network theory in a case study of the Shibing Karst space. They showed that Shibing
Karst experienced two consecutive space reconstruction processes, the normal tourist site
construction phase and the world heritage site construction phase. They also noticed that
initially foreign companies became the new actors in this space, with residents successively
and gradually gaining more decision-making rights. An important role was also attributed
to the UNESCO World Heritage Committee and the World Heritage Centre, which oversee
these relations.
M. Licata et al. [
42
] reflect on the consequences of COVID-19 in the context of her-
itage tourism and recognize the need to develop new strategies. Their proposal is to
emphasize lesser-known cultural heritage, an approach which could lead to a reduction
in mass visits to key tourist attractions. An example is an open-air museum at bioarchae-
ological sites, which can include many walking and virtual routes and, thus, offer a new
visiting experience.
Research perspectives related to the management of heritage tourism facilities are also
familiar. B. Garrod and A. Fyall [
43
] conducted research on all historic buildings in the UK,
asking about three main issues, i.e., the basic mission of the building, factors influencing
the decision to charge admission fees, and the perception of the role of buildings and public

Heritage 2023,67431
agencies in financing conservation heritage tourism. This topic is addressed with regard to
Destination Management Organizations (DMOs).
However, another threat to heritage tourism should also be mentioned, which may
be mass tourism. Z. Bariši´c Mareni´c et al. [44] cite an example of industrial heritage being
overshadowed by the values of historic cities. The article notes that the advantages of
historical tourism attracting the attention of tourists often make industrial complexes
gradually become a redundant relic of the past.
On the other hand, L.T. Chai [
45
] notes that cultural heritage tourism in the urban
environment acts as an engineering tool that raises the profile of the city in a globalizing
world, but its further perspective related to the preservation of the authenticity and integrity
of cultural heritage is less optimistic. However, this is related to the protection of heritage,
which, if preserved for at least one generation, constitutes a valuable intellectual resource
for the local population.
A.P. Russo et al. [
46
] cite yet another interesting aspect revealed in the studies they
describe. They note that cities wanting to protect their own cultural heritage reduce the
focus on their heritage and conservation techniques and increase the impact on the quality
control of complementary products, services for tourists, and accessibility.
2.2. Caring for Heritage
Heritage management processes can rely on a variety of managerial factors (e.g.,
resource allocation, strategic management tools) (e.g., [
47
–
49
]), as well as on social factors
(e.g., value emphasis, tourist participation) (e.g., [
50
–
52
]). Modern projective programming
and mapping technologies are also increasingly used [51,53].
It is important that research on cultural heritage tourism allows for the identification
of the strengths and weaknesses of cities and entire regions. What is needed is knowledge
about the spatial distribution of cultural heritage and various resources. The knowledge
gathered in this way allows for political and economic decision-makers to make more
informed decisions regarding tourism development (cf. [
54
]). Understanding and analyz-
ing heritage environments as a significant driver of tourism development, especially in
developing countries, is important for policymakers with respect to program operations
and regeneration and development plans [
48
]. One of the possibilities offered is the use
of simple and well-known strategic tools, such as SWOT analysis (cf. [
48
]) or its extended
version TOWS/SWOT.
M. Št’astnáand A. Vaishar [
49
] attempted to answer the question: why do two destina-
tions with extremely valuable cultural heritage obtain completely different results in terms
of tourism? Their study revealed significant differences in strategic planning. It turned out
that in the case of one of the destinations, the historical heritage was only an added value.
For other sites, the use of tourist heritage has been one of the main development priorities.
An essential task is to identify risk factors. It turns out that the main reason for
the failure of plans to renew the heritage of urban areas is ignorance of the risk factors
associated with tourism. Assessing tourism risks requires in-depth knowledge of the
current situation [47].
An important role is also played by the system of social, cultural, and historical values,
as well as by measures to eliminate the fear of change.
It is important for tourists to know how to evaluate the socio-historical and historical–
cultural values of industrial heritage [
52
]. How decisions on heritage protection are made
may also depend on the cultural outlook of the inhabitants [
55
]. In the business mod-
els of organizations providing cultural heritage, this aspect is called the customer value
proposition, which, in the case of cultural heritage tourism, will be addressed by the tourist.
Another important task is overcoming resistance to the changes taking place. In this
case, tourism managers must do their best to overcome resistance to change and resolve
various controversies and community misconceptions that hinder the use of heritage. There
is interesting research on the sustainable transformation of brownfields in Sweden in this
regard. Della Lucia and Pashkevich recognized that community resistance and misconcep-

Heritage 2023,67432
tions hindering the adaptation and reuse of industrial heritage are mainly determined by
institutional norms resulting from industrial monoculture (cf. [
50
]). This also emphasizes
the social value of cultural heritage related to the revitalization of the surroundings.
Actions taken must take into account the specificity of particular types of heritage.
Thus, in the case of industrial heritage, elements such as spatial planning, improvement
of the utilitarian function, and strengthening of cultural potential are important (cf. [
41
]).
L. Wang and H. Zhichao [
56
] argue that holding demonstrations from the perspective of
practice and adopting comprehensive development means is an effective way to solve
different problems associated with industrial heritage tourism. Various studies increasingly
emphasize that care for heritage must be linked to sustainable management. This is a very
difficult task, but we must not forget the principle that economic development must not
contribute to the destruction of heritage. Efforts should be made to preserve and protect it,
and to properly plan places for visitors [51,57,58].
In the case of gastronomic tourism heritage, it is important to promote the heritage
through activities such as tourist exhibitions, marketing activities, and promotion of the
diversity the authentic food offers in catering establishments [59].
Taking care of heritage requires, above all, its confirmation and the demonstration
of its authenticity. This is the case, for example, with research on the cultural heritage
of sport (in this case soccer). Objective indicators of authenticity of original artifacts and
authoritative confirmations are used. Cultural heritage indicators are then identified and
linked to authoritative sources [60].
Tourists themselves can play an important role in the process of cultivation and
protection of cultural heritage, especially in the so-called ancestral tourism, where visi-
tors are actively involved in co-creating experiences in museums, archives, and related
heritage sites [61].
Cultural heritage is increasingly promoted with the use of modern technologies. Im-
plementing different technologies provides a visual operating environment for tourism,
enabling heritage tourism companies to leverage user preferences so that users can ef-
fectively access the travel options of interest to them [
53
]. One study designed a tourist
information statistical platform. It was built using secondary GIS programming technology
and APIs of front-end programming technology HTML + CSS, Echarts, and other elements
of image features [53].
Research on digital cultural heritage is interesting. It concerns the implementation
of projection mapping (PJM) technology, projection viewing, and interactive programs in
cultural heritage sites [
35
]. PJM technology is playing an increasingly important role in
attracting visitors to museums, heritage pavilions, and various other heritage sites [
35
].
Virtual reality plays an important role in the tourism sector, particularly in enabling the
experience of remote attractions [
62
]. To promote tourism and cultural heritage, the concept
of gamification is also used, involving the application of elements of game design and
game rules in non-gaming contexts. Applying this concept to interactive exhibitions has
great potential to attract visitors and increase their fun, engagement, and learning [63].
It is also worth emphasizing references with respect to the concept of brand value as a
central component of marketing theory and practice, already in use in the 1990s [
64
], which
nowadays—according to S. del Barrio-Garcia and M. B. Prados-Peña [
65
]—is one of the
most commonly used brand performance indicators.
2.3. The Importance of Cultural Identity
The question of cultural identity is at the heart of many debates in cultural studies
and social theory that have been going on for years. One of the frequently discussed
issues is whether those identities that have defined the social and cultural world of modern
societies for so long are disappearing, thus giving rise to new forms of identification and
fragmentation of the contemporary individual as a unified theme [
66
]. It is important
whether people notice these threats and to what extent they can use their own cultural
identification. Cultural identity:

Heritage 2023,67433
•Strengthens consumer preferences and purchasing power of local brands [67]
•
It is an important element connecting and rendering local communities distinctive
that shape their own identity through the mechanisms of accepting, adapting, and
rejecting specific elements of culture [68]
•Increases group preference and brand purchase [69]
•May be a factor affecting people’s adaptability to a new environment (cf. [70])
Tourism-specific research has focused on negative effects on cultural identity [
71
],
cultural disorientation and globalization phenomena [
72
–
75
], the use of local customs and
cultural identities to enhance tourism potential [
76
–
78
], the importance of landscapes for
cultural identity [79], and the importance of education for identity maintenance [80].
Research shows that tourism affects cultural identity. Various communities that rely
on tourism as their main source of livelihood are actively changing their activities, image,
or behavior to attract tourists and increase their profit [
71
]. L. Tavarez [
71
] identified three
negative effects on cultural identity: (1) members of the community are marginalized,
(2) culture is essentialized and commodified, and (3) these processes have a negative impact
on traditions, customs, and values.
The phenomenon of cultural identity is complex in many respects. It is widespread,
multi-layered, and has an active and passive form. On the one hand, cultural identification
can be something that is attractive to tourists, while, on the other hand, some communities
are forced to modify their identity as well as the services they offer in order to better cope
with the challenges of global tourism. In this context, research on the development of the
Balinese tourism industry is interesting. Representations of Balinese cultural identity have
evolved from national, top-down constructs of “cultural tourism” to a global tourist destina-
tion through the organization of international events [
73
]. We observe a growing interest in
tourism and growing crises of national, regional, and personal identity. Therefore, research
is being undertaken to determine how globalization contributes to cultural confusion [
74
].
Some scholars speak explicitly of McDisneyization and cultural erosion [71].
Cultural potential, including strong identification with a specific type of culture, makes
sense if it is strengthened and certain traditions and rituals are cultivated and passed down
from generation to generation. This is happening in many parts of the world. Studies
conducted in Mexico on the effectiveness of the Program Magical Towns (Programa Pueblos
Mágicos) have shown that if tourism is properly organized and appreciates the importance
of cultural identity, it can positively affect both the socio-economic level and the cultural
identity itself, it can contribute to a sense of belonging and cultural preservation [
76
]. In
the district of São Bartolomeu, the artisanal production of sweets, handed down for genera-
tions, attracts hundreds of tourists, and locals are actively involved in the organization of
traditional events [
77
]. In turn, for the inhabitants of Spycimierz (Poland), the custom of
laying flower carpets during church processions, cultivated for over 200 years, has become
an important element to increase tourist attractiveness [78].
It is not only customs, beliefs, or rituals that are important for identity. Tourists are
interested in beautiful, magical views and landscapes. Some studies have shown that the
indigenous people of certain regions gain a slightly stronger cultural identity and autonomy
from the impressive landscapes [79].
It is important that cultural identity is not only strengthened, but also properly commu-
nicated. Therefore, it is an important task to educate people engaged in tourism activities.
Otherwise, cultural identities may be constructed by intermediaries (e.g., guides), whose
interpretations of cultural meanings could be lost in translation [80].
2.4. Typology of Tourist and Their Cultural Identity
The literature argues that identity-related motivations are fundamental to all touristic
experiences and are essential to the understanding of why individuals engage in tourism
and how they benefit from the experience. Tourism is often used by individuals as a
means to discover, maintain identification, or even disengage from certain aspects of their
identity [
81
]. It can be said that we are dealing with the search for identity through leisure

Heritage 2023,67434
time (recreational activities). Falk [
82
] stated that “we affirm who we are by actively
choosing and participating in recreational activities.”
J. Falk’s model of identity motivation [
82
] is enriched by multiple aspects of the theory
of identity proposed, among others, by B. Simon [
83
] and J.P. Gee [
84
]. Individuals try to
build both their personal and group identities and use their leisure time as a means to this
end. This is confirmed by various studies carried out in art museums, zoos, aquariums,
and science centers [85–87].
However, tourists also have features that determine their relationship to cultural
identity. The aspect of tourists’ identity and their motives for their tourist trips has already
been taken up by researchers. N. Bond and J. Falk [
81
] have reviewed the various studies
in detail. They developed different typologies of tourist. These are:
•Explorers, i.e., people characterized by curiosity driven by general interest
•
Facilitators, i.e., people who are socially motivated and focus on enabling the experi-
ence and learning in others
•
Professionals/Hobbyists, i.e., those who feel closely related to the services offered due
to their professional or hobby passion
•
Experience Seekers, i.e., people who perceive places of stay as important destinations,
and their satisfaction comes from being in these places and experiencing numerous
sensations
•Rechargers, who primarily seek a contemplative, spiritual, or restorative experience
The specified types were supplemented by two more, limited to visitors to ethnic
museums, sanctuaries, and memorial sites [81]. These are:
•
Respectful Pilgrims, i.e., people who have a sense of duty to honor the memory of
people represented by the institution/monuments
•
Community Seekers, i.e., tourists who have a strong sense of heritage and/or personality
These categories are neither fixed nor mutually exclusive. The same person may be
motivated by any of these factors, depending on the specific context of the tourism activity
or the specific destination visited [81].
However, the problem is not only the motives, but also the duration of the stay, as
well as the distance to the places visited. It can be assumed that, in the case of confirming
spiritual and cultural identity, trips to nearby places (e.g., churches, historic buildings)
predominate. On the other hand, in the case of longer stays, trips are predominant, aimed
at (1) conscious or unconscious development of one’s own identity, and (2) searching for
new elements and other identities.
To sum up the issues discussed, it should be noted that cultural heritage is an extremely
interesting research issue, but at the same time it requires being able to capture many aspects
of its social impact. It should be noted that the beneficiary of heritage may be both the
local society and the visitors (tourists and visitors). However, expanding the group of
recipients of cultural heritage requires its organization in the form of a tourist product. One
of the key advantages of expanding access to cultural heritage, especially in the material
dimension, is its ability to influence the cultural identity of the beneficiaries of the shared
cultural heritage. Exhibitions, objects, building complexes, or even individual artifacts
made available to the local and non-local community can generate different values for all
stakeholders who have contact with the presented heritage. It can be a value offered to
tourists and one-day visitors, as well as to local people who get to know a foreign or their
own, although forgotten, culture. This may be economic value (so-called captured value),
especially for tourism organizers and their contractors, but also for the local community
which may benefit from tourism expansion. This may ultimately be a social value that
brings benefits to the local community. These benefits concern not only material values,
including financial ones, but also values related to building cultural unity and, at the
same time, identity, which becomes the only guarantee of maintaining the continuity of
local culture for subsequent generations. This action clearly meets the assumptions of

Heritage 2023,67435
sustainable development, the aim of which is, among others, to care for local culture and
unity as well as activation of local communities.
3. Materials and Methods
The study of new phenomena is based on observations and measurement of something
that may not be directly observable (latent). Since the subject of research cannot be observed,
its measurement is even more intuitive. However, it is possible to use methods of quantifi-
cation of the phenomenon (measurement, scaling, and constructing an indicator) which
bring researchers closer to a more accurate description of the level of the phenomenon [
88
].
Constructing original measurement scales is, therefore, helpful in obtaining an approximate
quantification of the phenomenon under study. The measure obtained in this way is a
theoretical and estimated variable resulting from the measurement of a specific feature
representing (characterizing) the phenomenon under study.
The development of a new feature measurement tool may involve errors that are
invisible in its overall assessment. It is then necessary to determine the reliability and
validity of the created tools [
89
,
90
]. When assessing validity, it is helpful to validate the
measurement tool [
91
]. It involves, among other things, the content assessment of the
research tool. In turn, the reliability of the questionnaire measurement scale can be assessed
with various measures. Most often, it is assumed that a scale is reliable if it has uniformity
in terms of the answers provided (homogeneity). The analysis of the homogeneity of the
scale can be carried out based on the value of the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient (Cronbach’s
α
). It takes values from 0 to 1, and the scale is homogeneous if it reaches 0.7 (although there
are sources that allow scales exceeding 0.6). It is expressed in the Formula (1) [92]:
∝=k
k−1 1−∑k
i=1δ2
i
δ2
t!(1)
where:
k—number of items (statements).
δ2
i—variance of the i-th item.
δ2
t—total variance.
When selecting test items to be measured, it is helpful to estimate the discrimina-
tory power of individual items in the form of sentences on which respondents express
their opinion. The discriminatory power is estimated based on the value of the biserial
correlation coefficient between a given statement (item of the tool) and the overall result.
However, a necessary condition is to reduce multicategory scales (e.g., Likert scale) to
two-category scales.
This can be done using the Edwards–Kilpatrick rule [
93
,
94
], which takes into account
the rating values of 27% of respondents (n
0
) who gave the lowest ratings (M
0
) and 27% of
respondents (n
1
) who gave the highest ratings (M
1
). The results should be substituted into
the formula for the value of the biserial correlation coefficient rbin Formula (2) [95]:
rb=
M1−M0
snrn1n0
n2(2)
where:
M
1
—average value of the dichotomized variable in the first group, consisting of n
1
respon-
dents (where the answers above the line have a value of 0, and the answers below the line
have a value of 1).
M
0
—average value of the dichotomized variable in the second group, consisting of n
0
respondents (where the answers above the line have a value of 0, and the answers below
the line have a value of 1).
sn—standard deviation from all answers provided.
n—total number of responses (n= 70).

Heritage 2023,67436
The discriminatory power is sufficient when the biserial correlation reaches a value of
at least 0.4.
A review of the literature on cultural heritage and cultural identity related to heritage
made it possible to identify several basic statements that could describe the social value of
cultural heritage. Therefore, the authors propose eight preliminary items for the measure-
ment tool to develop a tool for the quantification of the social value of cultural heritage.
These include the following issues, presented in Table 1, in the form of slogans and short
justification.
Table 1. Assessment test results before correction.
Issues Used in Construct Assessment Comments or Description Literature References
Protection and presentation of local art
The act of making cultural heritage available may
result in the value deriving from its protection,
giving hope for its transmission to future
generations and the popularization of local
heritage through presentation to a wide group of
tourists interested in this heritage
[41,50,66,87]
Organization of tourist traffic so that
the industrial heritage is preserved
Tourist traffic and its organization may be of value
to society and may also enable heritage protection
while having a positive impact on the
local economy
[1,26,30,49,96,97]
Promotion of historical
industrial heritage
Social value may consist of education and meeting
cognitive needs thanks to the promotion of
industrial heritage to residents and tourists
[1,2,7,13,43,52,56,97]
Revitalization of post-industrial areas
Social value may entail the effects of revitalization
processes of areas with cultural heritage (in this
case, industrial heritage)
[12,13,34,44,50]
Natural environment preservation
The development of cultural heritage
organizations can have a positive impact on the
protection of the natural environment
[12,43,49,57,96]
Involvement/activation of the
local community
Providing access to cultural heritage can increase
the involvement and professional activation of the
local community
[1,9,30,45,61,67,68,70,78,83,97]
Diversification of economic potential
Carrying out activities related to the provision of
cultural heritage may diversify the economic
potential of the region, increasing it with
tourist activities
[3,10,15,16,20,26,30,66,86,96,97]
Acting as a symbol of the area
Social value may result from the creation of a
tourist brand of the region thanks to the cultural
heritage tourism product and a favorable image of
the destination having cultural heritage facilities
on its territory
[17,20,32,64,65,67,69,98]
Source: Based on own research.
However, it is necessary to select a group of experts who will enable the preparation
of an initial version of the construct assessment tool. The authors decided that the group of
experts should include people directly related to post-industrial heritage. This narrowing
of the scientific problem resulted from the wide scope of cultural heritage. To achieve this
goal, managers of post-industrial tourism facilities were selected as experts in the research,
specialists whose competences in the field of cultural heritage enabled them to take up
managerial positions in these facilities and take responsibility for facilities that are valuable
from both a cultural and touristic perspective.
It is worth mentioning, however, that the issues raised concern tangible cultural
heritage. They were limited due to the specificity of the facilities in which research was
conducted to validate the research tool. Verification of set of issues that constitute the

Heritage 2023,67437
construct describing social value was carried out based on empirical data. The research
was conducted in December 2021 and January 2022 on a group of managers of 70 industrial
heritage sites associated with the European Route of Industrial Heritage (ERIH). Facility
managers were invited to participate in the research as experts. They came from Ger-
many, Spain, Great Britain, Poland, Sweden, Portugal, France, Norway, Italy, Luxembourg,
Bulgaria, Finland, Slovenia, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Ireland, Ukraine, Austria, and
Belgium. The research, in the form of interviews with experts, was carried out as part of
the research work of the Department of Computer Science and Economics of the Silesian
University of Technology, in turn part of the work of a team consisting of A.R. Szromek, K.
Herman, and M. Naramski. They covered a wide range of issues related to post-industrial
heritage tourism and shared artifacts. In this work, the discussion of research results is
limited to the social value of cultural heritage (in this case, industrial heritage).
Each expert was asked to assess the validity of the statements mentioned in the
assessment of social value on a Likert scale (from 1 to 5, where 1 was the lowest score and
5 the highest). On this basis, a tool for assessing social value was obtained on an average
scale of 1–5.
4. Results
The assessments of individual items of the social value assessment construct obtained
in the study were analyzed, and the results are presented in Table 2. The results include
the value of the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient (when removed), i.e., the assessment of the
reliability of the tool after removing subsequent items from the list. Table 1also takes into
account the discriminatory power and the level of significance of differences between the
mean values of grades calculated according to the Edwards–Kilpatrick rule [
93
,
94
], i.e.,
the result of the Student’s t-test for the average level of 27% of the lowest grades (M
0
) and
27% of the highest grades (M
1
). The Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was also estimated for
the construct including all eight items and supplemented with a standardized Cronbach’s
alpha coefficient.
Table 2. Assessment test results before correction.
Social Value Assessment Cronbach’s Alpha When Removed Discriminatory Power (rb) Test t
Protection and presentation of local art 0.64 0.84 0.001
Organization of tourist traffic so that the
industrial heritage is preserved 0.63 0.77 0.001
Promotion of historical
industrial heritage 0.65 0.97 0.001
Revitalization of post-industrial areas 0.65 0.81 0.001
Natural environment preservation 0.69 0.82 0.001
Involvement/activation of the
local community 0.60 0.77 0.001
Diversification of economic potential 0.63 0.73 0.001
Acting as a symbol of the area 0.64 0.90 0.001
Source: Based on own research.
It should be noted that, while the level of significance of the differences between the
mean results of M
0
and M
1
is very clear (p< 0.001), the discriminatory power shows some
variability. However, it should be noted that all values are greater than 0.4, which allows us
to conclude that each item has adequate discriminatory power. However, while Cronbach’s
alpha values are above the 0.6 level, they are all lower than 0.7.
By reducing the set items in accordance with the criterion of the highest Cronbach’s
alpha value, the ‘Natural environment preservation’ item was removed. The resulting set
of seven items allowed for improvement of the tool reliability results. Cronbach’s alpha

Heritage 2023,67438
approached the level of 0.7, and the standardized Cronbach’s alpha exceeded 0.7. Further
analyses also showed the possibility of omitting the item ‘Revitalization of post-industrial
areas’, the removal of which would not reduce the reliability of the tool (Table 3).
Table 3. Assessment test results after correction.
Social Value Assessment (after Correction) Cronbach’s Alpha When Removed Discriminatory Power (rb) Test t
Protection and presentation of local art 0.65 0.84 0.001
Organization of tourist traffic so that the
industrial heritage is preserved 0.68 0.77 0.001
Promotion of historical industrial heritage 0.66 0.97 0.001
Revitalization of post-industrial areas 0.69 0.81 0.001
Involvement/activation of the
local community 0.60 0.77 0.001
Diversification of economic potential 0.65 0.73 0.001
Acting as a symbol of the area 0.65 0.90 0.001
Source: Based on own research.
As a result of the calculations, a 7-item tool for assessing the social value of cultural
heritage, provided in the form of a tourist product, was obtained. The reliability of the
tool was estimated at 0.69 and its standardized rating at 0.71. The social value of cultural
heritage, in the opinion of experts, achieved an average rating of 4.06 (on a scale from 1 to
5), while, by considering the 6-item version of the tool, the average rating was 4.10.
The results of the descriptive analysis for the entire set of tool ratings are presented
in Table 4.
Table 4.
The results of the assessment of individual test items and the total result of the assessment of
the social value of cultural heritage.
Assessment Test Item nAverage Standard Deviation Median Coefficient of Variation Min Max
Protection and
presentation of local art 70 3.57 1.03 4 28.83 1 5
Organization of tourist
traffic so that the
industrial heritage
is preserved
70 4.07 0.94 4 23.03 1 5
Promotion of historical
industrial heritage 70 4.57 0.53 5 11.52 3 5
Revitalization of
post-industrial areas 70 3.79 1.02 4 26.94 1 5
Natural environment
preservation 70 3.66 1.08 4 29.40 1 5
Involvement/activation of
the local community 70 4.00 0.80 4 19.96 2 5
Diversification of
economic potential 70 3.97 0.93 4 23.47 1 5
Acting as a symbol
of the area 70 4.43 0.69 5 15.65 3 5
Source: Based on own research.
5. Discussion
As B. McKercher and H. Du Cros [
26
] indicate, virtually every introductory text on
tourism contains at least one chapter discussing the social, cultural, and environmental

Heritage 2023,67439
impacts of tourism. These dimensions very accurately discuss the problems and achieve-
ments of tourism in various contexts. This time, the attention was focused on the social
value of cultural heritage.
The results of the conducted analyses indicate the validity of using both a seven- and
six-element set of statements describing the examined issue. The issue of beneficial impact
on environmental protection was eliminated from the eight-element set, as it was found to
reduce the reliability of the assessment tool. In the opinion of experts, the aspect classified
as ‘Natural environmental preservation’ is of lower importance for the assessment of the
social value of cultural heritage related to industrial heritage.
Similar conclusions can be drawn from the ratings given to the statement related to the
benefits of ‘Revitalization of post-industrial areas’. It seems that this factor is overestimated
due to the fact that the experts were representatives of industrial heritage objects in Europe,
but, as calculations show, its removal from the set of factors does not reduce the reliability
of the tool; therefore, it seems reasonable to use it only in situations where only industrial
heritage will be assessed. However, in the case of the analysis of cultural heritage in general,
a six-element set of assessment issues can be used.
In the summary of quantitative results for the given statements, it can be seen that some
of them obtained an average result significantly exceeding the average score. These include
the statements ‘Promotion of historical industrial heritage’ (4.57
±
0.53) and ‘Acting as a
symbol of the area’ (4.43 ±0.69). Also worth noting is the low level of standard deviation
of the ratings for these statements, which indicates the homogeneity of the assigned marks.
In the opinion of experts, these two aspects essentially describe the social value of cultural
heritage with respect to the local community. The social value of cultural heritage is
expressed primarily in the ability to promote the historical heritage of the area, becoming,
at the same time, its symbol and the main element of the tourist brand of the tourist
reception area.
This issue can also be analyzed with respect to assessments of other values derived
from cultural heritage, including the value for tourists and the value captured by heritage
sites. The results of such a comparison were previously published [
1
], although on a
different scale (
−
2–2). The authors revealed that social value was rated the highest among
all three value categories and transformed the obtained results to a scale of 1–5. It is
worth noting that the social value was assigned a value of 3.5, while the economic value
(captured by the facility providing access to the heritage) was assigned a value of 3.37 and
the value proposed to tourists was assigned a value of 3.26. Therefore, there are slight
differences between the assessments of individual value groups; however, the social value
was dominant in this case.
In many cases, the value resulting from sharing cultural heritage is limited by problems
resulting from changes in the economic function of the area. This is particularly difficult
for the local communities living in these areas and involves many sacrifices. Tourism,
especially mass tourism, may also have negative effects on maintaining cultural identity [
9
].
This happens when major changes are introduced, such as the displacement of local people.
Tourism affects cultural identification through globalization processes. The reason for this
state of affairs is not only the development of the media, but also the fact that operators of
tourist services are trying to introduce different standards, recognizing that the services
offered may be poorly suited to the needs of tourists [71,99].
Tourist traffic is also an important factor limiting the social value resulting from sharing
cultural heritage. This is confirmed by the literature on the subject. N.U. Sekhar [
96
] recalls
that tourism is often seen as an environmentally friendly way of revitalizing vulnerable
rural communities and economies. It seems, however, that the opinions of representatives
of areas experiencing mass tourism are not so optimistic. C. Agaliotou [
97
] notes that
tourism, in particular mass tourism, may also be responsible for the degradation of cultural
tourism. The example of the expansion of mass tourism in Greece shows the degradation
of the natural and cultural environment, which is sometimes irreversible and entails many
negative effects. The solution to this problem is seen in the adoption of a structured and

Heritage 2023,67440
systematic development strategy for special and alternative forms of tourism. As you can
see, heritage tourism can be a rescue not only for areas subject to deindustrialization, but
also for areas degraded by mass tourism.
Also S. Halder and R. Sarda [
64
] emphasize the double benefits of heritage tourism, i.e.,
boosting the economy and encouraging sustainable development. They see an opportunity
for the development of areas in the implementation of a promotion strategy that combines
tourism-related, cultural, and natural values to capture the value for society. They base
their observations on the potential for geoeducation, geotourism, and geoconservation of
the local community and geoheritage sites in selected areas of India. Their conclusions
indicate the need to strengthen such zones and the need for an individual approach to
facilities, as well as the need to improve management efficiency to increase the number of
domestic and foreign tourists.
It is also worth noting that cultural heritage can contribute to the economic and social
development of a touristic destination, but the value of the destination brand and the
way of promoting and strengthening the brand capital of the touristic destination are also
important. Interesting research in this area is described by S. del Barrio-Garcia and M.B.
Prados-Peña [
65
], who used a sample of 217 tourists visiting the Monumental Complex of
Alhambra and Generalife in Spain. They developed an experimental design to determine
(1) the extent to which the level of authenticity of a brand extension contributes to the
brand equity of that extension and (2) whether this effect is due to tourists’ perceptions
of the credibility of the brand extension. The experiment involved manipulating the
degree of authenticity of the brand extension. As a result, both the direct impact of brand
extension authenticity on brand equity and the indirect impact provided by brand extension
credibility were revealed.
Research on the use of social media to build the brand of a tourism-related product can
also be cited here. M.B. Prados-Peña et al. [
98
] conducted research to determine how the
use of promotional discounts and free gifts on social media contributes to the construction
of the brand value of cultural heritage. It turns out that a free gift offered to customers
recorded higher values in terms of awareness, perceived quality, and brand image than a
discount. Promotional discounts have a stronger impact when the customer shows a high
willingness to promote sales.
M.T. Signes-Pont et al. [
100
] note that heritage tourism can be an important factor
in countering the outflow of inhabitants from small villages to cities. The authors see an
opportunity to recover stone artifacts and transform them into a cultural tourism product,
attracting new tourists and then new villagers.
The development of heritage tourism may also be related to the immigration of the
population. M. Pretes [
101
] stresses that heritage sites, representing a nation’s past, are
an important element in the construction of national identity and help create a common
identity within a diverse population, especially in areas consisting of many immigrant
cultures. Objects representing the cultural heritage of a particular nation help build an
imaginary community, even if it no longer exists or has been significantly mixed with other
cultures. In connection with the intensifying migration of people associated with economic
motives or the escape from war zones, it can be expected that tourists will become more
interested in this form of compensation with respect to their longing for a deserted country
or region.
It should also be remembered that the diversity of cultural identities in a given area can
be an asset and even a factor in the development of tourism in this area. Such experiences are
sometimes observed despite the presence of multiculturalism in the destination community.
An example of what can connect different cultures is, for example, a common gastronomic
heritage [
59
]. Thus, there are premises to claim that, despite the development of tourism,
both cultural identity and heritage can be preserved. This can be achieved thanks to
organizational solutions aimed at integrating the local community. Another integrating
activity may be showing the economic benefits resulting from the conducted touristic
activity with the use of cultural heritage and local culture. However, it can also be an

Heritage 2023,67441
awareness of other values that are shared by multiple cultures, and can thus promote the
integration of multicultural and multigenerational communities.
An underestimated aspect of the topic is intangible heritage, the importance of which,
with respect to the construction of cultural identity, may be even greater than the importance
of tangible heritage. Although in this case the value is even more difficult to measure than
in the case of material heritage, it is impossible to abandon this activity in the research
process. Intangible cultural heritage requires taking into account much broader diagnostic
tools, as it has a much stronger impact on tourists’ emotions. This, however, may strengthen
the consolidation of cultural identity more than any physical connection to tangible cultural
heritage. In this situation, it seems reasonable to focus further research on this aspect of
cultural heritage.
6. Conclusions
The aim of this article was to identify issues that can be used to measure the social value
resulting from cultural heritage made available in the form of a tourism-related product.
Referring to the literature that describes these issues and the methodology necessary for
the creation of tests for the assessment of social phenomena, six basic statements were
specified that enable the assessment of the social value of cultural heritage. Issues that may
serve as items in the social value assessment test include aspects such as the protection and
presentation of local art, the organization of tourism and its consequences, making historical
heritage available to a wide range of recipients, but also the activation and involvement
of the local population, expanding the potential of the local economy to include touristic
activities and creating a brand for the region or city thanks to the symbolism with which
the presented cultural heritage is identified.
The developed construct covering the abovementioned issues that can build social
value through cultural heritage tourism is only a starting point in the discussion on the
measurement tool. The weakness of the tool is undoubtedly its high subjectivity, resulting
from the selection of issues. Although this process was based on a review of the literature
on this topic, the authors obviously relied only on the literature that was available to
them. However, the main advantage of this process is the attempt itself to initiate it and
indicate that it is possible to develop tools for measuring even complex phenomena such as
social value.
Although it was stated that as a result of using the developed measurement tool the
social value of the post-industrial tourism heritage in Europe should be assigned a value
of 4.06 on a 5-point Likert scale, it is important to use the same or adjusted tool in other
measurements. Consequently, this will enable the improvement of construct measurement
tools and the comparison of the obtained results.
Theoretical implications arising from the research presented here concern how to
measure the phenomenon of social value resulting from tangible heritage tourism, while
practical implications concern the fact that the tool can be used to compare social val-
ues generated in different areas (destinations). Like any study, this one also has some
limitations, which have already been partially mentioned. It should be added, how-
ever, that a significant strengthening of the presented concept of measuring social value
would result from its supplementation with tools to measure other values based on a
similar methodology.
Future research should first address the remaining value constructs. It should take
into account both the material context and intangible values. In the second step, the
developed tools should be used across various destinations where heritage tourism occurs.
Such research would allow for comparison of the generated values, and thus increase
measurement precision thanks to the generation of larger data sets. An interesting solution
may also be the use of artificial intelligence to identify optimal connections and proportions
in generating value.

Heritage 2023,67442
Author Contributions:
Conceptualization, A.R.S. and M.B.; methodology, A.R.S.; formal analysis,
M.B.; investigation, A.R.S.; resources, A.R.S.; data curation, A.R.S.; writing—original draft prepara-
tion, A.R.S. and M.B.; writing—review and editing, A.R.S. and M.B.; visualization, A.R.S.; supervi-
sion, M.B.; funding acquisition, A.R.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of
the manuscript.
Funding:
The publication of this article was supported by statutory research BK-274ROZ12023
(13010BK_230072) at the Silesian University of Technology, Faculty of Organization and Management.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable (the study did not require ethical approval).
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: Data are contained within the article.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
1.
Butler, R.W.; Szromek, A.R. Incorporating the value proposition for society with business models of health tourism enterprises.
Sustainability 2019,11, 6711. [CrossRef]
2.
Bals, L.; Huang, F.; Tate, W.L.; Rosca, E. Creating social value at the bottom of the pyramid: Elaborating resource orchestration via
social intermediaries. J. Bus. Res. 2023,168, 114209. [CrossRef]
3.
Sundin, N.; Bartek, L.; Osowski, C.P.; Strid, I.; Eriksson, M. Sustainability assessment of surplus food donation: A transfer system
generating environmental, economic, and social values. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2023,38, 41–54. [CrossRef]
4.
UNESCO World Heritage Convention. World Heritage List Statistics 2022. Available online: https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/stat
(accessed on 19 July 2022).
5.
Pasikowska-Schnass, M. Cultural Heritage in EU Policies. European Parliamentary Research Service. PE 621.876, Strasbourg,
France. 2018. Available online: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2018/621876/EPRS_BRI(2018)62187
6_EN.pdf (accessed on 19 July 2023).
6.
Szromek, A.R. Value Propositions in Heritage Tourism Site Business Models in the Context of Open Innovation Knowledge
Transfer. J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2022,8, 161. [CrossRef]
7.
Varet, F.; Apostolidis, T.; Granié, M.-A. Social value, normative features and gender differences associated with speeding and
compliance with speed limits. J. Saf. Res. 2023,84, 182–191. [CrossRef]
8. Dubois, N.; Beauvois, J.-L. Normativeness and individualism. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 2005,35, 123–146. [CrossRef]
9.
Franchin, L.; Agnoli, S.; Rubaltelli, E. Asymmetry between cost and benefit: The role of social value orientation, attention, and
age. Curr. Res. Behav. Sci. 2023,5, 100138. [CrossRef]
10.
Mihailova, D. Redefining business models for the energy transition: Social innovation and sustainable value creation in the
European energy system. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2023,100, 103114. [CrossRef]
11.
Bergman, N.; Markusson, N.; Connor, P.; Middlemiss, L.; Ricci, M. Bottom-up, social innovation for addressing climate change. In
Proceedings of the Conference on Energy Transitions in an Interdependent World: What and Where Are the Future Social Science
Research Agendas, Brighton, UK, 25–26 January 2015; pp. 1–27.
12.
Fang, Q.; Li, Z. Cultural ecology cognition and heritage value of huizhou traditional villages. Heliyon
2022
,8, e12627. [CrossRef]
13.
Szromek, A.R.; Butler, R.W. A Re-positioning of Post-Industrial Heritage in Upper Silesia, Poland, into an Integrated Thematic
Tourist Route. J. Herit. Tour. 2023,18, 6. [CrossRef]
14.
Weng, L.; Liang, Z.; Bao, J. The effect of tour interpretation on perceived heritage values: A comparison of tourists with and
without tour guiding interpretation at a heritage destination. J. Destin. Mark. Manag. 2020,16, 100431. [CrossRef]
15.
Lawton, R.; Fujiwara, D.; Mourato, S.; Bakhshi, H.; Lagarde, A.; Davies, J. The economic value of heritage in England: A benefit
transfer study. City Cult. Soc. 2021,26, 100417. [CrossRef]
16.
Brooks, C.; Waterton, E.; Saul, H.; Renzaho, A. Exploring the relationships between heritage tourism, sustainable community
development and host communities’ health and wellbeing: A systematic review. PLoS ONE
2023
,17, e0282319. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
17.
King, S.A.; Gatchet, R.D. Heritage Tourism, Origin Stories, and Arkansas Blues: Promoting Blues Tourism on Both Sides of the
Mississippi River. Ark. Rev. A J. Delta Stud. 2022,53, 163–182.
18. Bhowmik, P. Heritage Tourism: A bibliometric review. Anatolia 2021,32, 387–403. [CrossRef]
19.
Park, E.; Choi, B.K.; Lee, T.J. The role and dimensions of authenticity in heritage tourism. Tour. Manag.
2019
,74, 99–109. [CrossRef]
20.
Antlej, K.; Cooke, S.; Kelly, M.; Kennedy, R.; Pikó, L.; Horan, B. Understanding the Social Value of Geelong’s Design and
Manufacturing Heritage for Extended Reality. Heritage 2023,6, 3043–3062. [CrossRef]
21.
Jaharuddin, N.S.; Mansor, Z.D.; Mohamed, A. The Impact of Five Key Tourism Supply Chain Sectors on Tourists’ Satisfaction of
Cultural Heritage Tourism in Melaka, Malaysia. Glob. Bus. Manag. Res. 2023,15, 37–49.
22.
Shinde, K.A. How Effective Is a Buddhist Pilgrimage Circuit as a Product and Strategy for Heritage Tourism in India? Heritage
2022,5, 3846–3863. [CrossRef]

Heritage 2023,67443
23.
Saleem, S.; Umar, R.M. A Netnography Study on Memorable Cultural Tourism Experiences: Insights from Asian Cultural
Heritage Site Tourists. J. Promot. Manag. 2023,29, 280–303. [CrossRef]
24.
Pratiwi, W.D.; Nagari, B.K.; Margono, R.B.; Suryani, S. Visitor’s Intentions to Re-Visit Reconstructed Public Place in Jakarta
Tourism Heritage Riverfront. Int. J. Sustain. Trop. Des. Res. Pract. 2022,15, 2–9. [CrossRef]
25. Zhang, Z.; Xiong, K.; Huang, D. Natural world heritage conservation and tourism: A review. Herit. Sci. 2023,11, 55. [CrossRef]
26.
McKercher, B.; Du Cros, H. Cultural Tourism: The Partnership between Tourism and Cultural Heritage Management; Routledge:
Oxfordshire, UK, 2002.
27.
Weiler, B.; Witt, S.F. Tourism and heritage management: Balancing conservation and development. Tour. Manag.
1997
,18, 331–332.
[CrossRef]
28. Tussyadiah, I.P. Tourism Resource Management of Regional Culture. Ann. Tour. Res. 2005,32, 275–277. [CrossRef]
29.
Ashworth, G. The Politics of World Heritage: Negotiating Tourism and Conservation. Ann. Tour. Res.
2006
,33, 273–275. [CrossRef]
30. Hampton, M.P. Heritage, local communities and economic development. Ann. Tour. Res. 2005,32, 735–759. [CrossRef]
31. Timothy, D.J.; Boyd, S.W. Heritage Tourism; Themes in Tourism series; Prentice-Hall: Harlow, UK, 2003.
32. Tribe, J. The art of tourism. Ann. Tour. Res. 2008,35, 924–944. [CrossRef]
33.
Ginting, N. How Self-Efficacy Enhance Heritage Tourism in Medan Historical Corridor, Indonesia. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci.
2016
,
234, 193–200. [CrossRef]
34. Richards, G. Production and consumption of European cultural tourism. Ann. Tour. Res. 1996,23, 261–283. [CrossRef]
35.
Li, Y.; Lap Bong Lo, R. Applicability of the market appeal—Robusticity matrix: A case study of heritage tourism. Tour. Manag.
2004,25, 789–800. [CrossRef]
36. Rahmawati, D.; Supriharjo, R.; Setiawan, R.P.; Pradinie, K. Community Participation in Heritage Tourism For Gresik Resilience.
Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2014,135, 142–146. [CrossRef]
37.
Ismagilova, G.; Safiullin, L.; Gafurov, I. Using historical heritage as a factor in tourism development. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci.
2015
,
188, 157–162. [CrossRef]
38.
Surugiu, M.-R.; Surugiu, C. Heritage tourism entrepreneurship and social media: Opportunities and challenges. Procedia Soc.
Behav. Sci. 2015,188, 74–81. [CrossRef]
39.
Bujdosó, Z.; Dávid, L.; Tozsér, A.; Kovács, G.; Major-Kathi, V.; Uakhitova, G.; Katona, P.; Vasvári, M. Basis of heritagization and
cultural tourism development. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2015,188, 307–315. [CrossRef]
40.
Franczuk, J.; Boguszewska, K.; Parrinello, S.; Dell’Amico, A.; Galasso, F.; Piotr Gle´n, P. Direct use of point clouds in real-time
interaction with the cultural heritage in pandemic and post-pandemic tourism on the case of Kłodzko Fortress. Digit. Appl.
Archaeol. Cult. Herit. 2022,24, e00217. [CrossRef]
41.
Wang, L.; Xiao, S. Tourism space reconstruction of a world heritage site based on actor network theory: A case study of the
Shibing Karst of the South China KarstWorld Heritage Site. Int. J. Geoherit. Parks 2020,8, 140–151. [CrossRef]
42.
Licata, M.; Larentis, O.; Tesi, C.; Fusco, R.; Ciliberti, R. Tourism in the Time of Coronavirus. Fruition of the “Minor Heritage”
through the Development of Bioarchaeological Sites—A Proposal. Heritage 2021,4, 759–774. [CrossRef]
43. Garrod, B.; Fyall, A. Managing heritage tourism. Ann. Tour. Res. 2000,27, 682–708. [CrossRef]
44.
Bariši´c Mareni´c, Z.; Pavlovi´c, R.; Tutek, I. Industrial Heritage of Dubrovnik—Unaffirmed Potential of Gruž Bay. Heritage
2022
,5,
2332–2369. [CrossRef]
45.
Chai, L.T. Culture Heritage Tourism Engineering at Penang: Complete The Puzzle of “The Pearl Of Orient”. Syst. Eng. Procedia
2011,1, 358–364. [CrossRef]
46.
Russo, A.P.; Boniface, P.; Shoval, N. Conference Report. Tourism Management in Heritage Cities. Ann. Tour. Res.
2001
,28, 824–826.
[CrossRef]
47.
Hosseini, A.; Pourahmad, A.; Ayashi, A.; Tzeng, G.; Banaitis, A.; Pourahmad, A. Improving the urban heritage based on a tourism
risk assessment using a hybrid fuzzy MADM method: The case study of Tehran’s central district. J. Multi-Criteria Decis. Anal.
2021,28, 248–268. [CrossRef]
48.
Dahmani, B.; Hadjab, M. Developing heritage tourism using (SWOT) as a tool to identify strategic alternatives. A case study in
Bou-Saada. Tech. Soc. Sci. J. 2023,39, 843–859. [CrossRef]
49.
Št’astná, M.; Vaishar, A. Cultural heritage and tourism. A comparison of two destinations in Southern Moravia. Tour. Hosp. Res.
2023,23, 129–140. [CrossRef]
50.
Della Lucia, M.; Pashkevich, A. A sustainable afterlife for post-industrial sites: Balancing conservation, regeneration and heritage
tourism. Eur. Plan. Stud. 2023,31, 641–661. [CrossRef]
51.
Li, H.; Ito, H. Visitor’s experience evaluation of applied projection mapping technology at cultural heritage and tourism sites:
The case of China Tangcheng. Herit. Sci. 2023,11, 52. [CrossRef]
52.
Yang, L. Study on the Development Model of the Combination of “Third-Tier” Industrial Heritage and Rural Tourism under the
Concept of Urban Image. Sci. Program. 2022,2022, 2730532. [CrossRef]
53.
Qin, L.; Chen, S.; Huang, J.; Lin, H. Statistical System of Cultural Heritage Tourism Information Based on Image Feature Extraction
Technology. Math. Probl. Eng. 2022,2022, 5250853. [CrossRef]
54.
Dong, B.; Bai, K.; Sun, X.; Wang, M.; Liu, Y. Spatial distribution and tourism competition of intangible cultural heritage: Take
Guizhou, China as an example. Herit. Sci. 2023,11, 64. [CrossRef]

Heritage 2023,67444
55.
Lee, C.-K.; Olya, H.; Park, Y.-N.; Kwon, Y.-J.; Kim, M.J. Sustainable intelligence and cultural worldview as triggers to preserve
heritage tourism resources. Tour. Geogr. 2023,25, 899–918. [CrossRef]
56.
Wang, X.; Zhichao, H. Construction Strategies of Industrial Heritage Tourism Complex from Multiple Perspectives. J. Landsc. Res.
2023,15, 89–92. [CrossRef]
57.
Aivaz, K.-A.; Stan, M.-I.; Ioni
t
,
iu, I. Drivers for Development Triggered by the Trilogy Tourism-Underwater Cultural Heritage-
Environmental Protection, in Maritime Spatial Planning. Ovidius Univ. Ann. Ser. Econ. Sci. 2021,21, 2–11.
58.
Boc, E.; Filimon, A.L.; Mancia, M.-S.; Mancia, C.A.; Josan, I.; Herman, M.L.; Filimon, A.C.; Herman, G.V. Tourism and Cultural
Heritage in Beius
,Land, Romania. Heritage 2022,5, 1734–1751. [CrossRef]
59.
Kalenjuk Pivarski, B.; Grubor, B.; Banjac, M.; Ðerˇcan, B.; Tešanovi´c, D.; Šmugovi´c, S.; Radivojevi´c, G.; Ivanovi´c, V.; Vujasinovi´c, V.;
Stoši´c, T. The Sustainability of Gastronomic Heritage and Its Significance for Regional Tourism Development. Heritage
2023
,6,
3402–3417. [CrossRef]
60. Wilson, J.P. Homes of sports: A study of cultural heritage tourism and football. J. Sport Tour. 2022,26, 315–333. [CrossRef]
61. Murdy, S.; Alexander, M.; Bryce, D. Role conflict and changing heritage practice: Ancestral tourism in Scotland. J. Mark. Manag.
2016,32, 1494–1512. [CrossRef]
62.
Atzeni, M.; Del Chiappa, G.; Pung, J.M. Enhancing visit intention in heritage tourism: The role of object-based and existential
authenticity in non-immersive virtual reality heritage experiences. Int. J. Tour. Res. 2021,24, 240–255. [CrossRef]
63.
Chernbumroong, S.; Nadee, W.; Jansukpum, K.; Puritat, K.; Julrode, P. The Effects of Gamified Exhibition in a Physical and Online
Digital Interactive Exhibition Promoting Digital Heritage and Tourism. TEM J. 2022,11, 1520–1530. [CrossRef]
64.
Aaker, D.A. Managing Brand Equity Capitalizing on the Value of Brand Name; Capitalizing on the Value of a Brand Name; The Free
Press: New York, NY, USA, 1991.
65.
del Barrio-Garcia, S.; Prados-Peña, M.B. Do brand authenticity and brand credibility facilitate brand equity? The case of heritage
destination brand extension. J. Destin. Mark. Manag. 2019,13, 10–23. [CrossRef]
66.
Halder, S.; Sarda, R. Promoting intangible cultural heritage (ICH) tourism: Strategy for socioeconomic development of snake
charmers (India) through geoeducation, geotourism and geoconservation. Int. J. Geoherit. Parks 2021,9, 212–232. [CrossRef]
67.
He, J.X.; Wang, C.L. Cultural identity and consumer ethnocentrism impacts on preference and purchase of domestic versus
import brands: An empirical study in China. J. Bus. Res. 2015,68, 1225–1233. [CrossRef]
68.
Longhitano, G. Textile Activity and Cultural Identity in Sicily between the Late Bronze Age and Archaic Period; Oxbow Books: Oxford,
UK, 2021.
69.
Zheng, Q.; Zhang, S.; Liang, J.; Chen, Y.; Ye, W. The Impact of Cultural Memory and Cultural Identity in the Brand Value of
Agricultural Heritage: A Moderated Mediation Model. Behav. Sci. 2023,13, 79. [CrossRef]
70.
Jurásek, M.; Wawrosz, P. What Makes People Abroad Satisfied? The Role of Cultural Intelligence, Cultural Identity, and Culture
Shock. Soc. Sci. 2023,12, 126. [CrossRef]
71. Tavarez, L. The Impact of Tourism on Cultural Identity in Peru. Int. Soc. Sci. Rev. 2021,97, 2.
72. Jensen, L.A.; Arnett, J.J.; McKenzie, J. Globalization and Cultural Identity; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2011; pp. 285–301.
73.
Verheijen, B.; Darma Putra, I.N. Balinese cultural identity and global tourism: The Garuda Wisnu Kencana Cultural Park. Asian
Ethn. 2020,21, 425442. [CrossRef]
74. Metodieva, T. Tourism as a prerequisite for changing the national identity. Acta Sci. Nat. 2023,10, 97–100. [CrossRef]
75.
Zajda, J. Research Trends in Discourses of Globalization and Cultural Identity. In Discourses of Globalisation, Multiculturalism and
Cultural Identity; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2023; pp. 181–189.
76.
Hernández González, A.M.; Iturbe Vargas, M. La repercusión del turismo en la identidad cultural de los Pueblos Mágicos de
Chiapas. Hosp. ESDAI 2019,36, 5–41.
77.
da Silva Cardoso, V.A.; de Cássia Pereira Farias, R. Patrimonialização das tradições gastronômicas de São Bartolomeu, Minas
Gerais, como fomento ao turismo e àidentidade cultural. Patrimônio E Memória 2020,16, 313–342.
78.
Krakowiak, B.; Włodarczyk, B. Mo˙
zliwo´sci wykorzystania potencjału kulturowego Spycimierza dla rozwoju turystyki w
miejscowo´sci. Uniejow Bull. Biul. Uniejowski 2021,10, 11–39. [CrossRef]
79.
Yorgason, E.; Ming, H.L. Reading Lanyu’s tourism landscape: Hybridity and identity on Orchid Island, Taiwan. Singap. J. Trop.
Geogr. 2013,34, 261–278. [CrossRef]
80.
Nomnian, S.; Trupp, A.; Niyomthong, W.; Tangcharoensathaporn, P.; Charoenkongka, A. Language and Community-Based
Tourism: Use, Needs, Dependency, and Limitations. Austrian J. South-East Asian Stud. 2020,13, 57–79. [CrossRef]
81.
Bond, N.; Falk, J. Tourism and identity-related motivations: Why am I here (and not there)? Int. J. Tour. Res.
2012
,15, 430–442.
[CrossRef]
82. Falk, J. Identity and the Museum Visitor Experience; Left Coast Press: Walnut Creek, CA, USA, 2009.
83. Simon, B. Identity in Modern Society: A Social Psychological Perspective; Blackwell: Oxford, UK, 2004.
84. Gee, J.P. Identity as an analytic lens for research in education. Rev. Res. Educ. 2001,25, 99–125. [CrossRef]
85. Falk, J. An identity-centered approach to understanding museum learning. Curator Mus. J. 2006,49, 151–166. [CrossRef]
86. Falk, J. Identity and the art museum visitor. J. Art Educ. 2008,34, 25–34.
87. Falk, J.; Storksdieck, M. Science learning in a leisure setting. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 2010,47, 194–212. [CrossRef]

Heritage 2023,67445
88.
Klimas, P. Skale pomiaru: Konstrukcja i walidacja skal nowych versus weryfikacja i adaptacja skal replikowanych. In Metody
Bada´n Ilo´sciowych w Zarz ˛adzaniu; Sułkowiski, R.Ł., Lenart-Gansiniec, R., Kolasi´nska-Morawska, K., Eds.; Społeczna Akademia
Nauk Publishing House: Łód´z, Poland, 2021.
89.
Haynes, S.N.; Richard, D.; Kubany, E.S. Content Validity in Psychological Assessment: A Functional Approach to Concepts and
Methods. Psychol. Assess. 1995,7, 238. [CrossRef]
90.
Churchill, G.A., Jr. A Paradigm for Developing Better Measures of Marketing Constructs. J. Mark. Res.
1979
,16, 64–73. [CrossRef]
91.
Czakon, W. Walidacja narz˛edzia pomiarowego w naukach o zarz ˛adzaniu [Validation of a measurement tool in management
sciences]. Przegl ˛ad Organ. 2019,951, 3–10. [CrossRef]
92. Sagan, A. Badania Marketingowe; Podstawowe Kierunki; AE Publishing House in Krakow: Kraków, Poland, 1998.
93. Edwards, A.L. Techniques of Attitude Scale Construction; Appleton-Century-Crofts Inc.: New York, NY, USA, 1957; Volume 213.
94. Brzezi´nski, J. Metodologia Bada ´n Psychologicznych; PWN Publishing House: Warsaw, Poland, 2019.
95. Glass, G.V.; Hopkins, K.D. Statistical Methods in Education and Psychology, 3rd ed.; Allyn & Bacon: Houston, TA, USA, 1995.
96.
Sekhar, N.U. Local people’s attitudes towards conservation and wildlife tourism around Sariska Tiger Reserve, India. J. Environ.
Manag. 2003,69, 339–347. [CrossRef]
97.
Agaliotou, C. Reutilization of industrial buildings and sites in Greece can act as a lever for the development of special inter-
est/alternative tourism. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2015,175, 291–298. [CrossRef]
98.
Prados-Peña, M.B.; Crespo-Almendros, E.; Porcu, L. How Online Sales Promotions via Social Networks Affect the Brand Equity
of a Heritage Destination. Heritage 2022,5, 2547–2564. [CrossRef]
99.
Ritzer, G.; Liska, A. “McDisneyization” and “Post-Tourism”: Complementary Perspectives on Contemporary Tourism. In Touring
Cultures. Transformations of Travel and Theory; Rojek, C., Urrya, J., Eds.; Taylor and Francis Group: London, UK; New York, NY,
USA, 1997; pp. 96–112.
100.
Signes-Pont, M.T.; Cortés-Plana, J.J.; Boters-Pitarch, J.; Mora-Mora, H. Cultural Heritage and Sustainable Rural Development: The
Case of Tàrbena, Spain. Heritage 2022,5, 3010–3031. [CrossRef]
101. Pretes, M. Tourism and nationalism. Ann. Tour. Res. 2003,30, 125–142. [CrossRef]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note:
The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.