Revista de Ciencias
Sociales (RCS)
Vol. XXIX, No. Especial
8, julio-diciembre 2023. pp. 19-39
FCES - LUZ ● ISSN: 1315-9518 ● ISSN-E: 2477-9431
Como citar:
Simón-Isidoro, S., y Álvarez-Herranz, A. (2023). Bibliometric
analysis on cultural tourism and depopulation in rural areas. Revista De
Ciencias Sociales, XXIX(Número
Especial 8), 19-39.
Bibliometric analysis on cultural tourism and depopulation
in rural areas
Simón-Isidoro,
Selene*
Álvarez-Herranz, Agustín**
Abstract
Today, tourism has had to readapt itself to the global
circumstances brought about by the Covid-19 pandemic. As a result, it has had
to reorient itself and find new lines of investigation. Cultural tourism, a
by-product of this situation, has found the rural environment to be the ideal
setting for its growing development. In this paper, bibliometric and scientometric studies are used to analyse the scientific
output in the field of research on cultural tourism and its repercussions for
rural areas, linking it to depopulation. This is a novel research project in
that it analyses all scientific output using the Web of Science (WoS) platform, owned by Clarivate Analytics, as a database.
The tool chosen to construct and visualise the data was the VOSviewer software,
based on a time frame that spans the last twenty years (2002-2022). Thus, the
evolution of all publication and citation records has been assessed and
analysed. Likewise, the most important publications and most noteworthy
authors, affiliations and countries have been identified. Finally, the study expounds that
emerging themes are growing every year at an exponential rate.
Keywords: Bibliometrics; cultural tourism;
rural; pandemic; depopulation.
Análisis bibliométrico sobre el turismo cultural y despoblación en
el ámbito rural
Resumen
Actualmente
el turismo ha tenido que readaptarse a las circunstancias mundiales producidas
por la pandemia del covid-19. Provocando que deba reorientarse y buscar, por
consiguiente, nuevas líneas de investigación. Producto de ello, el turismo
cultural ha encontrado en el ámbito rural el escenario perfecto para su
creciente desarrollo. Los estudios bibliométricos y cienciométricos analizan en este trabajo cual es la
producción científica que se está desarrollando en el campo de investigación
sobre el turismo cultural y su repercusión en ámbito rural, ligándolo a la
despoblación. Conformándose como una investigación novedosa, puesto que analiza
toda la producción científica usando como base de datos Web of Science (WoS) propiedad Clarivate Analytics. La
herramienta que se ha escogido para construir y visualizar los datos ha sido el
software VOSviewer, teniendo en cuenta un marco
cronológico que abarca los últimos veinte años (2002-2022). De este modo, se ha
evaluado y contrastado la evolución del total de las publicaciones y citas
registradas. Así como, se han identificado cuáles han sido los títulos de
publicaciones más importantes, autores, afiliaciones y países más destacados.
Por lo que este estudio descubre que se trata de temáticas emergentes que
crecen cada año a un ritmo exponencial.
Palabras clave: Bibliometría,
turismo cultural, rural, pandemia, despoblación.
The Covid-19 pandemic has meant that tourism has had to be
reoriented in search of new lines of investigation that correspond to this
crucial moment that is unfolding (Li, Nguyen & Coca-Stefaniak,
2020; Jeon & Yang, 2021; Joo et al., 2021; Škare, Riberio & Porada-Rochoń, 2021; Sharma,
Thomas & Paul, 2021;
Sobaih et al., 2021; Villacé-Molinero
et al., 2021). Among the themes linked with tourism and the pandemic, the rural
environment has been directly affected (Moreno-Luna et al., 2021), as it provides
a space in which the required healthcare measures can be more reasonably
implemented (Zavarika, 2021). Undoubtedly, this
reorientation of tourism has caused rural tourism to become one of the main
drivers of development (Oleksenko et al., 2021),
linked to sustainability (Polukhina et al., 2021).
Likewise, one of the biggest beneficiaries, its activity
being connected with the rural environment, has been cultural tourism, which
makes cultural heritage a new driver, not just economically, but also socially
(Peinado, 2012), helping to develop rural areas
(Gómez-Ullate et al., 2020), and transform them (Vidickienė, Vilkė & Gedminaitė-Raudonė, 2020). But this is only the case if
this kind of tourism is carried out responsibly ensuring minimal environmental
impact (Conforti, González & Endere, 2014). In this regard, the
International Cultural Tourism Charter (International
Council on Monuments and Sites [ICOMOS],
1999), defends the irreplaceable nature of each community’s cultural heritage.
However, its importance as an economic and educational resource is undeniable.
The aim of this research is to link the scientific output on
cultural tourism with a time frame during which it has been overwhelmingly
influenced, as is the case for the period of the Covid-19 pandemic, and to add
a specific space, which is the rural environment. Hence, the first three issues
addressed in this study are: the reorientation of tourism in view of the
Covid-19 pandemic, tourism in sparsely populated regions and cultural tourism
based on cultural heritage. Bibliometric analysis is used to extract the data
that define the scientific output on cultural tourism.
The methodology that has been applied to observe the scientific
impact (Merigó, Gil-Lafuente & Yager,
2015; Llanos-Herrera & Merigo, 2018) generated by
cultural tourism has been extracted from the database of the Web of Science (WoS) platform, owned by Clarivate
Analytics, with the aim of standardising the information obtained by using a
single source. Likewise, for the analysis of the data, VOSviewer has been used
as a software tool for the data’s construction and visualisation. To that end,
the broad framework that covers the tourism sector has been limited in the time
frame from January 2020 to June 2022.
The analysis of the bibliometric study creates a
multidisciplinary map as a result of the extensive scientific output on
cultural tourism linked with depopulation. This has required ordering,
documenting and interpreting the information resulting from the entire scientometric analysis process. A series of tools have been
developed to this end, based on graphs and charts that show the evolution of
publication and citation records and on charts that bring together the ten top
positions in a ranking that shows the volume of records by publication titles,
authors, academic affiliations and countries.
1. Reorienting
tourism in view of the covid-19 pandemic
Based on the studies carried out to understand the tourism
industry in the context of Covid-19, the different determinants have been
analysed that can restimulate development in the sector (Škare
et al., 2021). Here, governments, market stakeholders, technological
innovations and labour market stimulation are all factors that determine how
tourism develops and its sustainable evolution following the pandemic (Collins-Kreiner & Ram, 2020). Furthermore, small-scale factors
are also conducive to the development of sustainable tourism (Sharma et al.,
2021).
The major impact of Covid-19 on tourism can be seen
especially in planned behaviours, since after the pandemic these have been
undertaken by the residents themselves (Altuntas
& Gok, 2021). Their increased sensitivity leads
to a kind of emotional solidarity that encourages them to travel and support
the hotel and restaurant sector within their own territory, turning local
residents into tourists in their own environment (Joo et al., 2021). In the
knowledge that this is one of the sectors worst hit by the pandemic, this
sensitivity can be perceived in the behaviour of the reoriented tourist
(Suárez-Ponce et al., 2022).
For this reason, it is important to take into account the
theory of planned behaviour (Ajzen, 1991), and, in particular: people’s
attitudes and travelling intentions (Li et al., 2020). This new scenario of a
“perceived risk”, brought about by the pandemic, can help us to understand how
travellers perceive the risk to then be able to offer relevant solutions, in
expectation of changes in travel behaviour that require responses from
governments, in order to improve traveller confidence and support their
decision-making process.
Both the quantitative and qualitative results show that
travel decision-making is largely influenced by the confidence in the local
government’s information on personal safety, since non-official communication
from TV programs or social media have a negative impact on those tourists who
decide to go ahead with their travel plans. In this regard, the managers of
hotel businesses and travel management organisations can help when it comes to
better understanding tourists’ responses to Covid-19, with a view to possible
future outbreaks (Villacé-Molinero et al., 2021).
In terms of Spanish national tourism, the negative impact of
Covid-19 is considerably high. This reduction may be compensated in part by the
reorientation of outbound tourism towards the national-local travel market,
sustained largely by residents that decide to be tourists in their own
territory, thereby respecting the mobility limitations caused by the pandemic.
However, this negative impact will not be homogenous across the regions of
Spain (Arbulú et al., 2021).
In the reorientation of tourism, a territory’s internal
demand has depended on its resident population choosing to develop local
tourism (Moreno-Luna et al., 2021). This change in the perspective of tourists
led to an avoidance of mass tourism destinations in favour of more
family-based, less populated and more trustworthy places. The evolution of
national tourism in Spain implies a kind of recovery that favours a change in
the tourism development model, focusing more on sustainable proposals that are
less intensive and which have a lower impact on the population and the
environment.
This new “era of tourism” more critically involves regions
where until now “sun and beach” mass tourism has prevailed. In essence, the
impact of the pandemic has been greater in regions with higher infection rates,
and these coincide with the regions that are most dependent on tourist flows.
Those regions that have invested in developing rural and alternative tourism,
supporting, for example, rural accommodation options and campsites, have not
been as hard hit (Sobaih et al., 2021).
There are results that help to understand the structure of
local tourism networks, both on a visual and quantitative level, bearing in
mind the repercussions of the pandemic (Silva, 2021). It also serves as useful
basic information for putting in place regional tourism policies in response to
infectious diseases, such as Covid-19 (Jeon & Yang, 2021). This evidence
must take into account the plans and strategies of tourism. This kind of
tourism generates high levels of benefits and enables those involved to
maintain the physical separation distance required during this health crisis.
Sustainability will be a fundamental part of this development, its three
essential pillars being: environmental, social and economic (Polukhina et al., 2021).
2. Tourism in
sparsely populated areas
Rural development that promotes tourist activities can help
to mitigate territories’ depopulation (Bustos, 2016; Alamá-Sabater
et al., 2019; López-Sanz et al., 2021), aided by the
concept of sustainability (Battino & Lampreu, 2019). It is, therefore, of vital importance to
first create a series of policies to protect against depopulation (De Almeida,
2017; Delgado, 2019) which are underpinned by the three pillars of
sustainability (Sánchez-Mesa, 2019). There are a number of
international institutions such as: United Nations Educational, Scientific and
Cultural Organization (UNESCO), the European Landscape Convention, the
Institute for European Environmental Policy (IEEP), the European Union through
the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), among others; which have applied measures
to preserve traditional landscapes (Collantes &
Pinilla, 2019), in the understanding that this is a key factor for sustainability
(Lasanta et al., 2017).
Of course, it was predicted that there would be an increase
in the demand for national travel, in view of the difficulties in travelling
abroad after the Covid-19 pandemic. However, rural tourism with qualitative
services below the level of its post-pandemic quantitative growth has been exceeded
(Silva, 2021), with rural tourism being seen as a typology that is curative,
nature-friendly, family-focused, welcoming and which can include animal-watching
experiences and trekking (Coros et al., 2021).
When applied to the countryside, through empirical
investigation, it was found that tourists who visit rural areas look for a safe
rural environment in collective facilities like rural experience centres, as
well as in food and accommodation providers (Chanwon
& Jaemoon, 2021). After being shut inside in
poorly ventilated apartments, fresh air and green spaces become central
priorities for tourists, ahead of the traditional sunbathing and beach time.
The availability of wi-fi in hotels became of less importance following the
imposition of teleworking. Remote spots with beautiful views, large spaces
where you can walk away from crowds of people, became a priority, together with
the possibility of breathing pure air (Zavarika,
2021).
The European Union (EU) and Organisation for Economic
Co-operation and Development (OECD), define rural tourism as tourist activities
in the countryside. Nilsson (2002), considered agritourism, farm tourism and
rural tourism in remote areas to be rural tourism. Bramwell (1994), suggested
that rural tourism should be a small-scale operation that links closely with
nature in rural areas. Health tourism was in keeping with society’s needs after
the pandemic and is an important direction for future development.
However, the fragility of rural tourism was also cause for
concern. Therefore, improving the construction of infrastructure and service
quality became a requirement for the modernisation of rural tourism (Li et al.,
2021). To further develop agritourism (Lupi et al., 2017), digital technologies employed in the
tourist industry must be updated and their format changed so that they are
competitive even after Covid-19.
Requirements to be met for this to happen are: mitigate
the socioeconomic impact of the crisis in rural employment during the pandemic;
support the development of sustainable national and regional agritourism
(Melendez-Pastor et al., 2014); diversify the use of creative technologies to
improve competitivity and the efficiency of their resources; strengthen
sustainable development and the local economy (López & Pardo, 2018);
promote the continued employment of both local residents and migrant employees,
who help to maintain stable population levels (Bayona‐i‐Carrasco & Gil‐Alonso,
2013); foster confidence by ensuring protection and safety in all tourist
activities; ensure inclusive accessibility for all kinds of transport (Šťastná & Vaishar, 2017); and
guarantee social collaboration between the state, businesses and civil society
(Oleksenko et al., 2021). Finally, as consequence of
the covid-19 pandemic, a phenomenon of growing importance has created in rural
development: cultural tourism.
3. Cultural
tourism based on cultural heritage
Culture and tourism were two of the fastest growing
industries of the 20th century and, towards the end of the century, the
combination of these two sectors in “cultural tourism” had become of the more
desirable development options for countries and regions throughout the world (Richards,
2011; 2018). For this reason, the rise of transformative cultural tourism as an
innovative kind of tourism should be given special attention in rural
development policies (Vidickienė et al., 2020). A
people’s cultural heritage is made up of:
The works
of its artists, architects, musicians, writers and scientists and also the work
of anonymous artists, expressions of the people's spirituality, and the body of
values which give meaning to life. It includes both tangible and intangible
works through which the creativity of that people finds expression: languages,
rites, beliefs, historic places and monuments, literature, works of art,
archives and libraries.
(UNESCO, 1982, p. 40)
Heritage essentially represents the identity of a people or
a social group (Lowenthal, 1996). Its conservation and preservation so that it
remains authentic (Tian et al., 2020), is undertaken with a purely social
intention (Prats, 2000). These testimonies of the past will serve as conveyors
of their history to future generations (Endere, 2000;
2009), since they comprise, the material remains that can be studied using
archaeological methodology and because of all the information that can be
obtained through such investigation.
In the 1990, International Council on Cultural Monuments and
Sites (ICOMOS) charter on archaeological heritage reaffirmed the idea that this
heritage is formed by limited and non-renewable cultural resources; which it
describes as of public interest, hence the need for it to be protected by each
country’s legislation. It also affirms that the presentation to the broader
public of archaeological heritage is vital for its promotion and for people to
understand the need for its protection (ICOMOS, 1990). The safeguarding of
cultural heritage has been addressed from a more social perspective (Salazar, González & Macias, 2020), to which the concept of
sustainability can be added (Cantar, Endere & Zulaica, 2021). A
milestone in this regard were the conclusions of the Nara Conference (UNESCO,
1994).
This is the context in which so-called “cultural tourism”
has developed. Certain attitudes, beliefs, ideas, values and perceptions of
people who practise such a kind of tourism can be observed (Martín-Ruiz,
Castellanos-Verdugo & Oviedo-García,
2010; Adie & Hall, 2017; Liang et al., 2021), as well as their behaviour
patterns and lifestyles (Richards, 2000). The International Cultural Tourism
Charter (ICOMOS, 1999), upholds the irreplaceable nature of each community’s
cultural heritage, believing the essence of its identity to be the key to
defining its culture, which is what has given rise to the interest of the
cultural tourist (Zhang et al., 2020).
But at the same time, it stresses its importance as an
economic and educational resource (Rodríguez & Pérez, 2021), always bearing
in mind the need to preserve the integrity and intensify the protection of
cultural resources from the impact of tourism, to the benefit of future
generations (Conforti et al., 2014). It also states
the need for cultural tourism’s promotion and dissemination in order to make it
more attractive, both on social media (Mele, Kerkhof & Cantoni, 2021), and
in the media, and for the focus to be not only from an educational perspective,
but also considering its entertainment value (Sanagustín-Fons,
Tobar-Pesántez & Ravina-Ripoll,
2020).
Cultural heritage, ultimately, is seen as a driver of social
and economic development (Peinado, 2012; Mesía-Montenegro, 2021; Wei, Liu & Park, 2021), and
specifically archaeological heritage (Martín-Bueno
& Luesma, 2006), combines the educational
part with the social-economic one (Espeso-Molinero,
2019). To corroborate this, it is firstly important to understand the reality
of archaeological sites as tourism resources (Manzato,
2007), which can also innovate to ensure the tourist experience is as complete
(Almobaideen, Allan & Saadeh,
2016), as when they are located in rural areas, their activity being linked
with rural tourism in a sustainable way and actively participating in the
area’s rural development (Fernandez, 2017).
The sun and beach model of tourism has been complemented
with other markets focused on culture and nature, which look to provide
sensations in unique and distinctive settings (Viken,
Höckert & Grimwood,
2021). The latter represents a great value that must be measure by joining
qualitative concepts like experience, satisfaction, and the experiences that
tourists have when contemplating and enjoying (Vena-Oya et al., 2021), history
from archaeological remains. The main motivation for visiting these kinds of places
has been the search for memorable experiences that distract, educate and
entertain (Recuero, Blasco & García, 2011).
Also serving as a crucial influence on the influx of users
(Cuomo et al., 2021), and in attracting them to these kinds of places (Chen
& Rahman, 2018; Ercolano, Gaeta & Parenti, 2018), are factors such as facilities, the
availability of temporary exhibitions, activities that help to bring this
cultural heritage to life (Gonçalves, Seabra & Silva, 2018; Hernández-Mogollón,
Duarte & Folgado-Fernández, 2018; Mareque, De Prada & Álvarez-Díaz,
2021), technology capable of enriching the experience (Caciora
et al., 2021), natural wealth and the proximity to other tourist products
(Petit & Seetaram, 2019).
These are all desirable as long as they do not lead to an
uncontrolled and massive influx of users (Wallace, 2013; Alrawadieh
& Alrawadieh, 2020; Li & Du, 2021) and if
they affect not only the visitor’s experience (Lee & Jan, 2019), but also
the sustainability of the environment (García, 2001; García, De
la Calle & Mínguez, 2011).
4.
Methodology
This bibliometric study follows the methodology proposed by
Llanos-Herrera & Merigó (2018), which examines
publications, citations and sources (Merigó et al.,
2015), and develops according to a systematisation of information by category,
such as document titles, authors, academic affiliations and even countries.
This kind of analysis comprises a scientometric
proposal, in which numerous researchers have specialised, relating information
of great importance that reveals the state of scientific and academic output,
the volume being generated and its spatiotemporal interrelationship.
In this regard, this research has been focused on the data
obtained from the Web of Science (WoS) platform,
owned by Clarivate Analytics, with the aim of standardising the information
obtained following a single source, which is why other databases have not been
considered, such as SciELO (Scientific Electronic
Library Online) or SCOPUS. The impartiality of the data under
analysis provides an objective view of the current state of the different
fields of study and research.
The time frame chosen for this is the last twenty years:
2002-2022, during which only publications of articles and review articles have
been considered. Having addressed in the previous sections the importance of
the aforementioned topics, it is now necessary to look into how scientific
output reflects the relevance of the situation of cultural tourism, an area to
which highly specific contexts are added, such as the Covid-19 pandemic and its
impact on sparsely populated areas, and particularly on those suffering from
depopulation.
5.
Results and discussion
After the
analysis, the process was initiated to extract results based on the information
found on WoS at the beginning of June 2022,
considering both the number of articles and citations of each of the selected
documents. It is useful to find out the publications with the highest number of
records, the authors, affiliations and countries that are developing the
scientific output we are interested in for the purposes of this study. After
collecting all the information, a two-dimensional map analysis was undertaken.
These maps draw out a clear structure on the selected scientific output, which
brings together the two subjects of: cultural tourism, in contexts of
depopulation. This data comparison reveals an extraordinary panorama.
5.1. “Cultural tourism”
After considering the study’s methodology, analysis is
undertaken of the scientific output on cultural tourism, an area for which WoS has up to 18,455 publication records. Evidence of the
volume of scientific output of publications can be seen in Graph I, which shows
growing and ascending records on WoS. From 2002 to
2021 the volume has steadily risen at a growth rate of 3,728%, showing that
this topic continues to create impact in current research, as, despite the
pandemic of the last three years (2019-2021), it still grew by 26%.
Source: Own elaboration, 2022 with data
obtained from Web of Science.
Graph
I: Evolution of the number of
publications on cultural tourism
Table 1, below, reveals the ten publications that have the
most records of participation in scientific output on cultural tourism over the
last twenty years (January 2002 - June 2022), as well as a list of the authors
that have conducted most research into this area, their academic affiliations
and origins.
Table 1
Ranking of the top 10 positions in
scientific output on Cultural Tourism
|
TOP |
Publication titles |
Number of records |
Authors |
Number of records |
Affiliations |
Number of records |
countries |
Number of records |
|
1 |
Pasos Revista de Turismo y Patrimonio Cultural |
827 |
Timothy DJ |
64 |
League of European Research Universities Leru |
397 |
USA |
2690 |
|
2 |
Sustainability |
683 |
Kim S |
55 |
Hong Kong Polytechnic
University |
239 |
Peoples R China |
1997 |
|
3 |
Journal
of Tourism and Cultural Change |
404 |
Xu HG |
42 |
University of Macerata |
226 |
Spain |
1834 |
|
4 |
Tourism and Cultural Change |
373 |
Ryan C |
39 |
State University System of Florida |
208 |
England |
1468 |
|
5 |
Tourism Management |
308 |
Lopez-Guzman T |
38 |
Griffith University |
183 |
Australia |
1346 |
|
6 |
Current Issues in Tourism |
238 |
Frost W |
36 |
Sun Yat Sen University |
182 |
Italy |
1324 |
|
7 |
Journal of Heritage Tourism |
229 |
Wall G |
35 |
University of North Carolina |
167 |
Brazil |
648 |
|
8 |
Journal of Sustainable Tourism |
226 |
Cynarski Wj |
32 |
Centre National de
la Recherche Scientifique
Cnrs |
159 |
Turkey |
640 |
|
9 |
Annals of Tourism Research |
213 |
Laing J |
32 |
Chinese Academy of Sciences |
154 |
Canada |
602 |
|
10 |
Tourism Geographies |
149 |
Wang Y |
29 |
University of London |
152 |
Portugal |
546 |
Source: Own elaboration, 2022 with data
obtained from Web of Science.
A ranking has been produced which includes the following
publications in the top three positions of journals: In first place, “Pasos Revista
de Turismo y Patrimonio
Cultural” with 827 records (edited by the Instituto Universitario de Ciencias Políticas y Sociales de la Universidad de La Laguna -España- and the Instituto Universitário da Maia -Portugal-). In
second place, “Sustainability” with 683 records (edited by The Canadian
Urban Transit Research & Innovation Consortium (CUTRIC) and International
Council for Research and Innovation in Building and Construction (CIB). In
third place, “Journal of Tourism and Cultural Change”
with 404 records (edited by Taylor and Francis
Ltd.).
The top three authors from the Chart 1 are: Dallen J. Timothy, with 64 records (from Arizona State
University, Sch Community Resources & Dev
PHOENIX, AZ, USA), the list continues with Sangkyun
Kim, with 55 records (from Edith Cowan University, in Australia), and the third
place is occupied by Honggang Xu with 42 records
(from Anhui Medical University, Dept. Orthoped, in
Hefei, Peoples R. China).
As for the affiliation with the highest number of records:
in first place there is the “League of European Research Universities LERU”
with 397 records; in second place is the “Hong Kong Polytechnic University”
with 239 records; and, in third place, the “University of Macerata” in Italy,
with 226 records. In this regard, the countries that have generated the most
scientific output with respect to cultural tourism
are the U.S.A, with 2,690 records, R. China with 1,997 records and Spain with
1,834 records. This ranking clearly shows us the top ten positions in terms of
the volume of records as regards the scientific output found on WoS on “cultural tourism”.
5.2.
“Cultural tourism” and “Depopulation”
The bringing together of the terms “Cultural Tourism” and
“Depopulation” began to take on relevance as of 2008. The study encompasses the
last twenty years (2002-2022). However, it was not until 2008 that it really
began to generate data. The definitive rise interestingly, took place in 2020
with 11 publications and 37 citations. The pandemic and reorientation of
tourism towards rural areas clearly affected this kind of scientific output,
which began to consider sparsely populated areas, looking to develop the rural
environment through tourism, and, more specifically, through cultural tourism.
Depopulation, therefore, is
incorporated into a subject that joins cultural tourism and rural tourism in a
shared context, which is that of depopulation. In 2021, the number of
publications remained significant, but above all with the increase in
citations, as can be seen in Graph II, with 9 publications and 66 citations.
Source: Own elaboration, 2022 with data
obtained from Web of Science.
Graph
II: Evolution of the number of
publications and citations on “cultural tourism” and “depopulation”
If terms and keywords are analysed through VOSviewer, it may
be concluded that around “Cultural Tourism” and “Depopulation” research topics
have been generated chronologically. For this analysis, Figure I is taken into
account, in which themes appear directly related to this combined subject. From
2002 to 2014, approximately, surrounding topics (in green) are generated, such
as: “Tourism development” and “cultural values”, and “Bulgaria” is named. This
reveals interesting aspects from the first publications, such as giving
cultural value to the rural environment and the need to develop this through
tourism. In these studies, no generic reference is made to areas or regions,
but 
rather the focus is on countries.
Source: Own elaboration, 2022 with data
obtained from Web of Science.
Figure
I: Chromatic and chronological
evolution on the research topics that have been generated around the research
topics on “cultural tourism” and “depopulation”
From 2015 to 2017, approximately, in
yellow-orange, new topics appear linked with cultural tourism and depopulation,
such as “sustainable development”, “sustainable tourism”, “rural development”
and “economic development”, and it is now that the topic of “depopulation”
begins to be addressed directly, due to its relevance. These terms show us the
interest at that moment in time for linking these kinds of topics, such as economic
and rural “development” with a kind of tourism to which the concept of
sustainability is starting to be applied.
During the period 2018-2019, denoted using orange in the Figure
I, the topics that are added to the publications take on a marked social component,
such as that of “migration”. Due to it deals with depopulation, it is inherent
to the social part. Likewise, terms stand out like “rural tourism”, “UK”,
“population”, “agrarian heritage”, “airbnb” and
“tourism”. Publications, besides containing research on cultural tourism and
depopulation, add topics that concern the rural space developed through tourism
based on its agrarian heritage.
At the same time, aspects are attributed to it that are of
concern to populations, specific countries like the United Kingdom, and a
specific kind of accommodation offer can be seen, which is Airbnb.
Interestingly, during the period 2019-2022, words appear that refer directly to
“experience”, “the labour market”, “marketing strategy”, “impact”, “events”,
“creative engagement”, “climate change”, and specific spaces begin to be named,
such as: “Moravia”, “China”, and even “celtiberian
heritage”.
These are concepts and topics that reaffirm the development
power of tourism as a resource measured by its impact, after considering a
business strategy that contributes to the development of the labour market.
However, topics and terms are also added that bring with them new implications
such as climate change and the importance of experience in tourism, hence the
addition of creative engagement and event creation. These terms reveal how new
spaces appear within the discourse of cultural tourism in areas with
depopulation, such as China as a country, Moravia as a region, and celtiberian heritage as a specific area.
Ultimately, it is the topics linked with rural development,
both economic and sustainable, that are relevant, which help to alleviate the
problem of depopulation and, at the same time, the negative effects that
concern the environment, such as climate change. Also, research topics linked
with cultural and heritage value are added that help to enhance business
strategies that are capable of creating impact and developing the labour
market, in which migration forms a very important part.
As regards the tourists’ experience, this is complemented
with the creation of tourist and cultural events that promote rural tourism.
With respect to the scenarios proposed in research projects and publications,
very specific areas or spaces are revealed: countries like Bulgaria or China,
regions like Moravia, or areas like Celtiberia. A
conceptual diagram is generated that is in constant evolution and contributes
new study areas to the research field of “cultural tourism” and “depopulation”.
After analysing the results of the topics that arise around
this combined theme (“cultural tourism” and “depopulation”) the scientometric study began. It is precisely from this study,
that the ten most relevant scientific publications, authors, affiliations and
countries were highlighted, as Table 2 shows.
Table 2
Ranking of the 10 First positions in
the scientific output
on Cultural Tourism & Depopulation
|
TOP |
Publication titles |
Number of records |
Authors |
Number of records |
Affiliations |
Number of records |
Countries |
Number of records |
|
1 |
Archistor Architecture
History Restoration |
4 |
Cuesta-Valino P |
2 |
Universidad de Leon |
3 |
Italy |
10 |
|
2 |
Acta Geographica
Slovenica Geografski Zbornik |
2 |
Fassio G |
2 |
University of Granada |
3 |
Spain |
10 |
|
3 |
European Countryside |
2 |
Gutierrez-Rodriguez P |
2 |
Mendel University In Brno |
2 |
Czech Republic |
3 |
|
4 |
Frontiers In Psychology |
2 |
Lopez-Sanz JM |
2 |
Universidad de Alcalá |
2 |
France |
3 |
|
5 |
Journal of Cultural
Heritage Management and Sustainable Development |
2 |
Penelas-leguia A |
2 |
University of Turin |
2 |
Japan |
3 |
|
6 |
Revue De Geographie Alpine Journal of Alpine Research |
2 |
Porcellana V |
2 |
Wakayama University |
2 |
Austria |
2 |
|
7 |
Sustainability |
2 |
Stastna M |
2 |
Acad Fine Arts Palermo |
1 |
Canada |
2 |
|
8 |
Ager Revista de Estudios sobre Despoblacion y Desarrollo Rural |
1 |
Vaishar A |
2 |
Anton Melik Geographical
Institute Sasa |
1 |
Croatia |
2 |
|
9 |
Annales Anali Za Istrske in
Mediteranske Studije Series Historia et Sociologia |
1 |
Viazzo PP |
2 |
Autonomous Prov Trento |
1 |
England |
2 |
|
10 |
Anthropocene and Islands
Vulnerability Adaptation and Resilience to Natural Hazards and Climate Change |
1 |
Zanini RC |
2 |
Babes Bolyai University From Cluj |
1 |
Mexico |
2 |
Source: Own elaboration, 2022 with data
obtained from Web of Science.
The publication titles that stand out the most in the
ranking are completely emerging in this field. Only one journal,
“Sustainability” with 2 records, is found, which compared to Table 1 only analyzed the results on “cultural tourism” as the only
theme. It is clearly a publication that covers research and emerging topics.
However, the journals that appear in the ranking in Table 2
and link “cultural tourism” with “depopulation” are: “Archistor
Architecture History Restoration” which stands out in first place with 4
records, followed by the following publications, each of which has two records:
“Acta Geographica Slovenica Geografski Zbornik”, “European Countryside”, “Frontiers In
Psychology”, “Journal of Cultural Heritage Management and Sustainable
Development”, and “Revue De Geographie Alpine Journal
of Alpine Research”. After 8th position, the following publications only have
one record: “Ager Revista de Estudios
sobre Despoblacion y Desarrollo Rural”, “Annales Anali Za Istrske
in Mediteranske Studije
Series Historia et Sociologia”,
and “Anthropocene and Islands Vulnerability Adaptation and Resilience to
Natural Hazards and Climate Change”.
As can be seen, the output is not very significant. With the
exception of the first publication, the fact that the others form part of the
ranking is almost incidental.
In reference to the most noteworthy authors in this combined
topic, they all have just two records each one. Looking at their connections and
what aspects have been addressed in this scientific output, three schools are
distinguished depending on the topic. The first, is the Spanish school which is
focused on tourism and particularly rural tourism, with the following authors:
Pedro Cuesta Valiño, José María
López Sanz and Azucena Penelas Leguía (from the University of Alcalá,
Spain). Pablo Gutiérrez Rodríguez (from the University of León) also appears as
a co-author, whose output around this topic has added the social aspect as it
addresses tourism and depopulation.
Regarding the Italian school there is a focus on the social
sphere, such as: Valentina Porcellana (from the
University of Turin, Italy). Alongside her and appearing as co-authors in the
ranking are: Giulia Fassio (from Sapienza University,
Rome, in Italy), Pier Paolo Viazzo and Roberta Clara Zanini (both from the University of Turin, Italy).
The third Czech school is represented by: Milada Šťastná (from Mendel
University in Brno, Czech Republic) and Antonín Vaishar (from the Institute of Geonics,
Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic) which record joint outputs that have
focused on cultural tourism and rural tourism. In fact, these are the most
important authors of the ranking in this topic.
Looking at the academic affiliations for which most
publication records appear, they do not coincide once with the ranking on
cultural tourism from Table 1. Therefore, own affiliations are shown, as had to
be the case, from most of the cited authors. With 3 publications each, the two
top positions are occupied by the “University of León” and the “University of
Granada”. With 2 publications each, four different affiliations appear, which
are: “Mendel University In Brno”, “University of Alcalá”, “University of Turin” and “Wakayama University”.
The four last positions register just 1 publication each and are therefore
considered primarily circumstantial. Among them appear: “Academy of Fine Arts
in Palermo”, “Anton Melik Geographical Institute Sasa”, “Autonomous Province of Trento” and “Babes Bolyai University in Cluj”.
These academic affiliations also show us the countries that
have generated most scientific output around “cultural tourism” and
“depopulation”. In this case, coincidences with Table 1 on “cultural tourism”
are denoted. Repeated in the ranking are countries like: Italy, Spain (with 10
records each), Canada and England (with 2 records each). However, there are new
countries in this output, such as: The Czech Republic, France, Japan (with 3
records each), Austria, Croatia and even Mexico (with 2 records each).
The data reveal that “cultural tourism” and “depopulation”
up to 2018 did not experience a steady rise in this kind of scientific output,
while it is in 2020 and 2021 when significant, emerging output can be seen. This
is materialised in the data that have been mentioned previously, since new
publications appear that may be taken into consideration. However, exceptional
cases are distinguished, such as conservation in the “Sustainability” ranking.
Authors and co-authors involved, to a greater or lesser
extent are also considered, with the notorious appearance of Milada Šťastná and Antonín Vaishar, whose output is
undoubtedly a reflection of the combination of cultural tourism and rural
tourism, including depopulation. Academic affiliations, like the authors, are
new incorporations in the field of cultural tourism. However, the countries
remind us who the strongest are in this area, and still leading the way are:
Italy, Spain, Canada and England. The other incorporations are thanks to their
authors and affiliations, which are new to this field of study.
Conclusions
The bibliometric analysis and scientometric
study offers us a heterogeneous and broad vision of how cultural tourism has
been researched and how it has been studied through links with specific topics.
Thanks to the WoS database, it has been possible to
document each of these bibliometric aspects, and it is precisely its analysis
and scientometric study which reveals each of the
points that have been presented. In the case of cultural tourism as a main
topic, a total of 18,455 publications have been downloaded and analysed scientometrically. In this regard, for the last twenty
years (the time frame encompassed by this study being 2002-2022), scientific
output in this field has steadily grown, with 2021 being the most prolific year
in terms of this growth.
Thus, standing out with almost a thousand publications are
journal titles like “Pasos Revista
de Turismo y Patrimonio
Cultural”, with 827 records, “Sustainability”, with 683 records, or “Journal of
Tourism and Cultural Change”, with 404 records, which are all major
publications that have supported research in this topic. The most noteworthy
authors are: Dallen J. Timothy, with 64 records, Sangkyun Kim, with 55 records and Honggang
Xu with 42 records. And the academic affiliations with the greatest volume of
scientific output generated are: “League of European Research Universities
LERU” with 397 records, “Hong Kong Polytechnic University” with 239 records and
“University of Macerata” in Italy with 226 records. This connection between
authors, affiliations and countries reveals that the highest level of output
comes from the U.S.A. (with 2,690 records), China (with 1,997 records) and
Spain (with 1,834 records) in the top slots.
All this scientific output is reduced when the topic annexed
to cultural tourism makes it more specialised. This study has analysed the
volume that is generated at a scientific level when “cultural tourism” is
linked to the issue of “depopulation”. In this case, they offered very limited
data, with records of just 49 publications and 247 citations, in the last
twenty years. This accounts for just 0.27% of scientific output on cultural
tourism as a topic. However, the percentage increases to 29% of the output with
respect to “tourism” as a general topic linked with “depopulation”.
Undoubtedly, this study has shown that it is an emerging
issue, which until 2020-2021 had not experienced quantitative growth in its
scientific output. And as a subject which has been little explored but around
which there is a growing interest, it is important to know what topics are in
the orbit of these kinds of publications. Noteworthy among these topics are:
migration, rural tourism, sustainable development, sustainable tourism, rural
development and cultural heritage.
It is interesting to note that, although scientific output
is fairly sparse and limited, the limitations that are found are solved by
looking for related topics that help the development of tourism. In relation to
this, highly relevant terms appear that aim to research into: how to enhance
these areas and develop them through rural and sustainable tourism. Therefore,
future lines of research revolve around solving problems such as migration from
these sparsely populated areas through promoting cultural heritage, when
converted into a tourism resource become in cultural tourism.
This study confirms the importance of carrying out
quantitative research and helps to value the impact of cultural tourism in
these uninhabited territories. As well as, it evaluates if the policies that
are being applied by the governments and competent institutions, both from the
point of view of the development of cultural tourism and from the socioeconomic
one, are slowing down or reversing the problem of depopulation. A problem that
already affects 80% of the European territory, and that in the case of Spain,
according to the 2020 Annual Report of the Bank of Spain, 42% of its
municipalities are in danger of depopulation. It is a threat six times bigger than
that of neighbouring countries such as Italy (4%), Germany (1%), or France
(7%), and more similar to countries further east and north of Europe such as
Finland (55.7%), Estonia (58%) and Latvia (50.4%).
The bibliometric and scientometric
study has also revealed interesting data. In the ranking of publications
specialised in cultural tourism and depopulation only “Archistor Architecture History Restoration” stands out with 4 records, while
all other publications have just one or two records. The authors and co-authors
of the ranking are divided into three very different groups, firstly, the group
of Spanish, Italian and Czech authors.
Noteworthy, in the Spanish group are: Pedro Cuesta Valiño, José María López Sanz, Azucena
Penelas Leguía and Pablo
Gutiérrez Rodríguez. Standing out in the group of Italian authors are:
Valentina Porcellana, Giulia Fassio,
Pier Paolo Viazzo and Roberta Clara Zanini. While the notable authors from the Czech group
include: Milada Šťastná and
Antonín Vaishar, these two
being authors who have a particularly rich volume of scientific output on
cultural tourism and rural tourism, although in the ranking they are tied with
2 records each, when it comes to cultural tourism and depopulation.
There are few records as regards academic affiliations, with
only 3 records for the Spanish universities of “University of León” and
“University of Granada”. The others, like: “Mendel University in Brno”,
“University of Alcalá”, “University of Turin” and
“Wakayama University” have 2 records each, and are therefore of relatively
little significance. Logically, the ranking of countries that lead this kind of
scientific output are: Italy and Spain (with 10 records each). The remaining
affiliations accumulate little more than 2 or 3 records, meaning they are not
of great importance.
These are clearly novel topics, as their output in
conjunction with cultural tourism is almost purely incidental today.
Nonetheless, they are still of importance given that the pandemic has
reoriented tourism, giving value to rural tourism through cultural heritage.
Sparsely populated areas are realising the potential of cultural tourism as a
new development driver to combat depopulation, and this is a topic increasingly
addressed in the scientific output as has been demonstrated in this study.
Depopulation is an issue affecting a growing number of rural
territories, which are witnessing their populations dwindle and need tools to
mitigate this. In this regard, if the tourist destination also boasts cultural
heritage that can be transformed into a tourism resource, then confirms how
cultural tourism can serve as an instrument that can boost development in rural
areas. In turn, this kind of tourism can generate a socioeconomic impact on the
surrounding area, which, thanks to sustainability, encourages behaviour that
favours its appropriate development.
Bibliographic references
Adie, B. A., & Hall, C. M.
(2017). Who visits World Heritage? A comparative analysis of three cultural
sites. Journal of Heritage Tourism, 12(1), 67-80. https://doi.org/10.1080/1743873X.2016.1151429
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179-211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T
Alamá-Sabater, L., Budí, V.,
García, J. M., & Roig-Tierno, N. (2019). Using
mixed research approaches to understand rural depopulation. Economía Agraria y Recursos Naturales-Agricultural and Resource Economics, 19(1),
99-120. https://doi.org/10.7201/earn.2019.01.06
Almobaideen, W., Allan, M., & Saadeh, M. (2016). Smart
archaeological tourism: Contention, convenience and accessibility in the
context of cloud-centric IoT. Mediterranean Archaeology & Archaeometry, 16(1), 227-236. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.35535
Alrawadieh, Z., & Alrawadieh, Z.
(2020). Developing a typology of tourist harassment in archeological sites: A netnographic approach. Journal of Tourism and Cultural
Change, 18(2), 96-112. https://doi.org/10.1080/14766825.2019.1579825
Altuntas, F., & Gok, M. S.
(2021). The effect of COVID-19 pandemic on domestic tourism: A DEMATEL method
analysis on quarantine decisions. International Journal of Hospitality
Management, 92, 102719. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2020.102719
Arbulú, I., Razumova, M., Rey-Maquieira, J., & Sastre, F.
(2021). Can domestic tourism relieve the COVID-19 tourist industry crisis? The
case of Spain. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management, 20, 100568. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdmm.2021.100568
Battino, S., & Lampreu, S.
(2019). The role of the sharing economy for a sustainable and innovative
development of rural areas: A case study in Sardinia (Italy). Sustainability,
11(11), 3004. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11113004
Bayona‐i‐Carrasco, J.,
& Gil‐Alonso, F. (2013). Is foreign immigration the solution
to rural depopulation? The case of Catalonia (1996–2009). Sociologia
Ruralis, 53(1), 26-51. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9523.2012.00577.x
Bramwell, B. (1994). Rural tourism and sustainable rural
tourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 2(1-2), 1-6. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669589409510679
Bustos, H. B. (2016). Desarrollo Rural en Áreas de Montaña: El Pirineo
Navarro. M+ A: Revista
Electrónica de Medioambiente, 17(2), 1-19. https://doi.org/10.5209/MARE.54798
Caciora, T., Herman, G. V., Ilieș,
A., Baias, Ș., Ilieș, D.
C., Josan, I., & Hodor,
N. (2021). The use of virtual reality to
promote sustainable tourism: A case study of wooden churches historical
monuments from Romania. Remote Sensing, 13(9), 1758. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs13091758
Cantar, N. M., Endere, M. L., & Zulaica, M. L. (2021). La
“arqueología” de la sustentabilidad en la concepción del patrimonio cultural. Revista de Estudios Sociales, (75), 71-86. https://doi.org/10.7440/res75.2021.07
Chanwon, C., & Jaemoon, C.
(2021). A study on the rural tourism type characteristics and
contents development for responding Covid 19. Journal
of the Korea Institute of Spatial Design,
16(1), 375-386.
Chen,
H., & Rahman, I. (2018). Cultural
tourism: An analysis of engagement, cultural contact, memorable tourism
experience and destination loyalty. Tourism
Management Perspectives, 26, 153-163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tmp.2017.10.006
Collantes, F., & Pinilla, V. (2019). ¿Lugares que no importan?: La despoblación de la España rural desde
1900 hasta el presente. Prensas
de la Universidad de Zaragoza.
Collins-Kreiner, N., & Ram, Y.
(2020). National tourism strategies during the Covid-19
pandemic. Annals of Tourism Research, 89, 103076. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2020.103076
Conforti, M. E., González, N., & Endere,
M. L. (2014). El desafío de articular turismo cultural y patrimonio
arqueológico: El caso de Olavarría, Argentina. Estudios y Perspectivas en
Turismo, 23(4), 749-767.
Coros, M.
M., Privitera, D., Păunescu,
L. M., Nedelcu, A., Lupu,
C., & Ganușceac, A. (2021). Mărginimea sibiului tells its story:
Sustainability, cultural heritage and rural tourism—a supply-side perspective. Sustainability, 13(9), 5309. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13095309
Cuomo, M. T., Tortora, D.,
Foroudi, P., Giordano, A., Festa, G., & Metallo, G. (2021). Digital transformation and tourist experience
co-design: Big social data for planning cultural tourism. Technological
Forecasting and Social Change, 162,
120345. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2020.120345
De
Almeida, M. A. P. (2017). Territorial inequalities: Depopulation and local development
policies in the Portuguese rural world. Ager: Revista de Estudios sobre
Despoblación y Desarrollo Rural,
(22), 61-87. https://doi.org/10.4422/ager.2016.08
Delgado, C. (2019). Depopulation processes
in European rural areas. A case study of Cantabria (Spain). European
Countryside, 11(3), 341-369. https://doi.org/10.2478/euco-2019-0021
Endere, M. L. (2000). Patrimonios en disputa: Acervos nacionales,
investigación arqueológica y reclamos étnicos sobre restos humanos. Trabajos
de Prehistoria, 57(1), 5-17. https://doi.org/10.3989/tp.2000.v57.i1.258
Endere, M. L. (2009). Algunas reflexiones acerca del
patrimonio. Patrimonio, ciencia y comunidad. En M. L. Endere
y J. L. Prado (Eds.), Patrimonio, ciencia
y comunidad: su abordaje en los partidos de Azul, Tandil y Olavarría (pp. 19-48). Universidad Nacional
del Centro de la Provincia de Buenos Aires.
Ercolano, S., Gaeta, G.
L., & Parenti, B. (2018). Pompeii dilemma: A
motivation‐based analysis of tourists' preference for “superstar”
archaeological attractors or less renowned archaeological sites in the Vesuvius
area. International Journal of Tourism Research, 20(3), 345-354. https://doi.org/10.1002/jtr.2186
Espeso-Molinero, P.
(2019). Tendencias del turismo cultural. PASOS Revista de Turismo y Patrimonio
Cultural, 17(6), 1101-1112. https://doi.org/10.25145/j.pasos.2019.17.076
Fernandez, J. (2017). Arqueoturismo: Análisis cuantitativo del impacto de los yacimientos arqueológicos en
el turismo español. Investigaciones
Turísticas, (14), 87-108. https://doi.org/10.14198/INTURI2017.14.05
García, M. (2001).
Capacidad de acogida turística y gestión
de flujos de visitantes en conjuntos monumentales: El caso de La Alhambra. PH:
Boletín del Instituto Andaluz del Patrimonio Histórico, 36, 124-137.
https://doi.org/10.33349/2001.36.1229
García, M., De la Calle, M., & Mínguez, M. D. C. (2011).
Capacidad de carga turística y espacios patrimoniales. Aproximación a la
estimación de la capacidad de carga del conjunto arqueológico de Carmona
(Sevilla, España). Boletín de la Asociación de Geógrafos Españoles, (57), 219-241. https://bage.age-geografia.es/ojs/index.php/bage/article/view/1382
Gómez-Ullate, M., Rieutort, L., Kamara, A., Santos,
A. S., Pirra, A., & Solís, M. G. (2020). Demographic
challenges in rural Europe and cases of resilience based on cultural heritage management.
A comparative analysis in Mediterranean countries inner regions. European
Countryside, 12(3), 408-431. https://doi.org/10.2478/euco-2020-0022
Gonçalves, J.
C., Seabra, C., & Silva, C. (2018). Histórias
de cultura. O poder do storytelling em destinos de turismo cultural. Cuadernos
de Geografia, (37), 113-120. https://doi.org/10.14195/0871-1623_37_9
Hernández-Mogollón,
J. M., Duarte, P. A., & Folgado-Fernández, J. A. (2018). The contribution of
cultural events to the formation of the cognitive and affective images of a
tourist destination. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management, 8, 170-178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdmm.2017.03.004
International Council on Monuments
and Sites - ICOMOS (1990). Carta Internacional para la Gestión del Patrimonio
Arqueológico (1990). Preparada por el
Comité Internacional para la Gestión del Patrimonio Arqueológico (ICAHM) y
adoptada par la Asamblea General del
ICOMOS en Lausana en 1990. https://www.icomos.org/images/DOCUMENTS/Charters/arch_sp.pdf
International Council on Monuments
and Sites - ICOMOS (1999). Carta Internacional sobre Turismo Cultural (La Gestión
del Turismo con Patrimonio Significativo, 1999). Adoptada por ICOMOS en la 12ª Asamblea General en México, octubre de 1999. https://www.iaph.es/export/sites/default/galerias/patrimonio-cultural/documentos/gestion-informacion/icomoscartainternacionalsobreturismocultural.pdf
Jeon, C.-Y., & Yang, H.-W.
(2021). The structural changes of a local tourism network: Comparison of before
and after COVID-19. Current Issues in Tourism, 24(23), 3324-3338. https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2021.1874890
Joo, D., Xu, W., Lee, J., Lee, C.-K., & Woosnam, K. M. (2021). Residents’ perceived risk, emotional
solidarity, and support for tourism amidst the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of
Destination Marketing & Management,
19, 100553. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdmm.2021.100553
Lasanta, T., Arnáez, J., Pascual,
N., Ruiz-Flaño, P., Errea,
M. P., & Lana-Renault, N. (2017). Space–time
process and drivers of land abandonment in Europe. Catena, 149(P3), 810-823. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.catena.2016.02.024
Lee, T. H., & Jan, F. H.
(2019). Can community-based tourism contribute to sustainable development?
Evidence from residents’ perceptions of the sustainability. Tourism
Management, 70, 368-380. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2018.09.003
Li, J., Nguyen, T. H. H., & Coca-Stefaniak, J. A. (2020). Coronavirus
impacts on post-pandemic planned travel behaviours. Annals
of Tourism Research, 86, 102964.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2020.102964
Li, S., & Du, S. (2021). An empirical
study on the coupling coordination relationship between cultural tourism
industry competitiveness and tourism flow. Sustainability, 13(10), 5525.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su13105525
Li, Z., Zhang, X., Yang, K.,
Singer, R., & Cui, R. (2021). Urban and rural tourism under COVID-19 in
China: Research on the recovery measures and tourism development. Tourism
Review, 76(4), 718-736. https://doi.org/10.1108/TR-08-2020-0357
Liang, F., Pan, Y., Gu, M., Guan,
W., & Tsai, F. (2021). Cultural tourism resource perceptions: Analyses based
on tourists’ online travel notes. Sustainability, 13(2), 519. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13020519
Llanos-Herrera, G. R., & Merigo, J. M. (2018). Overview of brand personality
research with bibliometric indicators. Kybernetes,
48(3), 546-569. https://doi.org/10.1108/K-02-2018-0051
López, I., & Pardo, M. (2018).
Tourism versus nature conservation: reconciliation of common interests and
objectives—An analysis through Picos de Europa
National Park. Journal of Mountain Science, 15(11), 2505-2516. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11629-018-4943-0
López-Sanz, J. M.,
Penelas-Leguía, A., Gutiérrez-Rodríguez, P., & Cuesta-Valiño, P. (2021). Sustainable development and rural tourism in
depopulated areas. Land, 10(9), 985. https://doi.org/10.3390/land10090985
Lowenthal, D. (1996). Possessed by the past: The heritage crusade
and the spoils of history. Cambridge University Press.
Lupi, C., Giaccio, V.,
Mastronardi, L., Giannelli, A., & Scardera, A. (2017). Exploring the features of agritourism and its
contribution to rural development in Italy. Land Use Policy, 64, 383-390. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.03.002
Manzato, F. (2007). Turismo arqueológico: Diagnóstico e análise do produto arqueoturístico. PASOS
Revista de Turismo y Patrimonio Cultural, 5(1), 99-109. https://doi.org/10.25145/j.pasos.2007.05.008
Mareque, M., De Prada, E., & Álvarez-Díaz, M. (2021). Exploring creative tourism based on the Cultural and
Creative Cities (C3) Index and using bootstrap confidence intervals. Sustainability,
13(9), 5145. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13095145
Martín-Bueno,
M.., & Luesma, R. (2006). La
arqueología como factor de desarrollo en la sociedad actual. Mainake, XXVIII, 11-26.
Martín-Ruiz, D.,
Castellanos-Verdugo, M., & Oviedo-García, M. D. L. Á. (2010). A visitors' evaluation index for a visit to an
archaeological site. Tourism Management, 31(5), 590-596. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2009.06.010
Mele, E., Kerkhof, P., & Cantoni, L. (2021). Analyzing cultural tourism promotion on
Instagram: A cross-cultural perspective. Journal of Travel & Tourism
Marketing, 38(3), 326-340. https://doi.org/10.1080/10548408.2021.1906382
Melendez-Pastor, I., Hernández, E.
I., Navarro-Pedreño, J., & Gómez, I. (2014).
Socioeconomic factors influencing land cover changes in rural areas: The case
of the Sierra de Albarracín (Spain). Applied
Geography, 52, 34-45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2014.04.013
Merigó, J. M., Gil-Lafuente, A.
M., & Yager, R. R. (2015). An overview of fuzzy
research with bibliometric indicators. Applied Soft Computing, 27, 420-433. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2014.10.035
Mesía-Montenegro, C. (2021). Innovación social y ciencia
ciudadana en la gestión del patrimonio en un escenario post COVID-19. Revista
de Ciencias Sociales (Ve), XXVII(2),
13-17. https://doi.org/10.31876/rcs.v27i2.35938
Moreno-Luna,
L., Robina-Ramírez, R., Sánchez-Oro
Sánchez, M., & Castro-Serrano, J.
(2021). Tourism and sustainability in times of COVID-19: The case of Spain. International
Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(4), 1859. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18041859
Nilsson, P. Å. (2002). Staying on
farms: An ideological background. Annals of Tourism Research, 29(1),
7-24.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0160-7383(00)00081-5
Oleksenko, R., Bilohur, S., Rybalchenko, N., Verkhovod, I.,
& Harbar, H. (2021). The ecological component of
agrotourism development under the COVID-19 pandemic. Cuestiones Políticas, 39(69), 870-881.
https://doi.org/10.46398/cuestpol.3969.53
Peinado, Á. (Coord.) (2012).
I Congreso Internacional “El Patrimonio
cultural y natural como motor de desarrollo: Investigación e innovación”. Universidad Internacional de Andalucía.
Petit, S., & Seetaram, N. (2019). Measuring the effect of revealed
cultural preferences on tourism exports. Journal of Travel Research, 58(8),
1262-1273. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287518807582
Polukhina, A., Sheresheva,
M., Efremova, M., Suranova, O., Agalakova, O., & Antonov-Ovseenko, A.
(2021). The concept of sustainable rural tourism development
in the face of COVID-19 crisis: Evidence from Russia. Journal of Risk and
Financial Management, 14(1), 38. https://doi.org/10.3390/jrfm14010038
Prats, L. (2000). El concepto de patrimonio cultural. Cuadernos de Antropología Social, (11), 115-136. http://revistascientificas.filo.uba.ar/index.php/CAS/article/view/4709
Recuero, N., Blasco, M.
F., & García, J. (2011). La identificación
de motivaciones de los visitantes de los sitios arqueológicos. Cuadernos
de Estudios Empresariales, 21,
97-113. https://revistas.ucm.es/index.php/CESE/article/view/41529
Richards, G. (2000). Tourism and the world of culture and heritage. Tourism
Recreation Research, 25(1), 9-17. https://doi.org/10.1080/02508281.2000.11014896
Richards, G. (2011). Creativity and
tourism: The state of the art. Annals of tourism research, 38(4),
1225-1253.
Richards, G. (2018). Cultural
tourism: A review of recent research and trends. Journal of Hospitality and
Tourism Management, 36, 12-21.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhtm.2018.03.005
Rodríguez, M., &
Pérez, L. M. (2021). Incentives and
constraints for archeological tourism: a case study in Spain. Current Issues
in Tourism, 25(8), 1185-1191.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2021.1902287
Salazar, B. R.,
González, A., & Macias, A. R. (2020). El turismo cultural y sus construcciones sociales como
contribución a la gestión sostenible de los destinos turísticos. Rosa dos Ventos-Turismo e Hospitalidade,
12(2), 406-428.
Sanagustín-Fons, M. V., Tobar-Pesántez, L.
B., & Ravina-Ripoll, R. (2020). Happiness and cultural tourism: The perspective of
civil participation. Sustainability, 12(8), 3465. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12083465
Sánchez-Mesa, L. J. (2019).
Planning territorial policies against inner areas depopulation in Spain: Keys
for sustainable management of cultural and environmental resources. IL CAPITALE CULTURALE. Studies on the
Value of Cultural Heritage, (19), 53-81. http://riviste.unimc.it/index.php/cap-cult/article/view/1980
Sharma, G. D., Thomas, A., &
Paul, J. (2021). Reviving tourism industry post-COVID-19: A resilience-based
framework. Tourism management perspectives, 37, 100786. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tmp.2020.100786
Silva, L. (2021). The impact of the
COVID-19 pandemic on rural tourism: A case study from Portugal. Anatolia, 33(1), 157-159. https://doi.org/10.1080/13032917.2021.1875015
Škare, M., Riberio, D.,
& Porada-Rochoń, M. (2021). Impact
of COVID-19 on the travel and tourism industry. Technological Forecasting
and Social Change, 163, 120469.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2020.120469
Sobaih, A. E. E., Elshaer, I., Hasanein, A. M., & Abdelaziz, A. S. (2021). Responses
to COVID-19: The role of performance in the relationship between small
hospitality enterprises’ resilience and sustainable tourism development. International
Journal of Hospitality Management, 94,
102824.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2020.102824
Šťastná, M., & Vaishar, A.
(2017). The relationship between public transport and the progressive
development of rural areas. Land Use Policy, 67, 107-114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.05.022
Suárez-Ponce, D. B.,
Pacheco-Delgado, J., Flores-Urbáez, M., y Bravo-Giler, M. A. (2022). Efectos del COVID-19 en
Portoviejo-Ecuador: Realidades y expectativas para el comercio autónomo y el
turismo. Revista de Ciencias
Sociales (Ve), XXVIII(1), 234-249. https://doi.org/10.31876/rcs.v28i1.37687
Tian, D., Wang, Q., Law, R., &
Zhang, M. (2020). Influence of cultural identity on tourists’ authenticity
perception, tourist satisfaction, and traveler loyalty. Sustainability, 12(16),
6344. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12166344
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization -
UNESCO (1982). World Conference on Cultural Policies: Final
report. UNESCO. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000052505?posInSet=1&queryId=3ea7e329-af84-4351-9348-f30f152e8fec
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization -
UNESCO (1994). Documento de Nara sobre la Autenticidad. UNESCO,
ICCROM, ICOMOS. http://www.planmaestro.ohc.cu/recursos/papel/cartas/1994-nara.pdf
Vena-Oya,
J., Castañeda-García, J. A., Rodríguez-Molina, M. Á., & Frías-Jamilena, D. M. (2021). How do
monetary and time spend explain cultural tourist satisfaction? Tourism
Management Perspectives, 37,
100788. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tmp.2021.100788
Vidickienė, D., Vilkė, R., & Gedminaitė-Raudonė, Ž. (2020). Transformative tourism as an
innovative tool for rural development. European Countryside, 12(3),
277-291. https://doi.org/10.2478/euco-2020-0016
Viken, A., Höckert, E., & Grimwood, B.
S. R. (2021). Cultural sensitivity:
Engaging difference in tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 89, 103223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2021.103223
Villacé-Molinero, T., Fernández-Muñoz, J. J., Orea-Giner, A.,
& Fuentes-Moraleda, L. (2021). Understanding
the new post-COVID-19 risk scenario: Outlooks and challenges for a new era of
tourism. Tourism Management, 86, 104324. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2021.104324
Wallace, A. (2013). Presenting
Pompeii: Steps towards reconciling conservation and tourism at an ancient site.
Papers from the Institute of Archaeology, 22, 115-115. https://doi.org/10.5334/pia.406
Wei, Y., Liu,
H., & Park, K.-S. (2021). Examining the structural relationships among heritage
proximity, perceived impacts, attitude and residents’ support in intangible
cultural heritage tourism. Sustainability, 13(15), 8358. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13158358
Zavarika, H. (2021). Tools for the development of domestic
tourism in eastern Ukraine under conditions of post-conflict situation and
limitations of international and internal mobility. Almatourism
- Journal of Tourism, Culture and Territorial Development, 12(23), 243-264. https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2036-5195/12274
Zhang,
G., Chen, X., Law, R., & Zhang, M. (2020).
Sustainability of heritage tourism: A structural perspective from cultural
identity and consumption intention. Sustainability,
12(21), 9199. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12219199