“Accessibility” and “inclusiveness” are pivotal factors influencing the socio, environmental and economic dimensions of tourism attractions and heritage sites. Despite their high impacts and related spillover effects, comprehensive strategies and tools for assessing, monitoring and optimizing their effects have not been defined yet.
A systematic literature review technique has been used in order to identify, evaluate and synthesize the available literature in both fields of tourism and cultural heritage. It has been essential for framing the concepts of “accessibility” and “inclusiveness”, identifying the main methods and practices employed to measure and evaluate them, and proposing a set of universal actions. Then, it classifies the best-case studies at the global scale.
This research confirms that best practices leveraging accessibility and inclusiveness in tourism and cultural heritage actively involve local communities in the economic and social discussions, supported by long-term planning and sustainable policy frameworks. In this context, collaboration and communication among all stakeholders – such as citizens, local businesses and public authorities – play a central role. Moreover, the establishment of a continuous action-oriented system for monitoring and evaluating social, economic and environmental impacts is demonstrated to be essential. Such systems are key to developing long-term strategies, particularly for the preservation and conservation of social and natural environment.
This paper fills the literature gap proposing a set of strategies enhancing accessibility and inclusiveness in tourism and cultural heritage. This research may be employed by local and international regulatory agencies to extend their socio-economic perspective, reducing the related environmental impacts. In this way, it would overcome the actual fragmentation, facilitating global justice and equality.
1. Introduction
Accessibility and inclusiveness are pivotal factors that wield a pervasive influence over the social, environmental and economic dimensions of tourism attractions and heritage sites. These concepts primarily revolve around ensuring physical access for individuals with disabilities (e.g. World Tourism Organization and Fundación ACS, 2016; ENAT, 2007) and promoting social equity through the inclusion of minorities, diversity and gender equality (e.g. UNESCO, 2005, 2014). Furthermore, strategies geared towards accessibility and inclusiveness have a profound impact on the preservation and conservation of our natural environment for the benefit of future generations (United Nations, 1972, 1987). This is due to their considerable contribution to education, social identity and awareness. Nevertheless, these strategies have not consistently yielded positive outcomes for the natural and historical environments (Larson and Poudyal, 2012), due, for instance, to phenomena such as overtourism (Thiagarajah et al., 2015).
Although these challenges persists, in alignment with the World Tourism Organization’s recommendations (WTO, 2015), the implementation of policies leveraging accessibility and inclusiveness for sustainable site management and cultural tourism development would guarantee equitable access to natural and cultural heritage sites, along with associated services. According to Darcy et al. (2010), adopting this approach could lead to a 20% increase in revenues for local companies providing services connected to heritage sites, stemming from greater support for local businesses, increased activities and higher occupancy rates. Moreover, the enhancement of tourism facilities would unlock new market segments that were previously inaccessible (Porto et al., 2018). As Ritchie and Crouch (2010) says, “destination’s resources are hardly relevant to the issue of competitiveness unless they are accessible”.
Hence, in recent decades, the themes of accessibility and inclusiveness have been progressively integrated into numerous initiatives, most notably the Agenda 2030. Specifically, Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 11 underscores the growing importance of tourism and heritage in a complex landscape where reinforcing a sense of community, bolstering cultural resilience and driving regional economic growth through sustainable tourism development are key elements. Within this framework, several actions have been proposed to “ensure inclusiveness and equality for every person, everywhere” (UN, 2015), even though concrete advancements have not yet been recorded. This approach is highlighted by the fact that a set of strategies and tools for assessing, monitoring and optimizing the effects of accessibility and inclusiveness has not been defined yet (Nocca, 2017; Prezioso et al., 2020).
Establishing common strategies, best practices and a related impact measurement framework would allow stakeholders, including governments, businesses and organizations, to make informed decisions, optimize resources and demonstrate their commitment to enhancing societal well-being, fostering a “more inclusive and accessible world for all” (WTO, 2015, 2021). Furthermore, it would mitigate the associated environmental impacts (Prezioso et al., 2020).
Through a systematic and gray literature review, this research identifies the main methods and practices employed to measure and evaluate the impact of accessibility and inclusiveness on cultural heritage and tourist sites. It then classifies the best-case studies on a global scale, proposing a set of universal actions that may be employed.
The literature shows a clear gap in this direction, which has been filled by this paper answering the following research questions: What are the best practices leveraging accessibility and inclusiveness in cultural heritage tourism? How can inclusiveness and accessibility be evaluated and measured?
As this analysis demonstrates, involving local communities and stakeholders in economic and social discussions enhances the overall value of heritage sites. At the same time, direct collaborations among governments, stakeholders and citizens improve the qualitative development of sites' accessibility and inclusiveness. The application of this research would significantly impact regulatory agencies by further developing sustainable cultural and touristic strategies, overcoming the current fragmentation, and facilitating global justice and equality.
2. Methodology
The literature review technique has been used to identify, evaluate and synthesize the available literature in both fields of tourism and cultural heritage, gaining insight into how and in which contexts the concepts of “accessibility” and “inclusiveness” are used. As stated by Fernández-Sotos et al. (2019), the systematic literature review is essential to display the current state of knowledge, allowing the researcher to minimize the risk of biases and ensure transparency in the research procedure (Dochy, 2006). The review of the Scopus database (scopus.com) has been necessary to obtain a consistent amount of literature documenting the actual state of the art, capturing the characteristics of individual studies, and consolidating them in the tourism and cultural heritage fields (Gough et al., 2012). It revealed gaps in both literature and primary research. As represented in Figure 1, it has been developed following Kitchenham’s (2004) method, processing the sequential stages associated with (1) planning, (2) conducting and (3) reporting activities, as follows:
Literature research. Articles, reviews and papers from journals, books and conference proceedings published between 1976 and 2022 have been considered. This phase has been essential for understanding the state of the art and identifying literature gaps. As represented in Figure 1, this research initiated the querying of the Scopus database using the main keywords of the research questions: (1) What are the best-case studies leveraging accessibility and inclusiveness in tourism and cultural heritage? (2) What are the criteria for evaluating and measuring inclusiveness and accessibility? The two principal research domains established were Domain 1 (“Tourism” and “Heritage”), while Domain 2 was determined by the scope of this paper (“Accessibility” OR “Inclusiveness”, “Sustainability” OR “Sustainable”, “Case study”). The subject areas were limited to those related to the concepts of accessibility and inclusiveness in tourism and heritage. As Figure 1 illustrates, this phase resulted in 464 titles.
Problem-definition process and definition of the research scope. During this second phase (B), all papers not aligning with the focus of this research were excluded, while topic-related references were included. Therefore, the content analysis of the abstracts resulted in the exclusion of: (1) technical reports on geological heritage and the development of “new” technologies, (2) technical papers on the preservation and conservation of natural and cultural heritage, (3) papers analyzing and reporting statistical and technical data for marketing strategies, (4) evaluations of users' or visitors' perceptions and behaviors. To understand the most relevant discussions and identify gaps, an explorative analysis of the gray literature has been integrated. The most recent and relevant institutional documents, publications, and handbooks by international and global organizations were retrieved, including the World Travel and Tourism Council (WTTC), the International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS), and United Nations (UN)-linked institutions such as the World Tourism Organization (WTO) and the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). To create a conceptual macro-area of reference, a keyword-based content analysis provided an extended overview of the most and least frequent subjects in the papers, demonstrating a clear orientation towards management and tech-related topics.
Qualitative analysis and reporting activities. A selection process was conducted in this phase based on the evaluation and interpretation of papers, following the criteria of quality and relevance. The selected papers were chosen based on publication methods, number of citations (>5) and relevance of arguments. Therefore, papers addressing the following subjects were excluded: (1) Methodological frameworks for impact calculation; (2) Reports and strategies on overcoming physical barriers for people with disabilities; (3) Economic reports of specific projects, websites and case studies; (4) Inaccessible papers (e.g. not available online, papers requiring fees to access). Within this phase, various topics related to “accessibility” and “inclusiveness” were identified and classified (see Section 4, Table 1). Consequently, indicators were defined (as in Section 4, Table 2). To achieve this, two influential methods were applied: the “Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD) Indicator framework and methodology” presented by the CSD (2011) and the triple-bottom-line (TBL) of sustainable accessible tourism applied by Darcy et al. (2010). The selection of case studies was therefore based on the previously defined indicators, and the best practices were classified (see Section 5, Figure 2). The final activity reports included 124 titles.
The flow diagram illustrates a three-phase research filtering and analysis process. At the top under the heading “PHASE A”, a large query box contains “( TITLE-ABS-KEY ( cultural AND heritage ) AND (tourism))”, followed by a dashed arrow leading downward into three successive colored boxes. The first box shows “AND ( accessibility OR inclusiveness )” with a circle on the right labeled “345 results”. The second box shows “AND ( accessibility OR inclusiveness ) AND (sustainability OR sustainable)” with a circle labeled “218 results”. The third box shows “AND ( accessibility OR inclusiveness ) AND (sustainability OR sustainable ) AND (case AND study)” with a circle labeled “189 results”. A larger circle to the right aggregates these into “464 records”. Below the three boxes, an additional filter line is shown as a long yellow rectangle containing “AND… ( LIMIT-TO ( SUBJAREA, “SOCI” ) OR LIMIT-TO ( SUBJAREA, “ARTS” ) OR LIMIT-TO ( SUBJAREA, “COMP” ) OR LIMIT-TO ( SUBJAREA, “BUSI” ) OR LIMIT-TO ( SUBJAREA, “ECON” ) OR LIMIT-TO ( SUBJAREA, “DECI” ) OR LIMIT-TO ( SUBJAREA, “PSYC” ) OR LIMIT-TO ( SUBJAREA, “MULT” ) )”. A dashed arrow leads from “464 records” into “PHASE B”, which contains a vertical sequence of two white boxes: the first labeled “exclusion of the papers not matching the research questions” with a circled “1”, and the second labeled “analysis of cross-referenced titles & gray literature” with a circled “2”. A dashed arrow proceeds to a box labeled “KEYWORDS-BASED CONTENT ANALYSIS”, which lists MOST FREQUENT WORDS (greater than 50): “Disability, tourism destination, behavioural studies, local community”, and LESS FREQUENT WORDS (less than 50): “Digital heritage, regional tourism, cognitive approach, impact assessment”. To the right, another box labeled “KEYWORDS FREQUENCY” lists terms with their counts: “Management 78”, “Data Analysis* 65”, “Planning 50”, “Economic 47”, “Urban 46”, “Conservation 39”, “Environment 38”, “Ecotourism 34”, “Virtual* 34”, “Information* 25”, “Rural 24”, “Behaviour* 24”, and “World Heritage site 21”, with a footnote stating “*Technology-related keyword”. A dashed arrow labeled with a circled “3” leads downward to these two boxes. The “PHASE C” which begins with a white box labeled “relevance and qualitative research analysis” connected by a dashed arrow to a larger box containing: “a) Identification and classification of the main research areas (Table 1); b) Definition of the indicators (see c. 4, Table 2), c) Case studies selection and classification (Figure 2).” A solid downward arrow leads to a circle labeled “124 titles”.Workflow of this research paper development. Authors’ elaboration
The flow diagram illustrates a three-phase research filtering and analysis process. At the top under the heading “PHASE A”, a large query box contains “( TITLE-ABS-KEY ( cultural AND heritage ) AND (tourism))”, followed by a dashed arrow leading downward into three successive colored boxes. The first box shows “AND ( accessibility OR inclusiveness )” with a circle on the right labeled “345 results”. The second box shows “AND ( accessibility OR inclusiveness ) AND (sustainability OR sustainable)” with a circle labeled “218 results”. The third box shows “AND ( accessibility OR inclusiveness ) AND (sustainability OR sustainable ) AND (case AND study)” with a circle labeled “189 results”. A larger circle to the right aggregates these into “464 records”. Below the three boxes, an additional filter line is shown as a long yellow rectangle containing “AND… ( LIMIT-TO ( SUBJAREA, “SOCI” ) OR LIMIT-TO ( SUBJAREA, “ARTS” ) OR LIMIT-TO ( SUBJAREA, “COMP” ) OR LIMIT-TO ( SUBJAREA, “BUSI” ) OR LIMIT-TO ( SUBJAREA, “ECON” ) OR LIMIT-TO ( SUBJAREA, “DECI” ) OR LIMIT-TO ( SUBJAREA, “PSYC” ) OR LIMIT-TO ( SUBJAREA, “MULT” ) )”. A dashed arrow leads from “464 records” into “PHASE B”, which contains a vertical sequence of two white boxes: the first labeled “exclusion of the papers not matching the research questions” with a circled “1”, and the second labeled “analysis of cross-referenced titles & gray literature” with a circled “2”. A dashed arrow proceeds to a box labeled “KEYWORDS-BASED CONTENT ANALYSIS”, which lists MOST FREQUENT WORDS (greater than 50): “Disability, tourism destination, behavioural studies, local community”, and LESS FREQUENT WORDS (less than 50): “Digital heritage, regional tourism, cognitive approach, impact assessment”. To the right, another box labeled “KEYWORDS FREQUENCY” lists terms with their counts: “Management 78”, “Data Analysis* 65”, “Planning 50”, “Economic 47”, “Urban 46”, “Conservation 39”, “Environment 38”, “Ecotourism 34”, “Virtual* 34”, “Information* 25”, “Rural 24”, “Behaviour* 24”, and “World Heritage site 21”, with a footnote stating “*Technology-related keyword”. A dashed arrow labeled with a circled “3” leads downward to these two boxes. The “PHASE C” which begins with a white box labeled “relevance and qualitative research analysis” connected by a dashed arrow to a larger box containing: “a) Identification and classification of the main research areas (Table 1); b) Definition of the indicators (see c. 4, Table 2), c) Case studies selection and classification (Figure 2).” A solid downward arrow leads to a circle labeled “124 titles”.Workflow of this research paper development. Authors’ elaboration
The radial diagram presents tourism-related case studies distributed across three axes labeled “SOCIAL” on the lower left, “ECONOMIC” at the top, and “ENVIRONMENTAL” on the lower right, with concentric circles representing accessibility and inclusiveness action levels. At the center, a circle is labeled “100 percent accessible and inclusive”. Surrounding circles show percentage and action ranges: “80 percent 30 less than 39 actions”, “60 percent 20 less than 29 actions”, “40 percent 10 less than 19 actions”, and “20 percent 1 less than 9 actions”. Along the SOCIAL axis, the labels include “Italian UNESCO Heritage Sites (Bailini, 2019)”, “‘Silk Road’ project of UNWTO (EC, 2014)”, “cousine-based tourism in Texcoco, Mexico (Di Pietro et al., 2017)”, “trustable and transparent governance in Okavango Delta, Botswana (Mbaïwa, 2004)”, and “São João festivity Northeast Brazil (Marques et al., 2021)”, with “Bucharest historical centre (Merciu et al., 2021)” placed at the lower area. Along the ECONOMIC axis, the entries include “tourism development in cultural districts (Smith et al., 2018)”, “tourism web portal in Sydney (Darcy et al., 2009)”, “Data-related model in Botswana (Nthoi, 2020)”, “personnel training on regional values in Northern Jordan (Reid et al., 2006)”, and “community-based tourism in Boa Vista Cabo Verde, Africa (Sánchez-Cañizares et al., 2014)”. Along the ENVIRONMENTAL axis on the right, examples include “Singapore’s mangroves forest (Thiagarajah et al., 2015)”, “Nepalese Himalayas (Gurung et al., 2008)”, “Adaptive building reuse in Hong Kong (Yung et al., 2012)”, and “Machu Picchu area, Peru (Larson et al., 2012)”, with “remote access to the ancient stadium of Philippopolis, Bulgaria (Georgieva, 2013)” positioned further down. At the bottom along the SOCIAL–ENVIRONMENTAL boundary appears “auto-rickshaws Delhi, India (Chhabra et al., 2020)”.Evaluation and classification of the analyzed case studies based on a series of actions to improve accessibility and inclusiveness. Authors’ elaboration
The radial diagram presents tourism-related case studies distributed across three axes labeled “SOCIAL” on the lower left, “ECONOMIC” at the top, and “ENVIRONMENTAL” on the lower right, with concentric circles representing accessibility and inclusiveness action levels. At the center, a circle is labeled “100 percent accessible and inclusive”. Surrounding circles show percentage and action ranges: “80 percent 30 less than 39 actions”, “60 percent 20 less than 29 actions”, “40 percent 10 less than 19 actions”, and “20 percent 1 less than 9 actions”. Along the SOCIAL axis, the labels include “Italian UNESCO Heritage Sites (Bailini, 2019)”, “‘Silk Road’ project of UNWTO (EC, 2014)”, “cousine-based tourism in Texcoco, Mexico (Di Pietro et al., 2017)”, “trustable and transparent governance in Okavango Delta, Botswana (Mbaïwa, 2004)”, and “São João festivity Northeast Brazil (Marques et al., 2021)”, with “Bucharest historical centre (Merciu et al., 2021)” placed at the lower area. Along the ECONOMIC axis, the entries include “tourism development in cultural districts (Smith et al., 2018)”, “tourism web portal in Sydney (Darcy et al., 2009)”, “Data-related model in Botswana (Nthoi, 2020)”, “personnel training on regional values in Northern Jordan (Reid et al., 2006)”, and “community-based tourism in Boa Vista Cabo Verde, Africa (Sánchez-Cañizares et al., 2014)”. Along the ENVIRONMENTAL axis on the right, examples include “Singapore’s mangroves forest (Thiagarajah et al., 2015)”, “Nepalese Himalayas (Gurung et al., 2008)”, “Adaptive building reuse in Hong Kong (Yung et al., 2012)”, and “Machu Picchu area, Peru (Larson et al., 2012)”, with “remote access to the ancient stadium of Philippopolis, Bulgaria (Georgieva, 2013)” positioned further down. At the bottom along the SOCIAL–ENVIRONMENTAL boundary appears “auto-rickshaws Delhi, India (Chhabra et al., 2020)”.Evaluation and classification of the analyzed case studies based on a series of actions to improve accessibility and inclusiveness. Authors’ elaboration
Schema of the literature review analysis, featuring pertinent content and authors within the fields of sustainable tourism and cultural heritage
Source(s): Authors’ elaboration
Indicators framing accessibility and inclusiveness in tourism and cultural heritage, structured across three categories: “social”, “economic” and “environmental” assets
| Social asset | |
| 1. Training, workshops and classes open to citizens |
| 2. Activities promoting local culture and values | |
3. Local and international communication based on:
| |
| 4. Specialized training for youngest (specific skills and competences) |
| 5. Skills development for employees | |
| 6. Academic community involvement in knowledge sharing mechanisms and learning processes | |
| 7. Activities for partners and third parties |
| 8. Activities of knowledge transfer | |
| 9. Multi-language environment |
| 10. Multi-narratives | |
| 11. Promote political awareness |
| 12. Ensure leadership involvement | |
| 13. Develop collaborative processes of policy making | |
| 14. Local connections and facilities
|
15. Activities for sensory disabilities
| |
16. Cognitive accessibility
| |
| 17. Enhance safety on site | |
| 18. Periodic evaluation system |
| 19. Periodic customers feedback | |
| 20. Open Access System for research |
| 21. Interactive and customized activities | |
| 22. User Experience: constant testing/implementing/evaluating process | |
| Economic asset | |
| |
| |
| 1. Facilitate access to micro credits for local enterprises |
| 2. Reduced tickets for locals | |
| 3. Promote special promotions for minorities | |
| 4. Local communities and stakeholders involvement in planning and services | |
| 5. Sustain local economies without damaging the environment | |
| 6. Targeted content creation for different channels |
| 7. Encourage reflection and public debate | |
| 8. Promote circular economy systems |
| 9. Targeted costs for general audience | |
| 10. Involve citizens to take an active part in protection works, social and participatory activities | |
| 11. Develop participatory site-specific projects | |
| 12. Periodic evaluation system |
| 13. Periodic customers feedback | |
| Environmental asset | |
| 1. Promote workshops and activities dedicated to the environmental topic |
| 2. Promote activities inviting local habitants to retake ownership of the natural and cultural heritage | |
| 3. Promote activities and actions with minimum environmental impacts |
| 4. Promote public and sustainable transportations to sites | |
| 5. Maintain essential ecological processes and support to conserve natural heritage and biodiversity | |
| 6. Conservation and preservation activities | |
| 7. Periodic evaluation system |
| 8. Constant evaluation of the environmental impact | |
| 9. Encourage remote virtual discovery | |
Source(s): Authors’ elaboration
2.1 Literature analysis
Between 1976 and 2005, some of the most important institutional statements on sustainable tourism and tourism development were issued (See United Nations, 1972, 1987, 1992). However, the results on Scopus began in 1989, with overall production remaining low until 2011. A notable increase in publication activity was observed in 2018, highlighting the growing interest in these topics in recent years. Most publications fall within the fields of Humanities and Social Sciences (40.1%), Business and Economics (24.6%), and Environmental Studies (18.3%), indicating a prevalence of tourism-related papers and an increase in interdisciplinary studies over the last decades.
The content analysis reveals that “inclusiveness” has become a widely discussed concept in the past 3–5 years, while “accessibility” remains a consistent topic in governmental provisions. This literature review shows that “inclusiveness” refers to contexts related to diversity, minority involvement and gender equality (UNESCO, 1996, 2001, 2005, 2014), particularly where social interactions and cultural integrations occur (e.g. Okech, 2010; Marques et al., 2020). On the other hand, “Accessibility” primarily concerns physical access to sites for individuals with physical, sensory and intellectual disabilities (e.g. United Nations, 1996, 2007), often addressing the development of technological applications for cultural heritage.
Overall, this research predominantly relates to humanistic studies, while integration with business models and environmental issues remains relatively limited.
3. Accessibility and inclusiveness of cultural and touristic sites worldwide: the state of the art
Since 1990, there has been a growing emphasis on enhancing accessibility and inclusiveness, particularly in engaging local communities and stakeholders. As shown in Table 1, the importance and value of involving local communities have been explored by various authors, including Hall and McArthur (1998), Scheyvens (2002), and Tosun and Timothy (2003). These scholars emphasize the promotion of information dissemination, active participation and public education. In terms of stakeholders' involvement, theories proposed by the UN (1992) and scholars such as Butler (1999), Markwick (2000), and Getz and Timur (2005) underscore the drawbacks of top-down approaches, as evidenced by Briedenhann and Wickens (2004) and Lenao (2015). For example, tourism infrastructures, discussed by Okech (2010), can restrict local communities' access to natural resources and public spaces.
Discussions on the physical accessibility of sites often focus on management, particularly concerning UNESCO World Heritage Sites (Duval and Smith, 2014; Cetin, 2015; Chlachula, 2019). Key issues include infrastructure, facilities and service gaps (Darcy et al., 2010), as well as concerns about site connectivity through transportation (Perea-Medina et al., 2019) and mobility (Chhabra et al., 2020; Setiawan et al., 2021). Highly debated topics include overtourism, which leads to overcrowding, traffic congestion, pollution and increased waste production (Larson and Poudyal, 2012). As indicated in Table 1, this issue permeates themes such as “Accessibility on Site”, “Economic Strategies” and “Sustainable Community Development”, influencing tourism management and planning while impacting cultural heritage preservation and visitor experiences.
Significant cases address urban challenges, often highlighting the lack of long-term visions due to overcrowded historical centers (Du Cros and Kong, 2020) and the effects of gentrification, exemplified in Valletta, Malta (Ebejer, 2020), among other locales. In response, the preservation and conservation of heritage are prioritized through technological solutions, including virtual environment reconstructions (Montagud et al., 2020), 3D modeling (Hronček et al., 2020), 3D printing (Berjozkina and Karami, 2021), photogrammetry (Xiao et al., 2018) and integrated methods combining various techniques (Mas et al., 2022). For underwater and marine cultural heritage, data analysis ensures minimal environmental impact and sustainable ecotourism development, exemplified in Mediterranean cases like Ricca et al. (2020) and Manglis et al. (2021).
Behavioral studies in cultural and tourist attractions utilize user-based data for audience development, communication and marketing, leveraging e-tourism digital services (Buhalis and Law, 2008) and urban planning for historical cities (Wang et al., 2021). Virtual reality (VR) and augmented reality (AR) applications aid in spatial planning (Guttentag, 2010) and virtual tours (Lin et al., 2020). Interactive mobile maps and apps facilitate tourist itineraries (Cardia, 2018; Sánchez-Martín et al., 2020) and cultural routes (Leanza et al., 2016), enhancing visitor engagement and data collection (Rolando and Scandiffio, 2013). Artificial intelligence (AI) applications play a pivotal role in strategic tourism management (Pisoni et al., 2021).
In museums and cultural institutions, accessibility and inclusiveness are integral to providing universal access to content and practical information (De Jong and Wu, 2018), addressing barriers to living and equality (González-Herrera et al., 2023). Discussions on libraries and archives focus on accessibility issues, including copyright limitations (Vats, 2018), digital access to museum collections (De Bernardi et al., 2019) and data utilization for educational purposes (Ferrara et al., 2014).
In conclusion, “Accessibility” and “Inclusiveness” are critical cross-sectoral concerns within tourism and cultural heritage, requiring multifaceted approaches and collaborative efforts across various disciplines. The next section proposes a unified set of indicators bridging tourism and heritage fields, serving as a benchmark for evaluating best practices discussed further in Section 5.
4. Measurement and evaluation criteria in the fields of tourism and heritage
To evaluate the various case studies, existing indicators in tourism and cultural heritage have been analyzed using a qualitative approach. This process facilitated the compilation of a comprehensive list of actions as represented in Table 2, categorized under three main dimensions: social, economic and environmental.
The previous indicators identified in both tourism and cultural heritage studies are synthetized in the following sub-chapters.
4.1 Sustainable tourism indicators
The concepts of “accessibility” and “inclusiveness” have undergone significant transformations, particularly in the post-2010 era. Noteworthy studies by Choi and Sirakaya (2006) and analyses by Darcy et al. (2010) address crucial elements of this evolving discussion.
In the context of Sustainability Indicators (SIs) related to community tourism, Choi and Sirakaya (2006) establish connections between economic dimensions and the natural and social environmental impacts, including considerations of natural and cultural assets in relation to stakeholder involvement (Choi and Sirakaya, 2006, p. 12). Conversely, Darcy et al. (2010) highlights long-term sustainability as a critical issue, particularly in terms of governance and destination management. The pursuit of short-term, revenue-driven targets by operators often neglects careful consideration of society’s needs and the preservation of natural and social capitals. Additionally, Darcy emphasizes the importance of economic access for expanding local businesses, particularly in terms of financial support and access to credits.
The prevailing trend in the literature generally aligns with the Commission on Sustainable Development (2011), which defines sustainable indicators in tourism across four dimensions: (1) Economic feasibility and community redistribution; (2) Environmental responsibility, including the preservation of natural and socio-cultural heritage; (3) Political relevance through appropriate policies; (4) Technological advances in transportation, information technology and communications.
In a significant development in 2013, the European Tourism Indicator System (ETIS) introduced by the European Commission associated the terms “accessibility” and “equality”, shedding light on the importance of safeguarding equal cultural heritage, local identity and assets (De et al., 2018). Concurrently, the Brazilian Ministry of Tourism, in the same year, incorporated considerations such as access requirements for people with disabilities, general infrastructure accessibility, and the availability of tourist services, equipment and attractions into the National Tourism Competitiveness Index (Madeiros Barbosa, 2008).
In line with this perspective, Domínguez Vila et al. (2015) incorporated measurements of accessibility into the competitiveness analysis cluster. This encompassed products, promotion and marketing information tailored for individuals with disabilities. More recently, Porto et al. (2018) integrated accessibility indicators as part of a competitiveness measurement in tourism destinations, involving actions such as: (1) Investments in infrastructures, (2) Training of human resources, (3) Promotion of awareness on the subject, (4) Advocacy for the universal design of tourism products, services and environments. According to these studies, accessibility emerges as a pivotal element in destination competitiveness, augmenting the value of various variables like innovation, technology and sustainability (Porto et al., 2018).
In this context, in 2021 the WTO introduced a model of indicators for destination management outlining five macro-areas of good practices: (1) Public-private collaboration; (2) Accessibility-related training; (3) Implementation of accessibility measures; (4) Sustainability of the project over time and (5) Potential for replicating the project (WTO, 2021).
Throughout these discussions, individuals with disabilities persist as a recurring theme, particularly concerning physical impairments and, more recently, the challenges associated with aging (Wan et al., 2022). In these contexts, a user-centric perspective and the concept of universal design are frequently cited as strategies to address both physical and cognitive barriers.
4.2 Cultural heritage indicators
Every indicator assessing the sustainability of museums and cultural heritage exerts varying degrees of influence on accessibility and inclusiveness (Pop and Borza, 2016; Reyes-García et al., 2021). Consequently, museums aiming for sustainability must ensure accessibility for both the local public, who have the right to engage with their heritage (Sani, 2020), and tourists eager to explore the unique aspects of new locations (ICOMOS, 1999). On the other hand, as noted by Pop and Borza (2016), relevant measures include enhancing accessibility to collections, both online and offline.
According to the special Eurobarometer conducted for the European Year of Cultural Heritage (Eurostat, 2019, p. 41, Table 1.9), the most significant barriers identified by the audience for accessing cultural heritage sites or activities are lack of time and prohibitive costs, surpassing concerns related to lack of interest and information. Secondary factors are associated with proximity and challenges in reaching cultural heritage sites, either due to their remoteness or disconnection (Soberanis, 2020).
In alignment with this, the “Thematic Indicators for Culture for the Agenda”, disseminated by UNESCO (2020), underscore the significance of “Inclusion and participation”, advocating for participatory processes, social inclusion, access to infrastructures and information. Notably, special emphasis is placed on implementing the indicator “Access to culture”, highlighting the importance of assessing diversity in cultural facilities, particularly concerning local places and sources.
5. Best strategies boosting accessibility and inclusiveness worldwide
In this section, various case studies are examined according to the evaluation criteria outlined in Table 2. As illustrated in Figure 2, exemplary practices achieve economic, social and/or environmental objectives, categorized based on the number of completed actions: the first level (up to 20%) represents 1 to 9 actions, the second (up to 40%) corresponds to 10 to 19 actions, the third (up to 60%) encompasses 20 to 29 actions and the fourth (up to 80%) covers 30 to 39 actions. 100% indicates the completion of up to 44 actions, signifying a fully accessible and inclusive case.
However, even though achieving 100% accessibility and inclusiveness remains challenging, the most exemplary case studies primarily focus on a single asset and are characterized by direct collaboration among local communities, stakeholders and governance. The following key elements are linked to the most impactful cases, listed in order of significance.
Firstly, on Boa Vista Island in the Cabo Verde archipelago, Africa, the participation of local communities in tourism planning and implementation supported the island’s socio-economic development. This involvement played a vital role in addressing issues related to overtourism. Government promotion of cultural tourism was facilitated by the presence of infrastructure, services and transportation. Additionally, efforts by the island’s inhabitants, through small, tourist-inclusive initiatives, contributed by proposing cultural activities and promoting local traditions (Sánchez-Cañizares and Castillo-Canalejo, 2014).
This example underscores the crucial role of local actors in driving policy enhancement (Caldas et al., 2021), fostering universal accessibility (Nthoi, 2020) and facilitating accessible and inclusive experiences (Zsarnoczky, 2018). Their involvement enhances socio-economic aspects linked to the sustainable development of accessible destinations, contributing to business growth by offering specialized services (Darcy et al., 2010). In this context, a similar example is the use of auto-rickshaws for sustainable mobility in Delhi, India (Chhabra et al., 2020). Furthermore, local communities play a pivotal role in conveying the “sense of place” (Ng and Feng, 2020), preserving authenticity, and nurturing local traditions and cultural identity. Noteworthy examples include heritage cuisine-based tourism in Texcoco, near Mexico City (Di Pietro et al., 2017), social participation in the São João festivity in the Northeast region of Brazil (Marques et al., 2020), tourism development in cultural districts (Smith et al., 2018) and rural areas (Couret and De Carvalho, 2021). These intangible cultural heritages are factors enhancing local tourism competitiveness (Esfehani and Albrecht, 2019; Wei et al., 2021).
Secondly, collaboration among governance entities is crucial to balancing the appeal of tourism destinations, significantly influencing local sustainable development (Russo, 2002), especially in enhancing long-term strategies. Adverse consequences of these practices are evident in cases of overtourism, such as the historical heritage sites of the mangroves forest in Singapore (Thiagarajah et al., 2015), Machu Picchu historical area in Peru (Larson and Poudyal, 2012), and the Nepalese Himalayas (Gurung and Scholz, 2008). Preserving the identity of these places heavily relies on government visions and managerial decision-making processes, addressing issues related to resource conservation, profitability and operational management (e.g. opening hours or limited daily access).
Within this framework, the establishment of trust and transparent decision-making processes by local institutions has proven particularly effective in fostering positive attitudes among local communities and, consequently, yielding long-term benefits, as observed in the case of Okavango Delta, Botswana (Mbaiwa, 2004).
The implementation of fair policies, coupled with the active involvement of industrial stakeholders, adds value to both tourism and heritage value chains (De et al., 2018). This is especially pertinent for diversifying tourist product services (Russo and Van Der Borg, 2002) and adapting heritage reuse in rural and urban areas. Adaptive reuse, in particular, is considered an extremely effective strategy due to its production of recreational values (Selim et al., 2021). This approach combines health and social benefits with low environmental impact, revitalizing culture and stimulating tourism through various activities (Yung and Chan, 2012). For instance, in the city of Hong Kong, adaptive reuse stands out as one of the most crucial strategies for reducing carbon emissions in the construction sector (Yung and Chan, 2012). Similarly, in the historical center of Bucharest, it contributes to the social asset, positively impacting both the local population and tourists (Merciu et al., 2021).
Regarding this, the development and implementation of both digital and in-person educational programs are generally regarded as keys to boosting social equity (Richards, 1996), enhancing economic opportunities (OECD, 1997; Choi and Sirakaya, 2006), and improving cognitive accessibility among both younger consumers and potential staff. Academic community engagement in Northern Jordan, for instance, increased local participation in tourism heritage by ensuring personnel training and integrating it into the cultural (archaeological, cultural and natural) values of the region (Reid and Schwab, 2006).
Lastly, communication strategies, whether online or offline, play a crucial role in enhancing both heritage attraction and residents' involvement. They improve information dissemination and foster relationships with visitors, proving particularly effective both within and beyond institutional walls. Examples include the “Cultural Routes” program of the Council of Europe (CoE), UNESCO World Heritage Sites (WHS) and the “Silk Road” project of the UNWTO (World Tourism Organization and Fundación ACS, 2015), which create itineraries that leverage points for tourism development in rural areas (Cardia, 2018). Alongside communication strategies, maintaining linguistic connections with local communities promotes social inclusion while preserving local identities and heritage (Whitney-Squire, 2016). Simultaneously, multilingualism captures visitors' interest in heritage sites, as exemplified by cases related to Italian UNESCO Heritage Sites (Bailini, 2019).
In conclusion, enhancing accessibility and inclusiveness hinges on fair policies and strong collaboration among all stakeholders involved. Particularly crucial is the active participation of local communities in planning and implementing strategies related to tourism destinations and heritage sites.
6. Results
This paper presents an analysis of worldwide case studies that enhance accessibility and inclusiveness in tourism and cultural heritage. These best practices were selected and assessed using a comprehensive set of indicators (Section 4, Table 2).
The research confirms that collaboration among all stakeholders (e.g. citizens, visitors, local businesses, local authorities) is pivotal in enhancing the accessibility and inclusiveness of tourism and cultural heritage, linking the three complementary dimensions: social, economic and environmental. The analysis shows that a fully comprehensive sustainable strategy encompassing all three dimensions is yet to be determined. However, depending on the involved actors, several strategies can be considered, each generating cross-cutting benefits and initiating a series of interconnected spillover effects.
To address environmental and social issues, targeted policies aimed at local stakeholders at the management level play a crucial role. Simultaneously, the development of information communication tools becomes a key factor for improvement. A constant impact monitoring and evaluation system for each dimension is demonstrated to be essential for formulating long-term visions and plans, particularly in addressing the preservation and conservation of social and natural environments.
Despite numerous regulations addressing environmental and socio-economic issues over decades (e.g. UN, 1972; 1987; 1992), results indicate a persistent need to implement sustainable practices in the development of tourism activities at many heritage and tourist sites, still exerting a significant impact on the environment. To generate a critical mass on these extensively debated topics, analytical tools must be developed to enhance innovative cultural policies and management on a global scale for both tourism and heritage. Consequently, this paper proves that a set of indicators is an essential analytic tool for governance policy and management processes. Simultaneously, the analysis of best practices serves as a comparative tool for promoting social equity. The combination of all these elements represents a robust starting point for future studies, presenting an innovative approach that proposes a renewed perspective on the definitions of concepts in these fields.
7. Conclusion
This research has expanded current knowledge by integrating information on practices more intricately into the fabric of tourism and heritage constructs, bridging theoretical frameworks with international institutional policies that have evolved over the past decades. The set of indicators outlined in Table 2 introduces a methodology for measurements and evaluations grounded in tangible actions, categorized across three complementary dimensions: economic, social and environmental. While these actions are applicable to tourism and heritage structures at both governance and management levels, the prevalence of activities in the social dimension highlights the need for further discussions on the concepts of accessibility and inclusiveness from economic and environmental perspectives.
Regarding the environment, numerous policies and regulations have addressed the imperative to preserve and conserve the natural environment (e.g. United Nations, 1972, 1987, 1992, 2015; UNESCO, 2020), emphasizing, at the same time, the importance of ensuring accessibility for future generations. These statements underscore two key themes: firstly, accessibility to heritage sites as a fundamental citizen’s right, serving as a robust incentive for environmental planning and awareness development; secondly, the reported destruction of sites and landscapes highlights the urgent need for collaboration—and communication—among governments, local stakeholders and communities.
In this context, the highlighted best practices advocate for strategies that implement sustainable physical access, encompassing improvements in transportation to heritage sites, connectivity and infrastructures. This necessitates thoughtful planning and long-term sustainable policies, crucial for regulating tourism destinations and mitigating phenomena with highly negative social and environmental impacts. In support of this vision, local communities' active participation is vital for maintaining the authenticity, identity and integrity of the place, as well as for supporting sustainable strategies that expand economic opportunities for both investors and local stakeholders.
Management decisions in tourism and heritage should address on/off-site maintenance issues more effectively by proposing sustainable solutions that involve connectivity and mobility. Additionally, there should be a focus on promoting long-term digital usability to enhance communication and information. Technology and digital tools are indeed considered instrumental in mitigating visitors' environmental impact through data analysis and remote access: this involves attracting visitors, facilitating remote knowledge transfer, and monitoring the environmental impacts on sites.
In conclusion, several qualitative strategies might still be developed. Culture and diversity should be leveraged for building social cohesion and wellbeing, whereas accessibility to heritage and touristic sites should be considered as an essential socio-economic resource. The innovative perspective on the concept of accessibility and inclusiveness presented in this paper marks just the initial step toward future advancements.
Future studies should implement this perspective to influence local policies and enhance quality management, while further investigation into the social and economic impacts of local communities and stakeholders' inclusion is required. Moreover, analyzing short- and long-term solutions for local developments should be linked to their social and environmental impacts. This approach would furthermore encourage exploring the impact of visitors and public engagement on heritage and touristic sites.
In this regard, the creation of a scoreboard of indicators with average measurements derived from local, national, regional and global data would notably enhance understanding of the topics and the assessment of their performance. This is particularly relevant considering that improvements in even one aspect of the presented assets are anticipated to substantially boost the overall rates of accessibility and inclusiveness, aligning with the previously mentioned multiple spillover effects.
Declaration of interest: The authors declare not having significant competing financial, professional or personal interests that might have influenced the writing of this paper.
