Next Article in Journal
Modeling Land Suitability for Rice Crop Using Remote Sensing and Soil Quality Indicators: The Case Study of the Nile Delta
Next Article in Special Issue
Sustainable Design, Construction, Refurbishment and Restoration of Architecture: A Review
Previous Article in Journal
Artists Residencies, Challenges and Opportunities for Communities’ Empowerment and Heritage Regeneration
Previous Article in Special Issue
Multi-Objective Optimization of Building Life Cycle Performance. A Housing Renovation Case Study in Northern Europe
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Going beyond Good Intentions for the Sustainable Conservation of Built Heritage: A Systematic Literature Review

1
Institute for Sustainability and Innovation in Structural Engineering (ISISE), School of Engineering, University of Minho, 4800-058 Guimarães, Portugal
2
Faculty of Architecture and the Built Environment, Delft University of Technology, 2033 AP Delft, The Netherlands
3
CERIS—Instituto Superior Técnico, Universidade de Lisboa, 1000 Lisboa, Portugal
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2020, 12(22), 9649; https://doi.org/10.3390/su12229649
Submission received: 15 September 2020 / Revised: 30 October 2020 / Accepted: 10 November 2020 / Published: 19 November 2020

Abstract

:
This research addresses the performance gap between intentions towards a sustainable conservation of built heritage and its actual implementation. Socio-psychological models of human behaviour, such as the theory of planned behaviour (TPB), have been studying this dissonance between intention and behaviour, and allow to recognise latent critical factors. This paper provides a systematic literature review of research publications on the intersection of the topics of human behaviour, heritage, and sustainability. It aims to analyse how the TPB has been used in the field of sustainable conservation of built heritage. The studies are categorised according to the type of heritage, main actors targeted, aims, and methodology. A total of 140 publications were analysed. The results show a recent field of research. In the domain of built heritage conservation, behaviour is commonly addressed as a synonym of performance, targeting the building itself. Most publications relating socio-psychological constructs of behaviour and heritage sustainability can be found in the tourism and hospitality field, focusing on tourists’ and residents’ behaviours. The review shows that practitioners are still absent from the literature. However, research addressing other stakeholders shows that the theoretical framework can play an important role in the implementation of sustainable conservation practices in the built heritage.

1. Introduction

The inclusion of heritage on the global agenda for sustainable development [1] has raised awareness for the importance of bridging the concepts of heritage and sustainability. Today, the concept of sustainable conservation can be defined as an extension of sustainable development, recognizing the value of the inheritance from the past for present and future generations [2]. As stated by the Recommendation on the Historic Urban Landscape, heritage conservation is a condition sine qua non for sustainable development [3].
As a driver of sustainable development [4], the benefits of heritage range from improving social cohesion and wellbeing [5] to contributing to local economies as a focus of attractiveness and economic growth [6]. But significant contributions can also be found on the environmental dimension, as heritage is a knowledge capital on how to cope with the environment [7], on circular economy and/or on reduced carbon footprint [8].
In the last decades, many studies have focused on the different connections between heritage and environmental sustainability. These studies highlighted the benefits of traditional passive solutions for energy efficiency (e.g., [9,10,11]), the advantages of natural materials for healthy indoor environments (e.g., [12]), or the effectiveness of resilience strategies to face natural hazards (e.g., [13,14]). Tools to support decision-making have been developed to encourage design decisions to integrate economic aspects, cultural significance, and environmental performance [15,16,17]. However, despite the information, standards and tools already developed, a common question still emerges in the literature: why are sustainable conservation approaches not more widely implemented in the built heritage field [18,19,20]?
This research aims at contributing to going beyond good intentions towards the sustainable conservation of the built heritage [21]. It uses a systematic literature review to understand how behavioural sciences, which for long proved the correlation between intention and behaviours [22,23,24,25,26,27], can support the identification of the main factors that are today undermining the implementation of sustainable conservation practices in the built heritage.

1.1. Theoretical Framework

The intention–behaviour gap is addressed in psychology as cognitive dissonance. Sociopsychological models, such as the theory of reasoned action (TRA [28]) and the theory of planned behaviour (TPB [23]), are based on the premise that “the immediate antecedent of behaviour is the person’s intention to perform the behaviour” [23]. However, these theories also recognise that intentions and behaviour do not always match, due to low facilitating conditions and to intervening events [25,29]. Understanding these facilitating conditions is essential to design effective interventions, where participants implement their positive intentions, since the gap between intention and behaviour can mainly be attributed to inclined abstainers, meaning persons who intend to act, but fail to implement their intentions [30,31].
According to the Theory of Planned Behavior [22,23], intentions are influenced by three considerations: 1) beliefs about consequences of an action, determining favourable or unfavourable personal evaluations (attitude); 2) beliefs about normative expectations, resulting from external social pressures (subjective norm); and 3) beliefs about factors that may impede performance, or the perceived behavioural control (PBC). Although these aspects may impact the actual performance of intentions, attitudes and subjective norms tend to be moderated by perceived behavioural control, since “participants do not generally intend to perform behaviours they perceive to be outside their control” [30]. Knowledge, ability, resources, availability, opportunity, and cooperation are the main factors affecting the perception of control [30].
To secure intention implementation, “people need to initiate, maintain and close goal pursuit” [27], and challenges may be found in the three steps. According to Pieters and Zeelenberg [32], intention–behaviour inconsistency induces regret in abstainers, as an indicator of a failed decision process. While good intentions alone may not be sufficient to change behaviours, high levels of perceived behavioural control are more likely to be converted to performance [33]. According to Sheeran [30], even if external pressures (i.e., obtaining approval, rewards or punishment from others) have a role in determining intention, self-chosen intentions resulting from personal beliefs are more likely to be successfully implemented. Thus, interventions should be directed to the internal motivations of participants and to increasing the perceived behavioural control, empowering the target group acting on the specific factors that are affecting performance.
The TRA and the later extended TPB define a framework with a limited set of psychological constructs (attitudes, subjective norms, perceptions of control, intentions) that can be used to predict and understand behaviours in multiple domains. While the behaviour itself is domain-specific, and defined in the scope of each specific research, Fishbein and Ajzen [34] suggest that the basic four psychological constructs can be applied, as long as they are defined in a consistent way (focusing the same action and target, in the same context, at the same time). These models to analyse and predict behaviours have been frequently used in the scope of health-related behaviours, such as medication, self-examination or nutrition [35,36,37,38], and to understand consumers’ decisions in market studies [39]. More recently, the scope was broadened to studies on entrepreneurship [31], job search decisions [33], or sustainable consumption patterns [40,41].
In the context of a sustainable built environment, the TPB has been used to profile users according to predictable behaviours, to establish recommendations and policies for planning and design. Sang, Yao, Zhang et al. [42] identified the factors affecting consumers’ willingness to buy green-labelled houses. It showed that internal psychological factors play a role side by side with design and government measures for implementation [42]. Du Toit, Wagner and Fletcher [43] profiled householders based on their recycling behaviours and housing type, identifying critical factors behind the practices. Ortiz and Bluyssen [44] profiled home occupants based on their energy consumption patterns, creating a tool that allows interventions to be better tailored to specific user needs.
This paper presents a literature review of studies that use the methodological insights of behavioural sciences to address challenges related to heritage conservation, and more specifically to its sustainability. The main goal is to grow understanding of how the TPB can be applied to promote the implementation of good practices on sustainable conservation of built heritage, going beyond good intentions.

2. Materials and Methods

This research follows a systematic literature review methodology [45,46], aiming at answering the question of how the TPB has been used to instigate practitioners’ behavioural change in the field of sustainable conservation of built heritage.
Data were searched for on Web of Science bibliographic database, on 16 June 2020, considering the presence of key terms in “all fields.” A scoping search on the Web of Science bibliographical database focused on the specific topic of the application of the TPB in the field of heritage and sustainability (heritage AND theory of planned behav* AND sustain*) results in only 14 publications. To attain a more complete picture of the field, the main search uses broader search syntaxes: “heritage AND sustain* AND behav*”, “heritage AND sustain* AND intention”, and “heritage AND theory of planned behav*”. The search operator “*” was used as a wildcard, to search for variations of the word. Given the low quantity of results obtained during the process, no limitations were applied regarding date or type of publication, allowing to understand tendencies on how this issue has been explored in the last decades.
The data extraction was organised in a sequential selection of publications (Figure 1), with different inclusion and exclusion criteria. In the first step, the 1058 results obtained using the search syntaxes were filtered according to scope. Duplicates were eliminated, as well as publications considered out of the scope of this research. Papers were included when they mention “heritage” or semantically related expressions, such as “historical buildings”, “monuments”, or “cultural value”. When the use of the keywords “heritage” and “intention” was found circumstantial and not fundamental (for instance “the intention of the paper is”), papers were also excluded. No requirements were applied to the meaning of “behaviour” at this stage. It resulted in a total of 506 publications, after eliminating duplicates.
In the second step, data were organised and classified in data extraction tables and excluded from further analysis if they were not related to human behaviour, and if they were not published in English.
In the third step, the 140 remaining publications were analysed considering, as key variables, type of heritage; type of stakeholder; aims and methodology. Lastly, 30 studies with clear methodological frameworks related to the TPB or the TRA, behavioural intentions, behavioural change, and decision-makers were analysed in-depth, considering study scale and sample, and conclusions. From these studies, 4 were related to behavioural change, 3 to built heritage, and only 1 focused on decision-makers.

3. Results

3.1. General Overview

From the selected 506 papers, almost a third (154 papers) were related to built heritage. However, only 33 of those refer to human behaviour. In the 121 remaining publications about built heritage, the term behaviour was used to refer to the building’s performance: either structural behaviour or hygrothermal and energy behaviour.
Therefore, building performance in the built heritage context is tackled as: (1) Structural behaviour (representing 44% of the publications about built heritage) which includes seismic vulnerability assessment of existing buildings (e.g., [47,48,49,50]), structural health monitoring (e.g., [51,52,53,54]), or mechanical properties of construction materials (e.g., [55,56,57,58,59]). (2) Hygrothermal and energy performance of buildings (representing a quarter of the publications on built heritage); integrates publications about bioclimatic strategies (e.g., [60,61]), strategies for energy renovation (e.g., [62,63,64,65]), or hygrothermal performance of traditional building systems (e.g., [66,67,68,69]).
In parallel with the use of the concept of behaviour as performance, the findings also show the use of the concept as background or factor. In 10% of the cases, human behaviour is mentioned as the publication background, referring, for instance, to past behaviours of a community in the scope of archaeological research [70]. In 19% of the cases, behaviour is recognised as a factor that can influence the findings. As examples, Mutani et al. mention that “energy models should take into account also the urban morphology, people’s behaviour, social and economic conditions, local and national regulation, and the use of outdoor public spaces” [71]; while Galvin et al. state the need to consider “consumer behaviour issues such as the rebound effect” for sustainable thermal retrofit of existing buildings [72]. However, the topic is not explicitly addressed in those studies, highlighting the importance of further research from a behavioural perspective.
The findings show that this is a recent field of research. Around 40% of the results were published since 2018; 75% after 2015. Publications before 2008 are only residual (less than 4%). There is a great geographic diversity in the origins of the publications, with Italy (15%) and China (10%) leading the results. However, most publications (63%) from southern Europe (Portugal, Spain, and Italy) use behaviour to refer to the building’s performance, leaving China and Australia as the major contributors in the topics of human behaviour, heritage, and sustainability. In the same way, the exclusion of papers that consider behaviour as performance results in a significant reduction of the papers in the research field of engineering, and building technology and construction, falling from 32% to only 9% of the overall selection. The selected publications are concentrated on the research fields of social sciences (39%), science and technology (30%), and environmental sciences and ecology (27%). A resulting set of 140 publications with a methodological approach to human behaviour in the scope of sustainable heritage was further analysed in the following section.

3.2. Methodological Approaches to Human Behaviour

3.2.1. Aims

By analysing the aims of the studies, a total of 23 common themes emerged, showing the predominant focus of studies in certain actors and objectives, as shown in Table 1.
Almost a quarter of the publications (22%) are related with behavioural intentions: either measuring factors affecting tourists’ cultural intentions (e.g., [73,74,75,76]) and intention to revisit a destination (e.g., [77,78,79,80]), the residents’ intention to participate in heritage tourism (e.g., [81,82]), or the business intentions of tourist operators and investors (e.g., [83]). However, no studies were found directly targeting the cognitive dissonance between intentions and behaviours, and the factors affecting this gap, even if 6% of the publications refer to behavioural change [84,85,86,87].
Satisfaction is a common construct in the literature, used to assess visitors’ experiences in the scope of marketing management on touristic destinations (e.g., [88,89,90,91]). Willingness-to-pay is used to analyse residents’ and visitors’ disposition to support the costs of the preservation of cultural and natural heritage, allowing to identify and prioritise values (e.g., [92,93,94,95,96]). The publications referring to segmentation studies aim at typifying profiles of tourists (e.g., [97,98,99,100]) or local communities [101] according to behavioural characteristics, such as motivation to visit heritage sites [101] or awareness of the World Heritage brand [102], for instance.

3.2.2. Actors and Type of Heritage

Considering the actors targeted in the studies, four main groups emerge: (1) tourists and visitors; (2) residents and local communities; (3) business owners, tourist operators, and staff; (4) decision-makers, public authorities, and government.
The majority (56%) of the publications focus on tourist perspectives, as presented in Table 2. In this group, one-third of the results are related to natural heritage, reflecting the predominance of studies in the field of pro-environmental behaviours, measuring, for instance, tourists’ perspectives on environment and their perceived responsibility (e.g., [103,104,105]). Additionally, in the scope of natural heritage, several studies analyse the effects of visitation in mental and physical well-being (e.g., [87,106,107]). A significant number of publications (15%) refer to heritage as a destination. In these cases, research is mostly related to factors affecting travel behaviours and intention to revisit, such as authenticity (e.g., [108,109]), visiting experience and satisfaction (e.g., [110,111]), or place attachment (e.g., [76]). For instance, Ramkinsson [112] analysed how perceived authenticity—a place’s cultural and natural characteristics that are interpreted as genuine—affects tourists’ intentions to consume cultural attractions. The author also relates the concepts of place attachment (emotional bonds emerging from interactions between people and settings of a place) and satisfaction (judgement of the perceived quality of a setting considering physical characteristics and settings) with tourists’ intentions towards heritage destinations.
Literature focused on residents’ behaviours, shown in Table 3, correspondents to almost one third (27%) of the analysed publications. It often refers to urban heritage, for instance, measuring factors affecting residents’ support for sustainable heritage tourism development (e.g., [81,161,162,163]). Centred on built heritage, Cai and Lu [164] determined aspects affecting residents’ social integration in historic blocks, while Judson et al. [165] analyse how residents balance energy needs and heritage significance in renovation processes. A significant number of publications about residents (13%) target intangible cultural heritage (ICH), such as the research of Su, Li, Wu and Yao [166] which develops a scale to measure inheritors’ perception of ICH value, or the research of Yuan, Lun, He et al. [167] which explores community perspectives on traditional ecological knowledge.
The publications referring to other stakeholders (from business owners to decision-makers) are presented in Table 4. Only 2% of the studies approach behaviour in the perspective of the decision-makers. No studies were found about practitioners and designers involved in the conservation of built heritage. In this group, natural heritage is the most frequent type. For example, the research of Chi, Zhang and Liu [193] analysed managers of tourism companies in a natural heritage site, to study their corporate social responsibility behaviours (the integration of environmental and social concerns in business operations), while Esparon, Gyuris and Stoeckl [194] analysed the impact of eco-certification on consumers’ choice of tourism operators. Several studies use students as the research population. While in some cases this choice reflects a convenience sampling, aimed at representing other actors, like potential visitors or the general community (e.g., [195]), in other cases this designation reflects the actual population, such as in the case of Rose, Rose and Merchant [196], that analyses the effect of heritage brands in students intentions to apply to a university, or the research of Forleo, Romagnoli and Palmieri [197] that recognises in students the potential to shape a system of values and beliefs for the future of sustainable development.

3.2.3. Theoretical Frameworks and Research Methods

Regarding the methodology, three types of information emerged: theoretical frameworks, data collection instruments, and data processing techniques. However, not always publications include a clear methodological framework, with the three types of information, with the theoretical framework missing in around 20% of the publications.
The diagram in Figure 2 presents the distribution of techniques according to the identified goals. Interviews are currently used in qualitative studies, aimed at eliciting respondents’ values and attitudes (e.g., [165,180,188,201]). Visitor sensing or tracking is the predominant technique in studies about spatial behaviour, focused on understanding crowd movements in museums or urban spaces (e.g., [114,139,140,147,149]). Experimental interventions are a common method when addressing behavioural change (e.g., [84,85,87]), but were also found in the context of willingness-to-pay studies [137] and business intentions [212]. The most common method for data collection in the survey, allowing to cover most of the identified aims, was a quantitative approach. The results are then commonly analysed with factor analysis (CFA/EFA), to reduce the number of variables to a few constructs, followed by structural equation modelling (SEM), to establish relationships between latent constructs, according to a pre-established hypothesis (e.g., [78,79,81,109,112,123,162,170]).
The analysis allows for identifying a great diversity of theoretical approaches. Despite that, three trends emerge that confirm the identified aims: (1) theory of planned behaviour and theory of reasoned action, aimed at measuring intentions and predict behaviours; (2) behavioural segmentation theory, used in studies aiming at clustering individuals according to behavioural profiles; (3) willingness to pay, aiming at measure customer priorities and value judgements towards a given service or product. Together, these theoretical frameworks represent a quarter of the analysed publications. Even if only 11% of the analysed publications refer directly to Ajzen’s theories of behavior [74,75,77,80,82,133,135,142,173,174,178,184,197,199], another 8% of the publications directly target behavioural intentions within a similar conceptual framework [76,78,79,83,109,112,115,127,141,150,196]. Together with the studies on behavioural change [84,85,86,87], and targeting decision-makers with a clear methodology [198], these records are further analysed in the next section.

3.3. Behavioral Intentions and Behavioural Change for Sustainable Heritage

To answer the research question, the next section presents an in-depth analysis of the publications based on the TRA and on the TPB, those focused on practitioners and decision-makers’ behaviour, and the publications that present the results of interventions designed for behavioural change. Considering the overlapping between the three topics, a total of 30 publications were analysed. Most of the literature found (68%) was published after 2017, and no results were found before 2010. Most of the results are from China and Australia, and together they represent half of the publications in the field (47%). The summary of the findings is presented in Table 5.

3.3.1. Sustainable Heritage Conservation

Sustainability is the journal with more publications on the topic (19%), followed by the J. Travel Res. (14%). Despite mostly being published under the topic of “social sciences” (57%), the majority of studies were published in journals of the tourism and hospitality field (62%), confirming the predominance of studies focusing on tourist behaviour and in the notion of heritage as a destination. In more than half of the publications (65%), the term “sustainability” is used in the context of sustainable tourism development and heritage destinations [74,77,80,83,133,135,173,174,199].
Sustainable heritage is not a clear concept, and, even if often mentioned, is rarely defined. Despite that, two main approaches emerge in the literature: one targeting environmental protection, and another one more focused on the social dimension, targeting community participation. Lwoga [184] and Yuan et al. [82] state that the engagement of local communities is essential to achieve a sustainable heritage management. While Lwoga [184] studies residents’ intention to conserve built heritage, Yuan et al. [82] focus on residents’ intentions to support tourist development. Additionally, Zhang et al. [173] contribute to improve inclusive decision practices, by analysing residents’ behaviours towards conflict resolution.
The environmental dimension of sustainability is addressed in 40% of the publications (e.g., [74,77,84,85,133]). Chow et al. [115] analyse tourists’ environmentally responsible behaviours in the context of natural heritage, aiming at contributing to reduce tourism negative environmental impacts. Moreover, Forleo et al. [197] and Goldberg et al. [178] focus on the protection of areas with environmental value and on their long-term preservation for future generations. The research of Buonicontri et al. [135] develops a scale to measure factors affecting the sustainable behaviour of heritage visitors, developing a set of indicators to assess pro-heritage behaviours (limiting visits to heritage sites, donations and willingness to pay for preservation, engaging in voluntary work, etc.) Additionally, the study of Wang et al. [83] considers environmental and heritage protection as two essential vectors of corporative socially responsible practices, in the context of sustainable tourism.
In both approaches to sustainability (social and environmental), the analysed literature focused on anthropogenic pressure, touristic pressure, and on the overexploitation of resources. Nian et al. [74] and Kim et al. refer to the need to avoid the overexploitation of tourism facilities and the uncontrolled touristic capacity, in order to protect the ecological environment from intensive land use and deterioration of biodiversity. For Zhang and Wang [80], sustainable tourism must avoid the negative impacts of mass tourism, while maximizing tourism’s benefits, by creating employment and increasing income of local communities. Furthermore, Buonicontri et al. [135] refer to sustainable tourism as a balance operation, between visitation, authenticity, and conservation.

3.3.2. Built Heritage

More than one third (38%) of the publications analysed refer to natural heritage, and 15% refer to heritage sites—including, but not specifying, museums, monuments, archaeological, historical, and natural sites. Only in 15% of the cases, studies focus on built heritage.
In the context of built heritage, some authors, i.e., Lwoga [184] and Zhang et al. [173], use the TPB to analyse the residents’ behavioural intentions in heritage buildings. Lwoga [183] elicits the tourism employment status as a moderator of conservation intentions, by imposing more perceived social pressure over respondents. It shows that raising awareness for heritage conservation has the potential to elevate positive attitudes and, at the same time, trigger social pressure to conserve, acting on two socio-psychological factors affecting residents’ engagement. Zhang et al. [173] identified common themes of conflict for residents, related to the protection of the traditional building (comfort and quality of life, allocation of maintenance duties, or protection regulations, for instance) and the sharing of tourism benefits (profit distribution or property rights, etc.) Like the study of Lwoga [184], it shows that favourable attitudes are the most important variable to determine residents’ intention to engage in conflict resolution within cultural heritage management.

3.3.3. Decision-Makers

The analysed studies focusing on tourists’ behaviour represent 60% of the sample, followed by residents’ behaviour (22%). No studies were found analysing the behaviours of practitioners involved in heritage conservation processes. Only the study of Ferretti and Grosso [198] targets directly the behaviour of decision-makers in the conservation of built heritage. It uses a stakeholder analysis methodology to develop a tool for decision-making that considers the weight of each stakeholder, developing a power–interest matrix and eliciting values and possible trade-offs. This research is not focused on analysing behavioural intentions or the dissonance between intentions and implementation and does not use the theoretical framework under analysis in the present research.

3.3.4. Research Methods

On average, the studies have a sample of 584 respondents, which allows for statistically significant analysis using structural equation modelling, with a recommended minimum of 200 respondents [82,112]. The studies of Wang et al. [83] and Mustafa [199], however, use the structural equation modelling despite not meeting this criterion, considering the provided samples as representative of the studied population. Multiple regression [75,150,174,196], t-tests [87,141], and one-way variance analysis—ANOVA [84,85] are also used to establish relations between the questionnaire variables and to confirm the hypothesis.
All the questionnaires use Likert scales to assess the level of agreement/disagreement of respondents with given statements. Some studies include a preparatory step with interviews [85,86,173,174] or preliminary surveys [75,196] to elicit modal accessible beliefs (conscious beliefs common to the majority of the population). All the studies that target behavioural change suggest two-step methodologies, with pre-/post-experimental design, surveying or interviewing the population before and after applying the intervention [84,85,86,87].

3.3.5. Psychological Constructs

The most common aim in the literature is to elicit other constructs that affect respondents’ intentions and behaviours, from perceptions to motivations. Intention is the most common psychological construct included in the analysis. This construct targets mainly 3 groups of behaviours: (1) pro-environmental or environmentally responsible behaviours (e.g., [78,85,115,135,178,197]); (2) pro-heritage or heritage protection behaviours (e.g., [74,141,184,199]); (3) travel behaviours, including loyalty and intention to revisit (e.g., [77,79,127,133,142]). The third group, on travel behaviours, represents around 50% of the analysed publications.
On average, each questionnaire relates four psychological constructs. Respondents’ perceptions are a recurrent factor, approached in 36% of the studies, in the context of perceived authenticity and outstanding value of heritage [74,75,133], perceived tourism impacts, and perceived benefits of visitation [82,87], for instance. Motivations (the reasons that pull people to perform certain behaviours, such as lifestyle, economic, social integration, etc. [75,80,83,133]), satisfaction (e.g.: [76,109,115,142,150]), and place attachment (e.g., [74,76,82,115,135] are also common constructs in the literature.

3.3.6. Interventions for Behavioural Change

The study conducted by Salvatierra and Walters [84] designed an intervention to assess the impact of media on travellers’ image perception and intentions about a destination. Results show that the public is increasingly aware of environmental sustainability practices, and of those that can affect image perception and intention to visit. This study also outlines previous knowledge and educational background of moderators of this relationship. Furthermore, Weiler et al. [87] used a pre-post experimental design methodology to analyse the effect of communication interventions to shift public perceptions. The results show an increased perception of the benefits of natural parks after exposed to persuasive communication in the short-term. The research of Wells et al. [85] applies a pre-/post-experimental intervention to measure changes in the perceived satisfaction of employees when introduced to a “sustainability toolkit” that allows them to determine their sustainability plan and priorities. The findings support that being exposed to information provided knowledge to employees and increased their awareness on environmental issues. The proxy measure of actual behaviour showed a reduction in energy consumption during the period of the intervention. The evaluation of the experiment [86] elaborates that realistic interventions are partial and context-tailored but confirms that educational mechanisms may tackle knowledge and belief gaps. It states, however, that the effects of social interventions tend to decline as time passes, and suggests monitoring, empowerment, and support as tools to guarantee long-lasting effects.

3.3.7. Practical Implications

At a theoretical level, the analysed publications contribute to establishing internal attitudes and motivations as a key factor for sustainable conservation behaviours [80,82,83,133,173]. Despite not focusing on instigating practitioners’ behavioural intentions and behavioural change for the sustainable conservation of the built heritage, the publications analysed provided several theoretical managerial contributions to the heritage field.
The research of Bergel and Brock [77] concluded that engagement contributes to more positive attitudes for tourists, and that the willingness to pay for more sustainable services is affected by affective components, resulting from feelings and emotional ties to destinations. Furthermore, Zhang and Wang [80] point out the emotional connection with the destination as one of the main factors determining tourists’ intentions to revisit. Both studies suggest that marketing strategies need to build affective connections to engage visitors and attract customers.
Place attachment, i.e., the affective relationships between individuals and specific places, also plays a role in residents’ intentions and behaviours. Yuan et al. [82] demonstrate that both cognitive and affective attitudes are determinant for residents’ support of tourism development. This proves the need for authorities “to enhance the relationship between residents and the city” [82], supporting the sense of identity through long-term continuity of residents, and respecting communities’ emotional bonds with tangible and intangible attributes.
The research of Goldberg et al. [178] shows that the sense of identity is also important for increasing the perceived individual responsibility, affecting the decision to take actions to protect the environment. As such, facilitating people’s connections to nature may have practical implications on conservation outcomes. The research of Nian et al. [74] found a positive intention to protect heritage when visitors recognise and emotionally connect to the attributes identified as outstanding universal value (OUV) in the World Heritage Site (WHS) listing, evidencing the need for participatory processes that recognise community values in the WHS evaluations. Ramkissoon and Uysal [75] proved that authenticity may have different meanings and connotations according to site and experience and that it mediates tourists’ choices.
Several authors point out the benefits of behavioural approaches to increase cooperation between stakeholders and to inform policies and strategies for sustainability [80,135,184]. According to Forleo et al. [197], the contribution of these approaches to identify the most valuable attributes for communities, can support managers to find synergies and reduce trade-offs. Furthermore, Zhang et al. [173] point out that knowledge of the particular behaviours associated with different groups of stakeholders contributes to better understand their roles in decision-making processes. This knowledge is fundamental to assist managers to plan more effectively for the maximization of the conservation response [112,178], since understanding the audience ensures that the information is conveyed and meets the desired goals [178].
The literature also suggests the meaningful role of education, and the potential of persuasive communication to raise levels of knowledge and awareness, inspiring positive attitudes and behavioural change [84,85,86,87,184,197]. The research of Gregory-Smith et al. [86] shows that educational mechanisms can tackle knowledge and belief gaps in organizational environments. Likewise, Forleo et al. [197] suggest that education can be determinant to increase awareness, attitudes, and preservation behaviours in natural areas. In the context of archaeological heritage, Mustafa [141] recommends education, and in particular behavioural education, to enhance responsible behaviours. Further, Lwoga [184] suggests that communicating conservation benefits and empowering communities with knowledge and skills, has the potential to elevate positive attitudes and thus increase conservation behaviours.

4. Discussion

The literature review corroborates claims for the existence of a performance gap between planning and implementation [177,205,213]. According to Shi et al. [213], because a building is a complex system, it is not possible to ensure performance in every aspect exactly as intended at the design stage. At the territorial planning level, Miralles i Garcia [205] points out profitability and land policies as some of the factors in the failure of the implementation of any plan. Further, other studies [214,215,216] have pointed out different challenges in built heritage conservation, such as insufficient knowledge and skills, that are consistent with low perceived behavioural control. The awareness of this gap between intended and actual performance contributed, in the building and construction field, to the continuous development of modelling and simulation techniques to improve the accuracy of predictions. In this context, the concept of behaviour is used to focus on one particular actor: the building. In almost one-third of the results, behaviour is used as a synonym of performance and used to refer to buildings’ structural characteristics or hygrothermal and thermal performance. Despite the variety of stakeholders involved in the complex processes of building conservation, no significant number of studies were found analysing their behaviours leading to the implementation (or not) of planned intentions. Occupants’ behaviour is an exception in the building and construction sector and it is often referred to by its impact on the energy performance of buildings [217,218,219,220,221,222]. However, the literature review points occupant behaviour as a factor—one of several things that influence the results, but not as the core of the detailed analysis.
It is in the tourism and hospitality field that most results relating socio-psychological constructs of behaviour and heritage sustainability can be found, predominantly in the perspective of residents and tourists. While no studies were found concerning practitioners and designers engaged in conservation processes, the research with residents and tourists evidences the potential of behavioural sciences to contribute to a better understanding of factors affecting intentions towards heritage conservation. In 1974, Ajzen theorised that knowledge about attitudes improves the prediction of behaviours, but intervening factors may attenuate this relation [25]. This is confirmed by the studies analysed in the literature review that evidence attitudes as a fundamental factor in the formation of intention [80,82,83,133,173], but also the role of norms and perceived control in this relation [184,199]. Most of the analysed publications aim at identifying and assessing factors affecting behaviours, such as place attachment, authenticity, perceptions, or motivations. The behaviours analysed are related to destination choice but also with pro-environmental and pro-heritage behaviours. The affective components of attitude—resulting from feelings and emotions, as opposed to cognitive attitudes based on knowledge and information—seem to play an important role in behaviours related to heritage conservation [76,77,80,112,178].
No studies were found addressing the cognitive dissonance between intentions and behaviours. This may explain the small percentage of studies using the TRA and the TPB as theoretical frameworks, the most common frameworks to tackle this issue in other fields [24,25,27,30]. In common with the previously identified literature addressing the inconsistency between intention and behaviour (Section 1.1), the publications presenting interventions for behavioural change used two-wave methodologies, with pre-/post-experimental designs. This approach allows for accurate measurement of two phenomena: inconsistency of intentions and behaviours [33,222]; and rate of implementation after the intervention [39,84,85,87]. While Sheeran and Webb [27] recommend implementation intentions as one of the main tools to increase intention realization, no studies were found in the heritage field about this topic. On the other hand, the role of training and education is found repeatedly in the literature on the heritage field: Gregory-Smith et al. [86] suggest that educational mechanisms may tackle knowledge and belief gaps; Weiler et al. [87] demonstrate that being exposed to information, through persuasive communication, increases the perception of the benefits of natural parks; Salvatierra and Walters [84] found knowledge and educational background as moderators of intention and image perception; Lwoga [184] suggests that empowering residents with knowledge about conservation benefits may increase positive attitudes and social pressure. This knowledge is essential for planners and decision-makers to find effective managerial solutions for sustainable conservation.

Future Research

In this review, evidence suggests the need for a new approach in the study of practitioners’ behaviours towards a sustainable conservation of the built heritage. Sustainable heritage is a multidimensional and subjective concept that varies across contexts. However, by looking at it from a behavioural perspective, it is evident that it has been approached more often in the scope of residents’ and tourists’ environmental behaviours. A gap was found in the study of the interrelation between intention and behaviour of practitioners involved in conservation processes.
From the results of this review, a future line of research has been developed, proposing to identify which psychological constructs (attitude, norm, perception of control) is more determinant to convert designers’ intentions into actual conservation practices. By understanding these factors, it should be possible to shed light on the reasons why sustainable conservation approaches are not more widely implemented in built heritage.
Drawing from Ajzen’s TPB [22,23], this approach has the goal of going beyond good intentions and proposes a behavioural intervention to tackle the issues found and contribute for the implementation of sustainable conservation behaviours. The diagram in Figure 3 shows the sequential steps of the purposed pre-/post-experimental methodology [26]: (1) identification of modal accessible beliefs; (2) measure of the existing intention–behaviour inconsistency; (3) design of the intervention according to the most influent psychological constructs; (4) measurement of the intention–behaviour inconsistency after the intervention.
The contribution of such an approach is to facilitate the identification of factors affecting the implementation of good practices for sustainable conservation, so that future research on policies and design tools can be directed towards the fundamental cognitions that hinder implementation. Decision-making includes conscious and unconscious processes. The effective change towards a more sustainable conservation of the built heritage depends on the unveiling of the underlying psychological processes.
One of the limitations of this research is that only one bibliographic database was used, which may have suppressed some relevant results. Further research can expand this study with other bibliographical search engines.

5. Conclusions

The literature review proved that a behavioural perspective on sustainable heritage is a very recent topic, even if the theoretical framework has been applied in other fields for decades. The results show that, in the construction sector, behaviour is mostly understood as performance, focusing on the building itself; occupants’ behaviour is mentioned as a factor that affects performance, but no significant studies were found about a deeper analysis of the socio-psychological factors affecting occupant behaviour in heritage buildings. This socio-psychological perspective has been mostly introduced in the heritage field by the domain of tourism and hospitality management.
The main goal of this research was to understand the contributions of the TPB to increase the implementation of good practices on sustainable conservation. No studies were found using the TPB or the TRA in the scope of practitioners’ behavioural change in the built heritage field. The existing literature does not allow to identify the main factors undermining the implementation of sustainable conservation practices in the built heritage. However, the research addressing other stakeholders involved in heritage management processes—such as tourists and residents—proves the potential of the theoretical framework for a better understanding of behaviours of the different stakeholders and to find managerial solutions for sustainable transitions This literature review demonstrates the novelty of utilizing behavioral approaches in sustainable heritage conservation. Furthermore, this review also allows for a clearer understanding of the more common trends adopted by pioneering researchers in the field, encouraging its development. Using the TPB as a theoretical framework to analyse practitioners’ intentions and behaviours is a unique and innovative line of research that may clarify the reasons of the lack of implementation of sustainable practices and open the path for effective behavioural change.

Author Contributions

All authors contributed to the conception and design of the research work. J.G. collected the data, performed the analysis, and draft the article. R.M., J.D.S., and A.P.R. revised the manuscript critically for important intellectual content and approved the version of the manuscript to be published. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology (FCT) in the scope of the Doctoral Program Eco-Construction and Rehabilitation (EcoCoRe), to the PhD scholarship with the reference PD/BD/127853/2016.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to acknowledge the support granted by the Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology (FCT), in the scope of the Doctoral Program Eco-Construction and Rehabilitation (EcoCoRe), to the PhD scholarship with the reference PD/BD/127853/2016, and the support of ISISE, from the UMinho, CERIS, from IST-UL, and of the Heritage & Architecture section, from AE-T-BK at TU Delft.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. UN Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development; United Nations: New York, NY, USA, 2015.
  2. Gonçalves, J.; Mateus, R.; Silvestre, J.D.; Roders, A.P. Contributions to a Revised Definition of Sustainable Conservation. In Proceedings of the Conference Heritage and the Sustainable Development Goals, Delft, The Netherlands, 26–28 November 2019. [Google Scholar]
  3. UNESCO. Recommendation on the Historic Urban Landscape; UNESCO: Paris, France, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  4. Zamperini, E.; Cinieri, V. Lifecycle Oriented Approach for Sustainable Preservation of Historical Built Heritage. In Proceedings of the Built Heritage 2013: Monitoring Conservation and Management, Milano, Italy, 18–20 November 2013; Politecnico di Milano: Milano, Italy, 2013; pp. 465–474. [Google Scholar]
  5. ICOMOS. The Wise Use of Heritage: Abstracts from the World Congress of the Conservation of Cultural Heritage during ICOMOS 12th General Assembly; ICOMOS: Mexico City, Mexico, 1999. [Google Scholar]
  6. ICOMOS. The Paris Declaration on Heritage as a Driver of Development; ICOMOS: Paris, France, 2011; pp. 1–6. [Google Scholar]
  7. UNESCO. The Hangzhou Declaration: Placing Culture at the Heart of Sustainable Development Policies; UNESCO: Hangzhou, China, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  8. ICOMOS. The Valletta Principles for the Safeguarding and Management of Historic Cities, Towns and Urban Areas; 9781509033294; ICOMOS: La Valletta, Malta, 2011; pp. 1–18. [Google Scholar]
  9. Fernandes, J.; Mateus, R.; Gervásio, H.; Silva, S.M.; Bragança, L. Passive strategies used in Southern Portugal vernacular rammed earth buildings and their influence in thermal performance. Renew. Energy 2019, 142, 345–363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. Gonçalves, J.; Mateus, R.; Ferreira, T. Continuing Tradition: Farms in the northeast region of Portugal. In Vernacular Architecture: Towards a Sustainable Future; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2014; pp. 363–368. [Google Scholar]
  11. Posani, M.; Veiga, M.D.R.; de Freitas, V.P. Towards resilience and sustainability for historic buildings: A review of envelope retrofit possibilities and a discussion on hygric compatibility of thermal insulations. Int. J. Archit. Herit. 2019, 13, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Pacheco-Torgal, F.; Jalali, S. Earth construction: Lessons from the past for future eco-efficient construction. Constr. Build. Mater. 2012, 29, 512–519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  13. Mendes, N.; Lourenço, P.B. Seismic assessment of masonry “Gaioleiro” buildings in Lisbon, Portugal. J. Earthq. Eng. 2009, 14, 80–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  14. Ortega, J.; Vasconcelos, G.; Rodrigues, H.; Correia, M.; Lourenço, P.B. Traditional earthquake resistant techniques for vernacular architecture and local seismic cultures: A literature review. J. Cult. Herit. 2017, 27, 181–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Havinga, L.; Colenbrander, B.; Schellen, H. Heritage significance and the identification of attributes to preserve in a sustainable refurbishment. J. Cult. Herit. 2019, 43, 282–293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Ornelas, C.; Miranda Guedes, J.; Sousa, F.; Breda-Vázquez, I. Supporting Residential Built Heritage Rehabilitation through an Integrated Assessment. Int. J. Archit. Herit. 2020, 14, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Pereira-Roders, A.R.; Post, J.M.; Erkelens, P.A. Re-Architecture: Reality or Utopia? In-House Publishing: Rotterdam, The Netherlands, 2008; pp. 2619–2626. [Google Scholar]
  18. Appleton, J.A.S. Reabilitação de Edifícios Antigos: Patologias e Tecnologias de Intervenção; Edições Orion: Lisboa, Portugal, 2003. [Google Scholar]
  19. Veldpaus, L.; Roders, A.R.P.; Colenbrander, B.J.F.; Veldpaus, L.; Roders, A.R.P.; Colenbrander, B.J.F. Urban Heritage: Putting the Past into the Future Urban Heritage: Putting the Past into the Future. Hist. Environ. Policy Pract. 2016, 7505, 2–18. [Google Scholar]
  20. Vandesande, A. Preventive Conservation Strategy for Built Heritage Aimed at Sustainable Management and Local Development. Ph.D. Thesis, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  21. Albert, M.-T.; Bandarin, F.; Roders, A.P. Going Beyond: Perceptions of Sustainability in Heritage Studies No. 2; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  22. Ajzen, I. From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behavior. In Action Control; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 1985; pp. 11–39. [Google Scholar]
  23. Ajzen, I. The theory of planned behaviour. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 1991, 50, 179–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Ajzen, I.; Czasch, C.; Flood, M.G. From intentions to behavior: Implementation intention, commitment, and conscientiousness. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 2009, 39, 1356–1372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Ajzen, I.; Fisbbein, M. Factors Influencing Intentions and the Intention-Behavior Relation. Human Relations 1974, 27, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Ajzen, I. Behavioral Interventions Based on the Theory of Planned Behavior. Res. Policy 2002, 2011, 1–6. [Google Scholar]
  27. Sheeran, P.; Webb, T.L. The Intention–Behavior Gap. Soc. Personal. Psychol. Compass 2016, 10, 503–518. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Ajzen, I.; Fishbein, M. The preditction of behavior from attitudinal and normative variables. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 1970, 6, 466–487. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Triandis, H.C. Values, attitudes, and interpersonal behavior. In Nebraska Symposium on Motivation; Page, H.H.M., Ed.; University of Nebraska Press: Lincoln, NE, USA, 1980; Volume 27, pp. 195–259. [Google Scholar]
  30. Sheeran, P. Intention—Behavior Relations: A Conceptual and Empirical Review European Review of Social Psychology. Eur. Rev. Soc. Psychol. 2002, 12, 37–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Shirokova, G.; Osiyevskyy, O.; Bogatyreva, K. Exploring the intention–behavior link in student entrepreneurship: Moderating effects of individual and environmental characteristics. Eur. Manag. J. 2016, 34, 386–399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Pieters, R.; Zeelenberg, M. On bad decisions and deciding badly: When intention-behavior inconsistency is regrettable. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 2005, 97, 18–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. van Hooft, E.A.J.; Born, M.P.; Taris, T.W.; van der Flier, H.; Blonk, R.W.B. Bridging the gap between intentions and behavior: Implementation intentions, action control, and procrastination. J. Vocat. Behav. 2005, 66, 238–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  34. Ajzen, I.; Fishbein, M. Predicting and Changing Behavior the Reasoned Action Approach; Taylor & Francis: Abingdon, UK, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  35. Budden, J.S.; Sagarin, B.J. Implementation Intentions, Occupational Stress, and the Exercise Intention-Behavior Relationship. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 2007, 12, 391–401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Chatzisarantis, N.L.D.; Hagger, M.S. Mindfulness and the intention- behavior relationship within the theory of planned behavior. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 2007, 33, 663–676. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. de Bruin, M.; Sheeran, P.; Kok, G.; Hiemstra, A.; Prins, J.M.; Hospers, H.J.; van Breukelen, G.J.P. Self-regulatory processes mediate the intention-behavior relation for adherence and exercise behaviors. Health Psychol. 2012, 31, 695–703. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Ghany, M.G.; Strader, D.B.; Thomas, D.L.; Seeff, L.B. Diagnosis, management, and treatment of hepatitis C: An update. Hepatology 2009, 49, 133–1374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Fennis, B.M.; Adriaanse, M.A.; Stroebe, W.; Pol, B. Bridging the intention-behavior gap: Inducing implementation intentions through persuasive appeals. J. Consum. Psychol. 2011, 21, 302–311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Paul, J.; Modi, A.; Patel, J. Predicting green product consumption using theory of planned behavior and reasoned action. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2016, 29, 123–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Wang, P.; Liu, Q.; Qi, Y. Factors influencing sustainable consumption behaviors: A survey of the rural residents in China. J. Clean. Prod. 2014, 63, 152–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Sang, P.; Yao, H.; Zhang, L.; Wang, S.; Wang, Y.; Liu, J. Influencing factors of consumers’ willingness to purchase green housing: A survey from Shandong Province, China. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2019, 22, 4267–4287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Du Toit, J.; Wagner, C.; Fletcher, L. Socio-spatial factors affecting household recycling in townhouses in Pretoria, South Africa. Sustainability 2017, 9, 2033. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  44. Ortiz, M.A.; Bluyssen, P.M. Proof-of-concept of a questionnaire to understand occupants’ comfort and energy behaviours: First results on home occupant archetypes. Build. Environ. 2018, 134, 47–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Boland, A.; Cherry, G.; Dickson, R. Doing a Systematic Review: A Student’s Guide; Sage: London, UK, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  46. Moher, D.; Liberati, A.; Tetzlaff, J.; Altman, D.G.; Group, P. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009, 6, e1000097. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  47. Ferreira, T.M.; Mendes, N.; Silva, R. Multiscale seismic vulnerability assessment and retrofit of existing masonry buildings. Buildings 2019, 9, 91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  48. Fumo, M.; Formisano, A.; Sibilio, G.; Violano, A. Energy and seismic recovering of ancient hamlets: The case of Baia e Latina. Sustainability 2018, 10, 2831. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  49. Mongelli, M.; Bellagamba, I.; Iannone, F.; Bracco, G. From 2D digital imaging to finite element analysis using the ENEAGRID high performance computing infrastructure for the preservation of historical masonry structures. Int. J. Mason. Res. Innov. 2018, 3, 324–347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  50. Valluzzi, M.R.; Calò, S.; Giacometti, G. Correlation of vulnerability and damage between artistic assets and structural elements: The DataBAES archive for the conservation planning of CH masonry buildings in seismic areas. Sustainability 2020, 12, 653. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  51. Barsocchi, P.; Bartoli, G.; Betti, M.; Girardi, M.; Mammolito, S.; Pellegrini, D.; Zini, G. Wireless Sensor Networks for Continuous Structural Health Monitoring of Historic Masonry Towers. Int. J. Archit. Herit. 2020, 14, 1–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Marzouk, M. Using 3D laser scanning to analyze heritage structures: The case study of egyptian palace. J. Civil. Eng. Manag. 2020, 26, 53–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Papa, E.; Taliercio, A. Creep modelling of masonry historic towers. In WIT Transactions on the Built Environment; WIT Press: Southampton, UK, 2003; Volume 66, pp. 131–140. [Google Scholar]
  54. Roselli, I.; Malena, M.; Mongelli, M.; Cavalagli, N.; Gioffrè, M.; De Canio, G.; de Felice, G. Health assessment and ambient vibration testing of the “Ponte delle Torri” of Spoleto during the 2016–2017 Central Italy seismic sequence. J. Civ. Struct. Health Monit. 2018, 8, 199–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Costa, C.; Arduin, D.; Rocha, F.; Velosa, A. Adobe Blocks in the Center of Portugal: Main Characteristics. Int. J. Archit. Herit. 2019, 13, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Freire, M.T.; Veiga, M.d.R.; Santos Silva, A.; Brito, J.d. Studies in ancient gypsum based plasters towards their repair: Physical and mechanical properties. Constr. Build. Mater. 2019, 202, 319–331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Matias, G.; Faria, P.; Torres, I. Lime mortars with ceramic wastes: Characterization of components and their influence on the mechanical behaviour. Constr. Build. Mater. 2014, 73, 523–534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Sáez-Pérez, M.P.; Durán-Suárez, J.A.; Brummer, M. Hemp concrete for the sustainable retrofit of the vernacular architectural heritage in the region of Senhaja Srair (Morocco). In Conserving Cultural Heritage; Taylor & Francis Group: London, UK, 2018; pp. 41–43. [Google Scholar]
  59. Yokoyama, M.; Gril, J.; Matsuo, M.; Yano, H.; Sugiyama, J.; Clair, B.; Kubodera, S.; Mistutani, T.; Sakamoto, M.; Ozaki, H.; et al. Mechanical characteristics of aged Hinoki wood from Japanese historical buildings. C. R. Phys. 2009, 10, 601–611. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  60. Balaguer, L.; Mileto, C.; Vegas López-Manzanares, F.; García-Soriano, L. Bioclimatic strategies of traditional earthen architecture. J. Cult. Herit. Manag. Sustain. Dev. 2019, 9, 227–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Hanie, O.; Nina, A.; Mohammad, R.B. A research on historical and cultural buildings in Iranian vernacular architecture. Archit. City Environ. 2011, VI, 37–57. [Google Scholar]
  62. Carranza, J.B.; Lanzarote, B.S.; Madrigal, L.O.; Francés, L.S. Strategies for energy retrofitting of vernacular architecture of Cabanyal-Canyamelar. In Vernacular Architecture: Towards a Sustainable Future; Mileto, C., Vegas, F., Garcia Soriano, L., Cristini, V., Eds.; Taylor & Francis Group: London, UK, 2014; pp. 135–141. [Google Scholar]
  63. D’Aprile, M.; Bicco, M.; Gambardella, C.; Gambardella, C. The energy-environmental behavior of the pre-industrial basic building: Learning approach and applications. In Less More Architecture Design Landscape; La Scuola di Pitagora: Napoli, Italy, 2012; Volume 16, pp. 430–439. [Google Scholar]
  64. Musso, S.F.; Franco, G. “Guidelines” for sustainable rehabilitation of the rural architecture. In Vernacular Architecture: Towards a Sustainable Future; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2014; pp. 531–536. [Google Scholar]
  65. Roberti, F.; Exner, D.; Troi, A. Energy Consumption and Indoor Comfort in Historic Refurbished and Non-Refurbished Buildings in South Tyrol: An Open Database. In Proceedings of the International conference on Smart and Sustainable Planning for Cities and Regions, Bolzano, Italy, 9–13 December 2018; Springer: Bolzano, Italy, 2018; pp. 49–63. [Google Scholar]
  66. Biseniece, E.; Žogla, G.; Kamenders, A.; Purviņš, R.; Kašs, K.; Vanaga, R.; Blumberga, A. Thermal performance of internally insulated historic brick building in cold climate: A long term case study. Energy Build. 2017, 152, 577–586. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Hamard, E.; Cazacliu, B.; Razakamanantsoa, A.; Morel, J.-C. Cob, a vernacular earth construction process in the context of modern sustainable building. Build. Environ. 2016, 106, 103–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Litti, G.; Khoshdel, S.; Audenaert, A.; Braet, J. Hygrothermal performance evaluation of traditional brick masonry in historic buildings. Energy Build. 2015, 105, 393–411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Sahin, C.D.; Coşkun, T.; Arsan, Z.D.; Gökçen Akkurt, G. Investigation of indoor microclimate of historic libraries for preventive conservation of manuscripts. Case Study: Tire Necip Paşa Library, İzmir-Turkey. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2017, 30, 66–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Clark, G.; Leclerc, M.; Parton, P.; Reepmeyer, C.; Grono, E.; Burley, D. Royal funerals, ritual stones and participatory networks in the maritime Tongan state. J. Anthropol. Archaeol. 2020, 57, 101115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Mutani, G.; Todeschi, V.; Kampf, J.; Coors, V.; Fitzky, M. Building energy consumption modeling at urban scale: Three case studies in Europe for residential buildings. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Telecommunications Energy Conference, Torino, Italy, 7–11 October 2018. [Google Scholar]
  72. Galvin, R.; Sunikka-Blank, M. Ten questions concerning sustainable domestic thermal retrofit policy research. Build. Environ. 2017, 118, 377–388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Goldberg, J.A.; Marshall, N.; Birtles, A.; Case, P.; Bohensky, E.; Curnock, M.; Gooch, M.; Parry-Husbands, H.; Pert, P.; Tobin, R. Climate change, the Great Barrier Reef and the response of Australians. Palgrave Commun. 2016, 2, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  74. Nian, S.; Zhang, H.H.; Mao, L.; Zhao, W.; Zhang, H.H.; Lu, Y.; Zhang, Y.; Xu, Y. How Outstanding Universal Value, service quality and place attachment influences tourist intention towardsworld heritage conservation: A case study of Mount Sanqingshan National Park, China. Sustainability 2019, 11, 3321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  75. Ramkissoon, H.; Uysal, M.S. The effects of perceived authenticity, information search behaviour, motivation and destination imagery on cultural behavioural intentions of tourists. Curr. Issues Tour. 2011, 14, 537–562. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Ramkissoon, H. Authenticity, satisfaction, and place attachment: A conceptual framework for cultural tourism in African island economies. Dev. South. Afr. 2015, 32, 292–302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Bergel, M.; Brock, C. Visitors’ loyalty and price perceptions: The role of customer engagement. Serv. Ind. J. 2019, 39, 575–589. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Kim, M.-S.; Thapa, B.; Kim, H. International Tourists’ Perceived Sustainability of Jeju Island, South Korea. Sustainability 2018, 10, 73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  79. Piramanayagam, S.; Rathore, S.; Seal, P.P. Destination image, visitor experience, and behavioural intention at heritage centre. Anatolia 2020, 31, 211–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Zhang, Y.; Wang, L. Influence of sustainable development by tourists’ place emotion: Analysis of the multiply mediating effect of attitude. Sustainability 2019, 11, 1384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  81. Megeirhi, H.A.; Woosnam, K.M.; Ribeiro, M.A.; Ramkissoon, H.; Denley, T.J. Employing a value-belief-norm framework to gauge Carthage residents’ intentions to support sustainable cultural heritage tourism. J. Sustain. Tour. 2020, 28, 1351–1370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Yuan, Q.; Song, H.J.; Chen, N.; Shang, W. Roles of tourism involvement and place attachment in determining residents’ attitudes toward industrial heritage tourism in a resource-exhausted city in China. Sustainability 2019, 11, 5151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  83. Wang, C.; Li, G.; Xu, H. Impact of Lifestyle-Oriented Motivation on Small Tourism Enterprises’ Social Responsibility and Performance. J. Travel Res. 2019, 58, 114–1160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  84. Salvatierra, J.; Walters, G. The impact of human-induced environmental destruction on destination image perception and travel behaviour: The case of Australia’s Great Barrier Reef. J. Vacat. Mark. 2015, 23, 73–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Wells, V.K.; Manika, D.; Gregory-Smith, D.; Taheri, B.; McCowlen, C. Heritage tourism, CSR and the role of employee environmental behaviour. Tour. Manag. 2015, 48, 399–413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  86. Gregory-Smith, D.; Wells, V.K.; Manika, D.; McElroy, D.J. An environmental social marketing intervention in cultural heritage tourism: A realist evaluation. J. Sustain. Tour. 2017, 25, 1042–1059. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Weiler, B.; Moyle, B.D.; Wolf, I.D.; de Bie, K.; Torland, M. Assessing the Efficacy of Communication Interventions for Shifting Public Perceptions of Park Benefits. J. Travel Res. 2017, 56, 468–481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Lee, S.; Phau, I. Young tourists’ perceptions of authenticity, perceived value and satisfaction: The case of Little India, Singapore. Young Consum. 2018, 19, 70–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Martin, J.C.; Marrero-Rodríguez, J.R.; Moreira, P.; Roman, C.; Santana, A. How access transport mode to a World Heritage City affects visitors’ experienced quality. Tour. Econ. 2016, 22, 207–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Valentina, V.; Marius-Răzvan, S.; Login, I.-A.; Anca, C. Changes in cultural heritage consumption model: Challenges and Limits. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2015, 188, 42–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  91. Muñoz-Fernández, G.A.; López-Guzmán, T.; López Molina, D.; Pérez Gálvez, J.C. Heritage tourism in the Andes: The case of Cuenca, Ecuador. Anatolia 2018, 29, 326–336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Cong, L.; Zhang, Y.; Su, C.-H.J.; Chen, M.-H.; Wang, J. Understanding Tourists’ Willingness-to-Pay for Rural Landscape Improvement and Preference Heterogeneity. Sustainability 2019, 11, 7001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  93. Dragouni, M.; Fouseki, K. Drivers of community participation in heritage tourism planning: An empirical investigation. J. Herit. Tour. 2018, 13, 237–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Farr, M.; Stoeckl, N.; Esparon, M.; Larson, S.; Jarvis, D. The importance of water clarity to Great Barrier Reef tourists and their willingness to pay to improve it. Tour. Econ. 2016, 22, 331–352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Jin, M.; Juan, Y.; Choi, Y.; Lee, C.-K. Estimating the preservation value of world heritage site using contingent valuation method: The case of the Li River, China. Sustainability 2019, 11, 1100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  96. Jurado-Rivas, C.; Sánchez-Rivero, M. Willingness to Pay for More Sustainable Tourism Destinations in World Heritage Cities: The Case of Caceres, Spain. Sustainability 2019, 11, 5880. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  97. Brida, J.G.; Meleddu, M.; Pulina, M. Understanding museum visitors’ experience: A comparative study. J. Cult. Herit. Manag. Sustain. Dev. 2016, 6, 47–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Di Pietro, L.; Mugion, R.G.; Mattia, G.; Renzi, M.F. Cultural heritage and consumer behaviour: A survey on Italian cultural visitors. J. Cult. Herit. Manag. Sustain. Dev. 2015, 5, 61–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Gálvez, J.C.P.; Granda, M.J.; López-Guzmán, T.; Coronel, J.R. Local gastronomy, culture and tourism sustainable cities: The behavior of the American tourist. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2017, 32, 604–612. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Kastenholz, E.; Eusébio, C.; Carneiro, M.J. Segmenting the rural tourist market by sustainable travel behaviour: Insights from village visitors in Portugal. J. Dest. Mark. Manag. 2018, 10, 132–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Menor-Campos, A.; Pérez-Gálvez, J.C.; Hidalgo-Fernández, A.; López-Guzmán, T. Foreign Tourists in World Heritage Sites: A Motivation-Based Segmentation. Sustainability 2020, 12, 3263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  102. Adie, B.A.; Hall, C.M.; Prayag, G. World Heritage as a placebo brand: A comparative analysis of three sites and marketing implications. J. Sustain. Tour. 2018, 26, 399–415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Gao, J.; Zhang, C.; Huang, Z. Chinese tourists’ views of nature and natural landscape interpretation: A generational perspective. J. Sustain. Tour. 2018, 26, 668–684. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Gao, J.; Huang, Z.; Zhang, C. Tourists’ perceptions of responsibility: An application of norm-activation theory. J. Sustain. Tour. 2017, 25, 276–291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Wolf, I.D.; Stricker, H.K.; Hagenloh, G. Outcome-focused national park experience management: Transforming participants, promoting social well-being, and fostering place attachment. J. Sustain. Tour. 2015, 23, 358–381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Barton, J.; Hine, R.; Pretty, J. The health benefits of walking in greenspaces of high natural and heritage value. J. Integr. Environ. Sci. 2009, 6, 261–278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Huang, K.; Pearce, P.L.; Wu, M.-Y.; Wang, X.-Z. Tourists and Buddhist heritage sites: An integrative analysis of visitors’ experience and happiness through positive psychology constructs. Tour. Stud. 2019, 19, 549–568. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Lin, Y.C.; Liu, Y.C. Deconstructing the internal structure of perceived authenticity for heritage tourism. J. Sustain. Tour. 2018, 26, 2134–2152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Rani, Z.M.; Othman, N.; Ahmad, K.N. The Role of Perceived Authenticity as the Determinant to Revisit Heritage Tourism Destination in Penang. In Theory and Practice in Hospitality and Tourism Research, Penang, Malaysia, 2014; CRC Press: Penang, Malaysia, 2014; p. 293. [Google Scholar]
  110. Kunasegaran, M.; Rasoolimanesh, S.M.; Khan, S.K. Experiences of international tourists with healthy signature foods: A case study in Malacca. Br. Food J. 2019, 122, 1869–1882. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Romão, J.; Neuts, B.; Nijkamp, P.; Shikida, A. Determinants of trip choice, satisfaction and loyalty in an eco-tourism destination: A modelling study on the Shiretoko Peninsula, Japan. Ecol. Econ. 2014, 107, 195–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Ramkissoon, H.; Uysal, M. Testing the role of authenticity in cultural tourism consumption: A case of Mauritius. Tour. Anal. 2010, 15, 571–583. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Bae, S.; Jung, T.H.; Moorhouse, N.; Suh, M.; Kwon, O. The Influence of Mixed Reality on Satisfaction and Brand Loyalty in Cultural Heritage Attractions: A Brand Equity Perspective. Sustainability 2020, 12, 2956. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  114. Cappa, F.; Rosso, F.; Capaldo, A. Visitor-Sensing: Involving the Crowd in Cultural Heritage Organizations. Sustainability 2020, 12, 1445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  115. Chow, A.S.Y.; Ma, A.T.H.; Wong, G.K.L.; Lam, T.W.L.; Cheung, L.T.O. The impacts of place attachment on environmentally responsible behavioral intention and satisfaction of Chinese nature-based tourists. Sustainability 2019, 11, 5585. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  116. Curnock, M.I.; Marshall, N.A.; Thiault, L.; Heron, S.F.; Hoey, J.; Williams, G.; Taylor, B.; Pert, P.L.; Goldberg, J.A. Shifts in tourists’ sentiments and climate risk perceptions following mass coral bleaching of the Great Barrier Reef. Nat. Clim. Chang. 2019, 9, 535–541. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Khairi, N.D.; Ismail, H.N.; Syed Jaafar, S.M.R. Tourist behaviour through consumption in Melaka world heritage site. Curr. Issues Tour. 2019, 22, 582–600. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Medina-Viruel, M.J.; López-Guzmán, T.; Gálvez, J.C.P.; Jara-Alba, C. Emotional perception and tourist satisfaction in world heritage cities: The Renaissance monumental site of úbeda and baeza, Spain. J. Outdoor Recreat. Tour. 2019, 27, 100226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Weber, M.; Groulx, M.; Lemieux, C.J.; Scott, D.; Dawson, J. Balancing the dual mandate of conservation and visitor use at a Canadian world heritage site in an era of rapid climate change. J. Sustain. Tour. 2019, 27, 1318–1337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Woyo, E.; Woyo, E. Towards the development of cultural tourism as an alternative for tourism growth in Northern Zimbabwe. J. Cult. Herit. Manag. Sustain. Dev. 2019, 9, 74–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Wu, D.; Shen, C.; Wang, E.; Hou, Y.; Yang, J. Impact of the perceived authenticity of heritage sites on subjective well-being: A study of the mediating role of place attachment and satisfaction. Sustainability 2019, 11, 6148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  122. Scuttari, A.; Orsi, F.; Bassani, R. Assessing the tourism-traffic paradox in mountain destinations. A stated preference survey on the Dolomites’ passes (Italy). J. Sustain. Tour. 2019, 27, 241–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Alazaizeh, M.M.; Jamaliah, M.M.; Mgonja, J.T.; Ababneh, A. Tour guide performance and sustainable visitor behavior at cultural heritage sites. J. Sustain. Tour. 2019, 27, 1708–1724. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Song, H.; Kim, H. Value-based profiles of visitors to a world heritage site: The case of Suwon Hwaseong fortress (in South Korea). Sustainability 2019, 11, 132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  125. Borges, A.P.; Vieira, E.P.; Gomes, S. The Expenditure Behaviour during the Trip and the Impact of the Intangible and Tangible Factors: The Case of the City of Porto. In 32nd International Business Information Management Association, Sevilla, Spain, 2018; IBIMA: Sevilla, Spain, 2018; pp. 5948–5957. [Google Scholar]
  126. Cheng, T.E.; Wang, J.; Cao, M.M.; Zhang, D.J.; Bai, H.X. The relationships among interpretive service quality, satisfaction, place attachment and environmentally responsible behavior at the cultural heritage sites in Xi’an, China. Appl. Ecol. Environ. Res. 2018, 16, 6317–6339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. Mehmood, S.; Liang, C.; Gu, D. Heritage Image and Attitudes toward a Heritage Site: Do They Really Mediate the Relationship between User-Generated Content and Travel Intentions toward a Heritage Site? Sustainability 2018, 10, 4403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  128. Prayag, G.; Suntikul, W.; Agyeiwaah, E. Domestic tourists to Elmina Castle, Ghana: Motivation, tourism impacts, place attachment, and satisfaction. J. Sustain. Tour. 2018, 26, 2053–2070. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. Martinez-Garcia, E.; Raya-Vilchez, J.M.; Galí, N. Factors Affecting Time Spent Visiting Heritage City Areas. Sustainability 2018, 10, 1824. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  130. Weaver, D.; Tang, C.; Shi, F.; Huang, M.-F.; Burns, K.; Sheng, A. Dark tourism, emotions, and postexperience visitor effects in a sensitive geopolitical context: A Chinese case study. J. Travel Res. 2018, 57, 824–838. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  131. Wang, B.; Yang, Z.; Han, F.; Shi, H. Car tourism in Xinjiang: The mediation effect of perceived value and tourist satisfaction on the relationship between destination image and loyalty. Sustainability 2017, 9, 22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  132. Su, L.; Hsu, M.K.; Swanson, S. The effect of tourist relationship perception on destination loyalty at a world heritage site in China: The mediating role of overall destination satisfaction and trust. J. Hosp. Tour. Res. 2017, 41, 180–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  133. Soliman, M.S.A.; Abou-Shouk, M.A. Predicting Behavioural Intention of International Tourists Towards Geotours. Geoheritage 2017, 9, 505–517. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  134. Trivedi, A. Towards Sustainable Tourism in Thailand: Example of Tourists’ Implementation at Heritage Destinations. In Proceedings of the 3rd RSEP International Conference on Social Issues and Economic Studies, Vienna, Austria, 5–7 April 2017; pp. 5–7. [Google Scholar]
  135. Buonincontri, P.; Marasco, A.; Ramkissoon, H. Visitors’ experience, place attachment and sustainable behaviour at cultural heritage sites: A conceptual framework. Sustainability 2017, 9, 1112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  136. Brida, J.G.; Dalle Nogare, C.; Scuderi, R. Frequency of museum attendance: Motivation matters. J. Cult. Econ. 2016, 40, 261–283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  137. Getzner, M.; Färber, B.; Yamu, C. 2D Versus 3D: The relevance of the mode of presentation for the economic valuation of an Alpine landscape. Sustainability 2016, 8, 591. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  138. Lee, S.; Phau, I.; Hughes, M.; Li, Y.F.; Quintal, V. Heritage tourism in Singapore Chinatown: A perceived value approach to authenticity and satisfaction. J. Travel Tour. Mark. 2016, 33, 981–998. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  139. Sabou, G.C.; Nistoreanu, P.; Maiorescu, I. Modelling urban economic development through heritage touristm spatial analysis. In Proceedings of the BASIQ International Conference: New Trends in Sustainable Business and Consumption, Kontantz, Germany, 2–3 June 2016. [Google Scholar]
  140. Khairi, N.D.M.; Ismail, H.N. Acknowledging the Tourist Spatial Behavior for Space Management in Urban Heritage Destination. Int. J. Sustain. Built Environ. 2015, 2, 317–323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  141. Mustafa, M.H. Gender and behavior in archaeological sites. Int. J. Hosp. Tour. Adm. 2015, 16, 183–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  142. Huang, S.; Weiler, B.; Assaker, G. Effects of Interpretive Guiding Outcomes on Tourist Satisfaction and Behavioral Intention. J. Travel Res. 2015, 54, 344–358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  143. Toha, M.A.M.; Ismail, H.N. A heritage tourism and tourist flow pattern: A perspective on traditional versus modern technologies in tracking the tourists. Int. J. Sustain. Built Environ. 2015, 2, 85–92. [Google Scholar]
  144. Ballantyne, R.; Hughes, K.; Ding, P.; Liu, D. Chinese and international visitor perceptions of interpretation at Beijing built heritage sites. J. Sustain. Tour. 2014, 22, 705–725. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  145. Jones, T.; Yamamoto, K. Comparing the Awareness of a New Donation System and Willingness to Pay of Japanese and International Climbers at Mount Fuji. In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Tourism Research (4ICTR), EDP Sciences: Sabah, Malaysia, 9–11 December 2014; p. 1090. [Google Scholar]
  146. King, L.M.; Halpenny, E.A. Communicating the World Heritage brand: Visitor awareness of UNESCO’s World Heritage symbol and the implications for sites, stakeholders and sustainable management. J. Sustain. Tour. 2014, 22, 768–786. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  147. Bernadó, O.; Bigorra, A.; Pérez, Y.; Russo, A.P.; Clave, S.A. Analysis of tourist behavior based on tracking data collected by GPS. In Geographic Information Systems: Concepts, Methodologies, Tools, and Applications; IGI Global: Hershey, PA, USA, 2013; pp. 1100–1119. [Google Scholar]
  148. Li, J.H.; Sia, R.; Zhu, Y.B. Research on Cultural Heritage Tourism Development Based on Tourist Perception: Taking Beijing Olympic Park of China as an Example. Appl. Mech. Mater. 2013, 361–363, 21–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  149. Wallace, A. Presenting Pompeii: Steps towards reconciling conservation and tourism at an ancient site. Papers Inst. Archaeol. 2013, 22, 115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  150. Ramkissoon, H.; Smith, L.D.G.; Weiler, B. Relationships between place attachment, place satisfaction and pro-environmental behaviour in an Australian national park. J. Sustain. Tour. 2013, 21, 434–457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  151. Boukas, N. “Young faces in old places”: Perceptions of young cultural visitors for the archaeological site of Delphi. J. Cult. Herit. Manag. Sustain. Dev. 2012, 2, 164–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  152. Yang, M.; Hens, L.; De Wulf, R.; Ou, X. Measuring tourist’s water footprint in a mountain destination of Northwest Yunnan, China. J. Mt. Sci. 2011, 8, 682. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  153. Boley, B.B.; Nickerson, N.P.; Bosak, K. Measuring geotourism: Developing and testing the geotraveler tendency scale (GTS). J. Travel Res. 2011, 50, 567–578. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  154. McNamara, K.E.; Prideaux, B. Reading, learning and enacting: Interpretation at visitor sites in the Wet Tropics rainforest of Australia. Environ. Educ. Res. 2010, 16, 173–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  155. Weiler, B.; Ham, S.H. Development of a research instrument for evaluating the visitor outcomes of face-to-face interpretation. Visit. Stud. 2010, 13, 187–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  156. McKercher, B.; Weber, K.; Du Cros, H. Rationalising inappropriate behaviour at contested sites. J. Sustain. Tour. 2008, 16, 369–385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  157. Cooper, M. Backpackers to Fraser Island: Why Is Ecotourism a Neglected Aspect aof Their Experience? J. Qual. Assur. Hosp. Tour. 2000, 1, 45–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  158. Fellenius, K.; Williams, P.W.; Hood, T. Emerging Coastal Tourism Potential in British Columbia: The Fisheries Tourism Network and the German Market; World Congress on Coastal and Marine Tourism: Vancouver, BC, Canada, 1999. [Google Scholar]
  159. Suryawardani, I.G.A.O.; Wiranatha, A.S.; Petr, C. Factors affecting willingness of foreign tourists to spend money in benefiting local people. In Development of Tourism and the Hospitality Industry in Southeast Asia; Springer: Singapore, 2016; pp. 13–36. [Google Scholar]
  160. Hidalgo-Fernández, A.; Hernández-Rojas, R.; Jimber del Río, J.A.; Casas-Rosal, J.C. Tourist Motivations and Satisfaction in the Archaeological Ensemble of Madinat Al-Zahra. Sustainability 2019, 11, 1380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  161. Chong, K.L. The side effects of mass tourism: The voices of Bali islanders. Asia Pacific J. Tour. Res. 2020, 25, 157–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  162. Gannon, M.; Rasoolimanesh, S.M.; Taheri, B. Assessing the mediating role of residents’ perceptions toward tourism development. J. Travel Res. 2020, 59, 1–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  163. Zheng, D.; Liang, Z.; Ritchie, B.W. Residents’ social dilemma in sustainable heritage tourism: The role of social emotion, efficacy beliefs and temporal concerns. J. Sustain. Tour. 2020, 28, 1–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  164. Cai, Z.; Lu, M. Social Integration Measurement of Inhabitants in Historic Blocks: The Case of Harbin, China. Sustainability 2018, 10, 2825. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  165. Judson, E.P.; Iyer-Raniga, U.; Horne, R. Greening heritage housing: Understanding homeowners’ renovation practices in Australia. J. Hous. Built Environ. 2014, 29, 61–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  166. Su, X.; Li, X.; Wu, Y.; Yao, L. How Is Intangible Cultural Heritage Valued in the Eyes of Inheritors? Scale Development and Validation. J. Hosp. Tour. Res. 2020, 44, 806–834. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  167. Yuan, Z.; Lun, F.; He, L.; Cao, Z.; Min, Q.; Bai, Y.; Liu, M.; Cheng, S.; Li, W.; Fuller, A.M. Exploring the state of retention of traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) in a Hani rice terrace village, Southwest China. Sustainability 2014, 6, 4497–4513. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  168. Qiu, Q.; Zheng, T.; Xiang, Z.; Zhang, M. Visiting Intangible Cultural Heritage Tourism Sites: From Value Cognition to Attitude and Intention. Sustainability 2020, 12, 132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  169. Olya, H.G.T.; Shahmirzdi, E.K.; Alipour, H. Pro-tourism and anti-tourism community groups at a world heritage site in Turkey. Curr. Issues Tour. 2019, 22, 763–785. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  170. Prados-Peña, M.B.; Gutiérrez-Carrillo, M.L.; Barrio-García, D. The development of loyalty to earthen defensive heritage as a key factor in sustainable preventive conservation. Sustainability 2019, 11, 3516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  171. Davoodi, T.; Dağlı, U.U. Exploring the Determinants of Residential Satisfaction in Historic Urban Quarters: Towards Sustainability of the Walled City Famagusta, North Cyprus. Sustainability 2019, 11, 6261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  172. Gursoy, D.; Zhang, C.; Chi, O.H. Determinants of locals’ heritage resource protection and conservation responsibility behaviors. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 2019, 31, 2339–2357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  173. Zhang, Y.; Lee, T.J.; Xiong, Y. A conflict resolution model for sustainable heritage tourism. Int. J. Tour. Res. 2019, 21, 478–492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  174. Zhang, Y.; Xiao, X.; Zheng, C.; Xue, L.; Guo, Y.; Wu, Q. Is tourism participation in protected areas the best livelihood strategy from the perspective of community development and environmental protection? J. Sustain. Tour. 2019, 28, 587–605. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  175. Chen, Y.; Yang, J. The Chinese Socio-Cultural Sustainability Approach: The Impact of Conservation Planning on Local Population and Residential Mobility. Sustainability 2018, 10, 4195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  176. López, M.F.B.; Virto, N.R.; Manzano, J.A.; Miranda, J.G.-M. Residents’ attitude as determinant of tourism sustainability: The case of Trujillo. J. Hosp. Tour. Manag. 2018, 35, 36–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  177. Yasin, M.N.B.; Abdullah, A.H.B.; Ibrahim, M.H.B.W.; Khalid, H.B.A.; Wahab, N.S.N.B. A Study of Potential Retroffiting Existing Sultan Ibrahim Heritage Building to Green Building. Adv. Sci. Lett. 2018, 24, 3213–3216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  178. Goldberg, J.A.; Marshall, N.A.; Birtles, A.; Case, P.; Curnock, M.I.; Gurney, G.G. On the relationship between attitudes and environmental behaviors of key Great Barrier Reef user groups. Ecol. Soc. 2018, 23, 19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  179. Domic, D.; Boukas, N. Identifying Croatian museums’ indigenous visitors in a post-war era: Perceptual examinations of one’s own heritage. J. Tour. Cult. Chang. 2017, 15, 229–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  180. Wang, W.; Zhang, Y.; Han, J.; Liang, P. Developing teenagers’ role consciousness as “world heritage guardians”. J. Cult. Herit. Manag. Sustain. Dev. 2017, 7, 179–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  181. Esariti, L.; Yuliastuti, N.; Ratih, N.K. Riverine settlement adaptation characteristic in Mentaya River, East Kotawaringin Regency, Kalimantan Province. In Proceedings of the 2nd Geoplanning—International Conference on Geomatics and Planning, Surakarta, Indonesia, 9–10 August 2017; pp. 1–9. [Google Scholar]
  182. Rodzi, N.I.M.; Zaki, S.A.; Subli, S.M.H.S. Influence of Social Behaviors toward Cultural Heritage Sustainability in World Heritage Site, Melaka. Environ. Behav. 2016, 1, 217–225. [Google Scholar]
  183. Basarić, V.; Vujičić, A.; Simić, J.M.; Bogdanović, V.; Saulić, N. Gender and age differences in the travel behavior–a Novi Sad case study. Transp. Res. Procedia 2016, 14, 4324–4333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  184. Lwoga, N.B. Tourism employment and local residents’ engagement in the conservation of the built heritage in Zanzibar Stone Town in Tanzania. Wit Trans. Ecol. Environ. 2016, 201, 43–55. [Google Scholar]
  185. May-Chiun, L.; Peter Songanc, V.N. Rural tourism destination competitiveness: A study on Annah Rais Longhouse Homestay, Sarawak. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2014, 144, 35–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  186. Bosman, G.; Whitfield, C. Perceptions of vernacular architecture. In Vernacular Architecture: Towards a Sustainable Future; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2014; pp. 177–182. [Google Scholar]
  187. Omar, S.I.; Muhibudin, M.; Yussof, I.; Sukiman, M.F.; Mohamed, B. George Town, Penang as a world heritage site: The stakeholders’ perceptions. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2013, 91, 88–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  188. Yunus, R.M.; Karim, S.A.; Samadi, Z. Gateway to Sustainable National Park. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2013, 85, 296–307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  189. Ma, Y.W.; Zhao, Y.T.; Gong, H.D. Community residents’ eco-environment protection awareness in the Jiajin Mountains Giant Panda Sanctuary. Adv. Mat. Res. 2013, 610–613, 3257–3262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  190. Ryan, C.; Chaozhi, Z.; Zeng, D. The impacts of tourism at a UNESCO heritage site in China–a need for a meta-narrative? The case of the Kaiping Diaolou. J. Sustain. Tour. 2011, 19, 747–765. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  191. Nicholas, L.N.; Thapa, B.; Ko, Y.J. Residents’perspectives of a world heritage site: The Pitons Management Area, St. Lucia. Ann. Tour. Res. 2009, 36, 390–412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  192. Senaratne, A.; Abeygunawardena, P.; Jayatilake, W. Changing role of non-timber forest products (NTFP) in rural household economy: The case of Sinharaja World Heritage site in Sri Lanka. Environ. Manag. 2003, 32, 559–571. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  193. Chi, C.G.-q.; Zhang, C.; Liu, Y. Determinants of corporate social responsibility (CSR) attitudes: Perspective of travel and tourism managers at world heritage sites. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 2019, 31, 2253–2269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  194. Esparon, M.; Gyuris, E.; Stoeckl, N. Does ECO certification deliver benefits? An empirical investigation of visitors’ perceptions of the importance of ECO certification’s attributes and of operators’ performance. J. Sustain. Tour. 2014, 22, 148–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  195. Choi, A.S.; Lee, C.-K.; Tanaka, K.; Xu, H. Value spillovers from the Korean DMZ areas and social desirability. J. Behav. Exp. Econ. 2018, 75, 95–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  196. Rose, M.; Rose, G.M.; Merchant, A. Is old gold? How heritage “sells” the university to prospective students: The impact of a measure of brand heritage on attitudes toward the university. J. Advert. Res. 2017, 57, 335–351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  197. Forleo, M.B.; Romagnoli, L.; Palmieri, N. Environmental values and willingness to pay for a protected area: A segmentation of Italian university students. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. World Ecol. 2019, 26, 45–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  198. Ferretti, V.; Grosso, R. Designing successful urban regeneration strategies through a behavioral decision aiding approach. Cities 2019, 95, 102386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  199. Mustafa, M.H. Tour guides and the protection of archaeological sites: A case from Jordan. Anatolia 2019, 30, 586–600. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  200. Zhang, L.; Zhang, J. Perception of small tourism enterprises in Lao PDR regarding social sustainability under the influence of social network. Tour. Manag. 2018, 69, 109–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  201. Väisänen, H.-M.; Törn-Laapio, A. Place Identity: Sustainability Performance Relationship among Rural Tourism Entrepreneurs; International Conference on Tourism Research, Academic Conferences and Publishing International Ltd.: Jyväskylä, Finland, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  202. McCamley, C.; Gilmore, A. Aggravated fragmentation: A case study of SME behaviour in two emerging heritage tourism regions. Tour. Manag. 2017, 60, 81–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  203. Abdulla, K.M.A.; Abdelmonem, M.G.; Selim, G. Walkability in Historic Urban Spaces: Testing the Safety and Security in Martyrs’ Square in Tripoli. Archnet-Ijar 2017, 11, 163–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  204. Gribaudo, M.; Iacono, M.; Levis, A.H. An IoT-based monitoring approach for cultural heritage sites: The Matera case. Concurr. Comput. 2017, 29, e4153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  205. Miralles i Garcia, J.L. Environ. Manage. of peri-urban natural resources: L’Horta de Valencia case study. Ecosyst. Sustain. Dev. X 2015, 1, 99–110. [Google Scholar]
  206. Çetinkaya, M.Y.; Zafer, O. Sustainable valorization of cultural heritage via tour guides: Turkish case of Ephesus ancient city. PASOS Revista de Tur. y Patrim. Cult. 2015, 13, 1401–1412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  207. Gheorghe, G.; Nistoreanu, B.G.; Filip, A. Traditional products–vectors of sustainable development on the regional and national markets. Amfiteatru Econ. 2013, 15, 6459–6658. [Google Scholar]
  208. Hall, C.M. Why forage when you don’t have to? Personal and cultural meaning in recreational foraging: A New Zealand study. J. Herit. Tour. 2013, 8, 224–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  209. Santos, T.; Mendes, R.N.; Rodrigues, A.M.; Freire, S. Treasure Hunting in the 21st century: A Decade of Geocaching in Portugal. In Proceedings of the 6th European Conference on Information Management and Evaluation, Cork, Ireland, 13–14 September 2012; pp. 273–281. [Google Scholar]
  210. Wiedmann, K.-P.; Hennigs, N.; Schmidt, S.; Wuestefeld, T. Drivers and outcomes of brand heritage: consumers’ perception of heritage brands in the automotive industry. J. Mark. Theory Pract. 2011, 19, 205–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  211. Thomas, S.; Miller, C.; Thomas, B.; Tunstall, R.; Siggins, N. Mastering intrapreneurial behaviour for sustained socioeconomic development: A public service analysis of the south-east Wales heritage tourism attractions sector. Int. J. Entrep. Innov. 2007, 8, 75–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  212. Marchegiani, L. From Mecenatism to crowdfunding: Engagement and identification in cultural-creative projects. J. Herit. Tour. 2018, 13, 143–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  213. Shi, X.; Si, B.; Zhao, J.; Tian, Z.; Wang, C.; Jin, X.; Zhou, X. Magnitude, causes, and solutions of the performance gap of buildings: A review. Sustainability 2019, 11, 937. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  214. Perovic, M.; Coffey, V.; Kajewski, S.; Madan, A. Unravelling heritage challenges: Three case studies. J. Cult. Herit. Manag. Sustain. Dev. 2016, 6, 330–344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  215. Roy, D.; Kalidindi, S.N. Critical challenges in management of heritage conservation projects in India. J. Cult. Herit. Manag. Sustain. Dev. 2017, 7, 290–307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  216. Gonçalves, J.; Mateus, R.; Silvestre, J.D. Mapping Professional Practice Challenges in Built Heritage; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2019; p. 125. [Google Scholar]
  217. Brás, A.; Valença, A.; Faria, P. Performance-based methods for masonry building rehabilitation using innovative leaching and hygrothermal risk analyses. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2017, 28, 321–331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  218. Caro, R.; Sendra, J.J. Evaluation of indoor environment and energy performance of dwellings in heritage buildings. The case of hot summers in historic cities in Mediterranean Europe. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2020, 52, 101798. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  219. Galiano-Garrigós, A.; González-Avilés, Á.; Rizo-Maestre, C.; Andújar-Montoya, M.D. Energy Efficiency and Economic Viability as Decision Factors in the Rehabilitation of Historic Buildings. Sustainability 2019, 11, 4946. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  220. Love, P.; Bullen, P.A. Toward the sustainable adaptation of existing facilities. Facilities 2009, 27, 357–367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  221. Berg, F.; Donarelli, A. Energy Performance Certificates and Historic Apartment Buildings: A Method to Encourage User Participation and Sustainability in the Refurbishment Process. Hist. Environ. Policy Pract. 2019, 10, 224–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  222. Orbell, S.; Hodgkins, S.; Sheeran, P. Implementation intentions and the theory of planned behavior. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 1997, 23, 945. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. PRISMA flow diagram with inclusion and exclusion criteria for the selection of literature.
Figure 1. PRISMA flow diagram with inclusion and exclusion criteria for the selection of literature.
Sustainability 12 09649 g001
Figure 2. Distribution of data collection and data analysis techniques according to research aims.
Figure 2. Distribution of data collection and data analysis techniques according to research aims.
Sustainability 12 09649 g002
Figure 3. Methodological steps to test an intervention to reduce the intention–behaviour gap.
Figure 3. Methodological steps to test an intervention to reduce the intention–behaviour gap.
Sustainability 12 09649 g003
Table 1. Thematic analysis of the main constructs and main aims identified in the literature
Table 1. Thematic analysis of the main constructs and main aims identified in the literature
ActorsMain ConstructAim%
Residents (n = 38)Attitudes towards tourismMeasure residents’ attitudes towards heritage tourism6%
Intentions towards tourismMeasure residents’ intentions to support tourism6%
Value recognitionMeasure residents’ awareness of heritage values5%
Pro-environmental attitudesMeasure residents’ pro-environmental attitudes3%
Conservation behavioursIdentify factors affecting the conservation of natural and cultural heritage3%
Willingness to payResidents’ willingness to pay for the preservation of values2%
SegmentationProfile residents based on behavioural characteristics1%
Integration behaviourMeasure residents’ urban integration and willingness to relocate1%
Tourists (n = 79)SatisfactionMeasure tourists’ satisfaction in heritage destinations11%
Spatial behaviourIdentify travel and movement patterns7%
Behavioural intentionsIdentify factors affecting tourists’ behavioural intentions6%
Willingness to payMeasure tourists’ willingness to pay for the preservation of values5%
SegmentationProfile tourists based on behavioural characteristics5%
PerceptionsAssess tourists’ perceptions of heritage experiences5%
Intention to revisitMeasure tourists’ intention to revisit5%
AttitudesAssess tourists’ attitudes towards heritage destinations4%
Behavioural changePersuasive communication and information to change tourist behaviour4%
Consumption behaviourMeasure factors affecting consumer decisions3%
Well-beingMeasure the effect of visit in tourists’ psychological wellbeing2%
Business (n = 9)Business intentionsFactors affecting entrepreneurial behaviour5%
Behavioural changeIncrease pro-environmental behaviours2%
PerceptionsMeasure perceptions of investors1%
Decision-MakersDecision-making behaviourFactors affecting decision-making behaviour2%
Others 3%
Table 2. Literature referring to tourists and visitors.
Table 2. Literature referring to tourists and visitors.
Author, YearRef.CountryHeritageActorsTheoretical Framework
Bae, Jung, Moorhouse, Suh, and Kwon, 2020[113]South Korea(destinations)visitorsbrand equity theory
Cappa, Rosso, and Capaldo, 2020[114]Italy(museums)visitorsvisitor-sensing; spatial analysis
Piramanayagam et al., 2020[79]Indiaarchaeological (WHS)visitorsbehavioural intention
Menor-Campos et al., 2020[101]Spainurban (WHS)touristsbehaviour segmentation
Chow, Ma, Wong, Lam, and Cheung, 2019[115]Chinanaturaltouristsbehavioural intention
(Cong et al., 2019)[92]ChinanaturaltouristsWTP; choice experiment method
Curnock et al., 2019[116]Australianatural (WHS)touriststheory of emotions
Jin et al., 2019[95]South Koreasites (WHS)touristscontingent valuation method; stakeholder theory; WTP
Jurado-Rivas and Sánchez-Rivero, 2019[96]Spainurban (WHS)touristsWTP; behaviour segmentation
Huang et al., 2019[107]Chinaintangible; naturaltouristsPERMA model
Kunasegaran et al., 2019[110]MalaysiaintangibletouristsUrry’s tourist gaze theory
Khairi, Ismail, and Syed Jaafar, 2019[117]Malaysiaurban (WHS)touriststheory of tourism consumption
Medina-Viruel, López-Guzmán, Gálvez, and Jara-Alba, 2019[118]Spainurban (WHS)touristsCrompton’s motivational theory
Nian et al., 2019[74]China natural (WHS)touristsvalue–belief–norm; TPB
Weber, Groulx, Lemieux, Scott, and Dawson, 2019[119]Canadanatural (WHS)tourists(unclear)
Woyo and Woyo, 2019[120]Namibia(destination)tourists(unclear)
Wu, Shen, Wang, Hou, and Yang, 2019[121]China(museum)touristssubjective well-being
Zhang and Wang, 2019[80]Chinaurban (WHS)touristsplanning behaviour theory/TPB
Scuttari, Orsi, and Bassani, 2019[122]Italynatural (WHS)visitors(unclear)
Alazaizeh, Jamaliah, Mgonja, and Ababneh, 2019[123]Jordanarchaeological (WHS)visitorsattribution theory
Bergel and Brock, 2019[77]Germanynatural (WHS)visitorscustomer engagement; TPB
Song and Kim, 2019[124]South Koreabuilt (WHS)visitorsvalue–attitude–behaviour hierarchy
Adie et al., 2018[102]United Kingdombuilt (WHS)touristsBranding; behaviour segmentation
Borges, Vieira, and Gomes, 2018[125]Portugalurban (WHS)tourists(unclear)
Cheng, Wang, Cao, Zhang, and Bai, 2018[126]Chinasitestouristsservice quality
Gao et al., 2018[103]Chinanatural (WHS)touristsgenerational cohort theory
Kim et al., 2018[78]USAnatural (WHS)touristsbehavioural intention
Lee and Phau, 2018[88]Australiaurbantouristscognitive appraisal theory
Mehmood, Liang, and Gu, 2018[127]Chinanatural (WHS)touristsword-of-mouth; behavioral intention
Prayag, Suntikul, and Agyeiwaah, 2018[128]Chinaintangibletouristscognitive-affective-behaviour system
Kastenholz et al., 2018[100]Portugal(destination)visitorsbehavior segmentation
Lin and Liu, 2018[108]China(destination)visitorsexistential authenticity
Martinez-Garcia, Raya-Vilchez, and Galí, 2018[129]Spain(destination)visitorsattraction theory
Weaver et al., 2018[130]China(museum)visitorsSocial representations theory
Muñoz-Fernández et al., 2018[91]Spainurban (WHS)tourists(unclear)
Wang, Yang, Han, and Shi, 2017[131]Chinanatural (WHS)tourists(unclear)
Gálvez et al., 2017[99]Spainintangibletouristsbehaviour segmentation
Gao et al., 2017[104]Chinanatural (WHS)touristsNorm-activation theory
Su, Hsu, and Swanson, 2017[132]Chinanatural (WHS)tourists(unclear)
Soliman and Abou-Shouk, 2017[133]Egyptbuilt, naturaltouriststheory of reasoned action
Trivedi, 2017[134]Thailand(destinations)tourists(unclear)
Buonincontri, Marasco, and Ramkissoon, 2017[135]Italysitesvisitorstheory of reasoned action
Brida, Dalle Nogare, and Scuderi, 2016[136]Italy(museums)Touristsrational addiction theory
Farr et al., 2016[94]Australianatural (WHS)touristsWTP; equity theory
Getzner, Färber, and Yamu, 2016[137]AustrianaturaltouristsEconomic valuation method
Lee, Phau, Hughes, Li, and Quintal, 2016[138]Australiaurbantouristsconsumer-based theory of authenticity
Martin et al., 2016[89]Spainurban (WHS)touristsVisitor experienced quality
Brida, Meleddu, et al., 2016[97]Italy(museums)visitorsbehaviour segmentation
Sabou, Nistoreanu, and Maiorescu, 2016[139]RomaniaurbanTouristsSpatial analysis
Khairi and Ismail, 2015[140]Malaysiaurban (WHS)touristsSpatial analysis
Mustafa, 2015[141]Jordanarchaeologicaltouristssocialization theory; behavioural intentions
Ramkissoon, 2015[76]Australia(destination)touristsattitude-behavior framework; behavioral intention
Huang, Weiler, and Assaker, 2015[142]Australiaurbantouristsconsumer satisfaction theory; TPB
Toha & Ismail, 2015[143]Malaysiaurban (WHS)touristsTourist tracking; spatial analysis
Di Pietro et al., 2015[98]Italyurbanvisitorsbehaviour segmentation
Salvatierra and Walters, 2015[84]Australianaturalvisitorsbehavioural change
Wolf et al., 2015[105]AustralianaturalvisitorsOutcomes-Focused Management
Rani et al., 2014[109]Malaysia(destination)touristsBehavioral intention
Romão et al., 2014[111]Netherlandsnatural (WHS)touristsbehaviour segmentation
Ballantyne, Hughes, Ding, and Liu, 2014[144]Australiabuiltvisitors(unclear)
Jones and Yamamoto, 2014[145]Japannatural (WHS)visitorsWTP
King and Halpenny, 2014[146]Australia(brand)visitorsBranding theory
Bernadó, Bigorra, Pérez, Russo, and Clave, 2013[147]Spainurban (WHS)touristsSpatial analysis
Li, Sia, and Zhu, 2013[148]China(destination)touristsSocial exchange theory
Wallace, 2013[149]United Kingdomarchaeological (WHS)visitorsSpatial analysis
Ramkissoon, Smith, and Weiler, 2013[150]AustralianaturalvisitorsBehavioural intentions
Boukas, 2012[151]Cyprusarchaeologicalvisitorsimportance–satisfaction analysis
Ramkissoon and Uysal, 2011[75]MauritiussitestouristsBehavioral intentions; TPB
Yang, Hens, De Wulf, and Ou, 2011[152]Chinanatural (WHS)tourists(unclear)
Boley, Nickerson, and Bosak, 2011[153]USA(destination)visitors(unclear)
Ramkissoon and Uysal, 2010[112]MauritiussitestouristsBehavioural intentions
McNamara and Prideaux, 2010[154]Australianatural (WHS)visitors(unclear)
Weiler and Ham, 2010[155]Australiasitesvisitors(unclear)
Barton et al., 2009[106]United KingdomnaturalvisitorsRosenberg self-esteem scale
McKercher et al., 2008[156]ChinanaturalvisitorsNeutralization theory
Cooper, 2000[157]Australianatural (WHS)visitors(unclear)
Fellenius, Williams, and Hood, 1999[158]Canada(destination)touristsbehavior segmentation
Suryawardani, Wiranatha, and Petr, 2016)[159]Indonesia(destination)touristsExpectancy theory
Hidalgo-Fernández, Hernández-Rojas, Jimber del Río, and Casas-Rosal, 2019[160]Spainarchaeological (WHS)touristsAmerican customer satisfaction index
Table 3. Literature referring to residents and local communities.
Table 3. Literature referring to residents and local communities.
Author, YearRef.CountryHeritageActorsTheoretical Framework
Chong, 2020[161]Malaysia(resources)community(unclear)
Su et al., 2020[166]Chinaintangibleinheritorsvalue cognition
Gannon et al., 2020[162]Malaysiaurbanresidentssocial exchange theory; theory of substantive and formal rationality
Megeirhi et al., 2020[81]South Africaurban (WHS)residentsvalue–belief–norm
Qiu, Zheng, Xiang, and Zhang, 2020[168]Chinaintangibleresidentsvalue–attitude–behaviour hierarchy
Zheng et al., 2020[163]Chinaurban (WHS)residentssocial dilemma theory
Olya, Shahmirzdi, and Alipour, 2019[169]Turkeynatural (WHS)communitysocial exchange theory; complexity theory
Prados-Peña, Gutiérrez-Carrillo, and Barrio-García, 2019[170]Spainbuiltcommunitybranding
Davoodi and Dağlı, 2019[171]Turkeyurbanresidents(unclear)
Gursoy, Zhang, and Chi, 2019[172]Chinaurban (WHS)residentsvalue orientation; identity theory
Jin et al., 2019[95]Chinanatural (WHS)residentsWTP; contingent valuation method
Yuan et al., 2019[82]Chinaurbanresidentssocial exchange theory; TPB
Zhang, Lee, and Xiong, 2019[173]ChinabuiltresidentsTPB
Zhang et al., 2019[174]Chinanaturalresidentssocial exchange theory; TPB
Dragouni and Fouseki, 2018[93]United Kingdom(destinations)communityWTP
Cai and Lu, 2018[164]Chinabuiltresidents(unclear)
Chen and Yang, 2018[175]ChinaurbanresidentsBourne’s relocation decision model
López, Virto, Manzano, and Miranda, 2018[176]Spainurbanresidentstriple bottom line
Yasin, Abdullah, Ibrahim, Khalid, and Wahab, 2018[177]Malaysiaurban (WHS)residents(unclear)
Goldberg et al., 2018[178]Australianatural (WHS)residents, touristsTPB
Domic and Boukas, 2017[179]Cyprusintangiblecommunitiescritical ethnography; behaviour segmentation
Wang, Zhang, Han, and Liang, 2017[180]ChinaBuilt, natural (WHS)communityground theory; role theory
Esariti, Yuliastuti, and Ratih, 2017[181]Indonesiaurbanresidentstheory of Rappoport
Weiler et al., 2017[87]Australianaturalresidentspersuasive communication theory; behavioural change
Rodzi, Zaki, and Subli, 2016[182]MalaysiaIntangible (WHS)community(unclear)
Basarić, Vujičić, Simić, Bogdanović, and Saulić, 2016[183]Serbiaurbanresidents(unclear)
Goldberg et al., 2016[73]AustraliaNatural (WHS)residents(unclear)
Lwoga, 2016[184]TanzaniabuiltresidentsTPB
May-Chiun and Songanc, 2014[185]Malaysia(destination)communities(unclear)
Bosman and Whitfield, 2014[186]South Africabuiltcommunityvernacular theory; theory of ecological perception
Judson et al., 2014[165]United KingdombuilthomeownersSocial practice theory
Yuan et al., 2014[167]Chinaintangibleresidents(unclear)
Omar, Muhibudin, Yussof, Sukiman, and Mohamed, 2013[187]MalaysiaUrban (WHS)communityStakeholders theory
Yunus, Karim, and Samadi, 2013[188]Malaysianaturalcommunity(unclear)
Ma, Zhao, and Gong, 2013[189]Chinanaturalresidents(unclear)
Ryan, Chaozhi, and Zeng, 2011[190]ChinaBuilt (WHS)residents(unclear)
Nicholas, Thapa, and Ko, 2009[191]USANatural (WHS)residentsStakeholders theory
Senaratne, Abeygunawardena, and Jayatilake, 2003[192]Sri LankaNatural (WHS)residentsHousehold production theory
Table 4. Literature referring to other stakeholders.
Table 4. Literature referring to other stakeholders.
Author, YearRef.CountryHeritageActorsTheoretical Framework
Ferretti and Grosso, 2019[198]Italybuilt; urbandecision-makersMulti-attribute Value Theory
Wang et al., 2019[83]China(tourism)enterprisesBehavioural intentions; motivation theory of self-determination
Chi et al., 2019[193]Chinanatural (WHS)managersStakeholder theory; agency theory
Forleo et al., 2019[197]ItalynaturalstudentsWTP; TPB; behavior segmentation
Mustafa, 2019[199]Jordanarchaeologicaltour guidesnorm activation theory; TPB
Zhang and Zhang, 2018[200]Japan(destinations)enterprisesnetwork centrality; stakeholder theory
Väisänen and Törn-Laapio, 2018[201]Sweden(resources)entrepreneurs(unclear)
Choi et al., 2018[195]South Koreanaturalstudentsrandom utility maximization theory
Gregory-Smith, Wells, Manika, and McElroy, 2017[86]United Kingdom(destination)employeesSocial marketing; realist evaluation; behavioural change
McCamley and Gilmore, 2017[202]United Kingdom(destination)enterprisessupply chain theory
Rose et al., 2017)[196]USA(brand)studentsBehavioral intentions
Abdulla, Abdelmonem, and Selim, 2017[203]United Kingdomurbanusershierarchy of walking needs
Gribaudo, Iacono, and Levis, 2017[204]Italyurbanusersinternet of things; spatial analysis
Valentina et al., 2015[90]Romania(resources)consumers(unclear)
Miralles i Garcia, 2015[205]Spainnaturaldecision-makers(unclear)
Wells et al., 2015[85]United Kingdom(organization)employeesBehavioural change; social marketing intervention
Çetinkaya and Zafer, 2015[206]TurkeyarchaeologicalTour guides(unclear)
Esparon et al., 2014[194]AustraliaNatural (WHS)consumersimportance-performance analysis
Gheorghe, Nistoreanu, and Filip, 2013[207]RomaniaintangibleconsumersDirect market research
Hall, 2013[208]New Zealandintangibleforagers(unclear)
Santos, Mendes, Rodrigues, and Freire, 2012[209]PortugalnaturalgeocachersSpatial analysis
Wiedmann, Hennigs, Schmidt, and Wuestefeld, 2011[210]Germany(brand)consumersBranding theory
Thomas, Miller, Thomas, Tunstall, and Siggins, 2007[211]United Kingdom(tourism)enterprisesPhenomenological methodology
Table 5. Summary of main goals and methodologies found in the literature.
Table 5. Summary of main goals and methodologies found in the literature.
Author, YearRef.CountryHeritageConstructsMethodPopulation
Piramanayagam et al., 2020[79]Indiaarchaeological destination image; visitor experience; intention to revisitQuestionnaire; CFA; SEM384 tourists
Yuan et al., 2019[82]Chinaurbaninvolvement, perceived impacts, place attachment, intention to support tourismQuestionnaire; SEM336 residents
Wang et al., 2019[83]China(tourism)lifestyle-oriented motivation, corporate social responsibility, operational intentionQuestionnaire; SEM154 guesthouse owners
Nian et al., 2019[74]China naturalperception of OUV, service quality, place attachment, conservation intentionQuestionnaire; SEM563 tourists
Zhang et al., 2019[173]Chinabuiltattitudes, subjective norms, perceived control, self-regulation, social capital, intention and behaviour towards conflictInterview; questionnaire; SEM250 residents
Zhang and Wang, 2019[80]Chinaurbanattitudes, motivation, space emotion, subjective norms, perceived control, travel intentionQuestionnaire; SEM650 tourists
Bergel and Brock, 2019[77]Germanynaturalaffective attitude, influence behaviour, destination loyalty intention, perception of entrance feesQuestionnaire; SEM802 visitors
Mustafa, 2019[199]Jordanarchaeologicalvalue orientation, social norms, commitment to conservationQuestionnaire; SEM96 tour guides
Zhang et al., 2019[174]Chinanaturallivelihood strategies, perception of changes, pro-environmental behavioursInterviews: questionnaire; multiple regression314 residents
Ferretti and Grosso, 2019 [198]Italybuiltpower–interest matrix; preferences; values; trade-offsStakeholders analysisDecision-makers
Forleo et al., 2019[197]Italynaturaluse and non-use values; willingness-to-pay; pro-environmental behavioursQuestionnaire; hierarchical cluster analysis542 students
Chow et al., 2019[115]Chinanaturalplace attachment; satisfaction; pro-environmental intentionsQuestionnaire; regression 402 tourists
Mehmood et al., 2018[127]Chinanaturalword-of-mouth; user generated content; heritage image; attitudes; travel intentionQuestionnaire; SEM280 tourists
Goldberg et al., 2018[178]Australianaturalattitudes; perceived barriers; pro-environmental behavioursQuestionnaire; Variance inflation factors3181 residents; 2621 tourists
Kim et al., 2018[78]USAnaturalperceived sustainability, pro-environmental behaviour; revisit intention; word-of-mouthQuestionnaire; CFA; SEM300 tourists
Soliman and Abou-Shouk, 2017[133]Egyptsitesattitudes, motivation, cultural/heritage dimension, subjective norms, travel intention, behaviourQuestionnaire; SEM200 tourists
Rose et al., 2017[196]USA(brand)attitudes, present-time orientation, perceived linkage past–present, intention to consumeQuestionnaire; multiple regression90–240 students
Buonincontri et al., 2017[135]Italysitestourism experience, place attachment, pro-environmental behaviourDevelopment of a questionnairevisitors
Weiler et al., 2017[87]Australianaturalperceived benefits, credibility, mental imagerypre-/post-experimental design; questionnaire; t-test1053 residents
Gregory-Smith et al., 2017[86]United Kingdom(tourism)realist evaluation: context, mechanism, outcomeInterviews; intervention; focus group57 employees
Lwoga, 2016[184]Tanzaniabuiltattitudes, subjective norm, perceived control, conservation intention, tourism employment statusQuestionnaire; SEM208 households
Huang et al., 2015[142]Australiasiteselaboration, relevancy, empathy, attitude, satisfaction, behavioural loyalty, WOM intentionQuestionnaire; SEM282 tourists
Salvatierra and Walters, 2015[84]Australianaturalpast experience, knowledge, image perception, travel intentionpre-/post- experimental design; questionnaire; ANOVA168 potential visitors
Wells et al., 2015[85]United Kingdom(tourism)potential to change pro-environmental behaviour; personal responsibility; information adequacy; satisfaction; self-efficacy; motivation Interviews; pre-/post-experimental design; questionnaire; linear regression; ANOVA96–237 employees
Ramkissoon, 2015[76]Australia(destination)perceived authenticity; place attachment; place satisfaction; cultural intentionsTheoretical modeltourists
Mustafa, 2015[141]Jordanarchaeologicalvalue orientation; awareness of consequences; ascription of responsibility; pro-heritage intentions Questionnaire; t-test271 tourists
Rani et al., 2014[109]Malaysia(destination)perceived authenticity; satisfaction; revisit intentionQuestionnaire; CFA; SEM255 tourists
Ramkissoon et al., 2013[150]Australianaturalplace attachment; place satisfaction; pro-environmental intentionsQuestionnaire; EFA; multiple regression452 tourists
Ramkissoon and Uysal, 2011[75]Mauritiussitesperceived authenticity, motivation, information search behaviour, destination imagery, cultural intentionQuestionnaire; SEM; multiple regression600 tourists
Ramkissoon and Uysal, 2010[112]Mauritiussitesauthenticity; cultural intentionQuestionnaire; CFA; SEM600 tourists
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Gonçalves, J.; Mateus, R.; Silvestre, J.D.; Roders, A.P. Going beyond Good Intentions for the Sustainable Conservation of Built Heritage: A Systematic Literature Review. Sustainability 2020, 12, 9649. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12229649

AMA Style

Gonçalves J, Mateus R, Silvestre JD, Roders AP. Going beyond Good Intentions for the Sustainable Conservation of Built Heritage: A Systematic Literature Review. Sustainability. 2020; 12(22):9649. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12229649

Chicago/Turabian Style

Gonçalves, Joana, Ricardo Mateus, José Dinis Silvestre, and Ana Pereira Roders. 2020. "Going beyond Good Intentions for the Sustainable Conservation of Built Heritage: A Systematic Literature Review" Sustainability 12, no. 22: 9649. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12229649

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop