Next Article in Journal
Electrical Efficiency Investigation on Photovoltaic Thermal Collector with Two Different Coolants
Next Article in Special Issue
Usage Strategies to Increase the Socioeconomic Sustainability of Monumental Structures: The Example of the Hacı Ali Ağa Bath
Previous Article in Journal
Research on the Pro-Poorness of Economic Growth in Rural China
Previous Article in Special Issue
Research on the Inheritance Path and the Branding Inheritance Model of Traditional Crafts
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 15
Issue 7
10.3390/su15076135
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Towards Heritage Transformation Perspectives

by
Rasa Pranskūnienė
* and
Erika Zabulionienė
Faculty of Bioeconomy Development, Agriculture Academy, Vytautas Magnus University, 53361 Kaunas, Lithuania
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2023, 15(7), 6135; https://doi.org/10.3390/su15076135
Submission received: 13 February 2023 / Revised: 29 March 2023 / Accepted: 31 March 2023 / Published: 3 April 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Tourism, Sustainable Development, and Cultural Heritage)
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
When facing the challenge of preserving cultural heritage for future generations, it becomes important to talk about heritage transformations and the perspectives of these transformations. Thus, this integrative review article seeks to discuss heritage transformations and their perspectives for future tourism development, by analyzing various theoretical and empirical literature sources. The results of this integrative review analysis highlighted the importance of paying attention to the three layers of perspectives: personal, local, and regional. Thus, the discussion opened up the following “IPR” theoretical insights: heritage transformations—“I”—as personal transformations, heritage transformations—“Place”—as local perspective, heritage transformations—“R”—as regional perspective. It has revealed that all three discussed heritage transformation perspectives are experiencing significant connections. The biggest challenge of current and future heritage transformations is a dependence on being constantly interconnected (individually, locally, regionally) and on being constantly influenced by the world’s challenges and development trends. When looking towards future tourism development, the interconnected layers of heritage transformation perspectives could lead to the constant integration and creation of interwoven tourism values and experiences.

1. Introduction

When living in a challenging and changing world, discussions about heritage and its place in the world become more and more relevant. We should rethink how we will pass the cultural heritage on to future generations, what we will preserve and what we will, unfortunately, lose. In this context, it becomes important to talk about various transformations related to tourism and heritage.
The last decades of the 20th century had already seen a shift in the concept of cultural heritage. The approach to it has changed from being object-oriented to being subject-oriented, focusing less on the heritage object itself and more on its multiple, intangible social and relational potentials [1]. Rowin et al. [2] notice that world-heritage site set in dynamic environments do not benefit from strongly differentiating between cultural and natural settings; thus, flexible and integrated management approaches are needed when paying attention to the historical landscapes [2]. Reducing tensions in understanding cosmopolitan concepts of justice and sensitivity of different cultural belonging, as Bergman Rosamond [3] points out, requires ethically informed dialogue across intersectional boundaries. Historical buildings, unique objects, places, nature, traditions, stories—all this can be called heritage. Furthermore, it seems important to follow Bhabha’s [4] idea, that “we must not merely change the narratives of our histories, but transform our sense of what it means to live, to be, in other times and different spaces, both human and historical” (p. 256).
Therefore, this paper aims to discuss transformability as the essence of heritage. As the physical environment changes due to climate change, as attitudes towards heritage change, and as heritage is experienced in new ways, it changes. However, at the same time, the one who experiences it also changes. From this point of view, we are already talking about the personal transformation of the person who experiences tourism and heritage. Additionally, given that the built environment of our regions, cities and neighborhoods is highly resilient, it seems important to focus on how the resources of the past—artefacts, stories and places—can influence the future transformations of the community, city or region.
When seeking to discuss heritage transformations and their perspectives, it seems important to try to find the answers to the following questions: how do heritage transformations appear nowadays? What layers of possible heritage transformations are highlighted when paying attention to their perspectives? Could heritage transformations and their perspectives be integrated into future tourism development? Thus, this integrative review article seeks to discuss heritage transformations and their perspectives for future tourism development by analyzing various theoretical and empirical literature sources.
The review is organized as follows: first, presenting the materials and methods, followed by the results, discussion, and concluding insights. The materials and methods section explains our integrative literature review method. The results are discussed in the results chapter, presenting the following themes: (a) heritage: between definition and value, (b) heritage: between memory and interpretation, (c) towards heritage transformations. The discussion section debates the following “IPR” theoretical insights: (a) heritage transformations—“I”—as personal transformations, (b) heritage transformations—“Place”—as local perspective, (c) heritage transformations—“R”—as regional perspective. This review paper finishes by offering concluding insights.

2. Materials and Methods

This integrative review paper seeks to undertake a multidisciplinary discussion about heritage transformations and their perspectives, as literature reviews, according Torraco [5], are conducted differently for various audiences and for different purposes. For this paper, Whittemore and Knafl’s [6] (p. 547) integrative review approach was applied: “the integrative review method is an approach that allows for the inclusion of diverse methodologies, and contributes to the presentation of varied perspectives on a phenomenon of concern”. The researchers point out that integrative reviews are the broadest type of research review method, allowing the combination of data from theoretical and empirical literature [6]. Thus, this integrative review seeks to analyze various scientific knowledge and to interpret the different aspects that could be associated with heritage transformations.
We use five stages for this review [5,6]: identification of the problem, a search of the literature, evaluation of the data, analysis of the data, and presentation (Table 1).
Table
Table 1. The stages of the review.
Table 1. The stages of the review.
No. Stage of ReviewDescription of Review Stages
1.Problem IdentificationTheoretical and empirical discussions about heritage transformations and their perspectives.
2.Literature SearchOpen databases and open libraries were used to find articles about heritage transformations, searching for various keywords potentially important to the researched topic: ScienceDirect: 44,486 articles on sustainability and heritage, 26,184 articles on heritage transformations, 18,801 articles on transformative heritage experiences, 13,467 articles on sustainable heritage transformations, 8966 articles on heritage transformations and climate change, 2626 articles on smart heritage transformations, and 1 article on placetelling. WorldWideScience.org: We found 2050 articles on sustainability and heritage, 2702 articles on heritage transformations, 1629 articles on sustainable heritage transformations, 1434 articles on transformative heritage experiences, and 293 articles on placetelling, though only some of them concentrated on placetelling in the transformative heritage context; DOAJ (Directory of Open Access Journals): 1087 articles on sustainability and heritage, 362 articles on heritage transformations, 30 articles on sustainable heritage transformations, 11 articles on transformative heritage experiences, and no articles on placetelling; IDEAS/RePEc: We found 885 results for “sustainability and heritage”, 94 results for “heritage transformations”, 1 article on “placetelling”; ScienceOpen: We found 4 results for “heritage transformations”, 1 result for “placetelling”; SSRN eLibrary: We found 120 results for “sustainability and heritage” and 26 results for “heritage transformations” and no articles on “placetelling”; no articles about post-heritage topic were found in the databases and the open libraries of IDEAS/RePEc, The OAPEN Library, OpenDOAR, Electronic Journals Library, WorldWideScience.org, EBSCO, and others. The literature was also searched for research on heritage and degrowth, heritage transformation and placetelling. We then evaluated the data (theoretical and an empirical literature discussing heritage transformations and their perspectives).
3.Data
Evaluation		Data evaluated, seeking to include in the study the last five years of theoretical and empirical literature sources, discussing heritage transformations and their perspectives. Thus, the main theoretical and empirical literature sources, discussing heritage transformations and seeking perspectives of tourism development, included in the study are presented in Table 2, with a brief description of the publications selected for review analysis.
4.Data
Analysis		The thematic structure was chosen for the theoretical data analysis [5]. Thus, the theoretical and empirical literature discussing heritage transformations perspectives were analyzed for the following themes: (a) heritage: between definition and value, (b) heritage: between memory and interpretation; (c) towards heritage transformations.
5.PresentationThe integrative review is presented in the results chapter (the integrated review data were organized under the following themes: heritage: between definition and value, (Section 3.1); heritage: between memory and interpretation (Section 3.2); towards heritage transformations (Section 3.3); the discussions chapter presents the conceptual framework (Figure 1) “Perspectives of heritage transformations”.

3. Results

As mentioned for the integrative review, we examined articles discussing topics related to heritage definition and value, heritage memory and interpretation, heritage transformations (Table 2). The integrated review data were organized under the following themes: heritage: between definition and value (Section 3.1); heritage: between memory and interpretation (Section 3.2); towards heritage transformations (Section 3.3).

3.1. Heritage: Between Definition and Value

Defining (and managing) the concept of heritage is not an easy task, mainly because it consists of complex and interrelated tangible and intangible attributes, that range from tangible manifestations, including the built environment and natural landscapes, to intangible cultural features: society—its traditions, knowledge and cultural expression [54]. Throsby [55] (p. 106) identified three types of cultural heritage: built or immovable heritage, such as buildings, monuments, sites or places, including groups of buildings and sites in historic city centers; movable heritage, such as works of art, archives, artefacts or other objects of cultural significance; and intangible heritage, that exists as musical or literary works handed down to us from the past, or as inherited practices, language, rituals, skills or traditional knowledge that individuals, but also communities and groups, recognize as culturally significant. In heritage studies, ‘heritage’ is often understood as a process; heritage is created, not something waiting to be discovered [56,57,58]. Although heritage itself has a long history, as Harvey [57] notices, and, by definition, somehow reflects the past, heritage is always contemporary.
The differences between ‘past’, ‘history’ and ‘heritage’ can be distinguished as follows: ‘the past (what happened), history (attempts to describe it) and heritage (a contemporary product shaped by history)’ [56] (p. 20). Thus, as Tunbridge and Ashworth [56] (p. 6), point out, heritage “is a product of the present, purposefully created in response to current needs or wants and shaped by those requirements”. Harrison [59] distinguished between formal and informal heritage. For heritage to become formal, it must be perceived as worthy of protection legitimized by planning and legal frameworks. The key concepts underpinning heritage in conservation practice are based on aspects of heritage values, authenticity and integrity. Heritage refers to the transformation of objects, places and practices into cultural heritage when values are attached to them, essentially describing heritage as a process [60].
Such conclusions were drawn by Mason [61], proposing a typology of heritage values, arguing that sociocultural and economic values are conceptually different ways of assessing and articulating heritage values; he suggested that there are different sociocultural values, but they can be divided into the following categories: historical values reflect the past, for example, through association with people or events, age value, technological features or documentary potential; cultural and symbolic values are a type of values related to political and civic values, as well as to craft or work; values that support ethnic group identity are also included. Social values refer to “use of place”, especially in terms of place “public space, common features of space”, or attachment to place; spiritual and religious values are associated with sacred meaning; aesthetic values include not only visual properties, but also smell, sound, and sense of heritage [61] (pp. 104–105).
Sjöholm [60] distinguishes two main categories of values: historical values, and aesthetic and socially appealing values. Historic values refer to historical knowledge about buildings, architecture or society, while aesthetic and socially attractive values include architectural or artistic appreciation, together with other aspects such as symbolic value or the importance of continuity in the built environment—here, aspects such as authenticity, uniqueness or representativeness are attributed to motives of strengthening conservation. Researchers point out that heritage values can be considered either intrinsic to objects or socially constructed.
Thus, Graham notices, “heritage is more about meanings than material artefacts. It is the former that give the latter cultural or financial value and explain why they have been selected from the immensity of the past” [62] (p. 1004). According to Mason, “...anything anointed as heritage will by definition have some heritage value”, even if “value-forming factors outside the object itself...” construct cultural heritage [61] (p. 100). In contemporary theoretical discourses, heritage is often described from a constructivist perspective. Graham and Howard [63] (pp. 2–3) defined the constructionist perspective as “referring to the ways in which highly selective material artefacts, natural landscapes, mythologies, memories and traditions of the past become cultural, political and economic resources of the present”, and heritage as present-oriented, “created, shaped and managed for and in response to present needs”. As Tunbridge and Ashworth [56] (p. 6) notice, “the present selects the inheritance from the imagined past for present use and decides what should be passed on to the imagined future”. Heritage value indicates its further development.
Viewing heritage as a commodity, Graham et al. [64] (p. 22) argue that being “sold simultaneously in many segmented marketplaces” supports the idea of heritage as a present economic resource. Thus, authors listed three of the most common policy areas from those that touch on the relationship between heritage and economic activity: first, heritage is economic activity itself, an industry that takes over the structures of the past, associations and cultural productivity, and trades them for an economic return that can be measured in terms of jobs, profits or income; second, heritage sites can be treated as sites of economic activity and evaluated according to their ability to attract, accommodate or repel economic functions; third, and most indirectly, heritage in its various manifestations can be used to create and promote local images for dominant economic purposes. Thus, heritage is not only an object, but also an economic resource.
Discussions by various scholars show that heritage is a very complex phenomenon and can be described and studied from many different aspects. Heritage as a process refers to the transformation of objects, places and practices into cultural heritage with multiple values. This awareness comprehends and accepts heritage as an inexhaustible source and makes it possible to reconsider existing and emerging values.

3.2. Heritage: Between Memory and Interpretation

Despite the many definitions of heritage in scholarly sources, Smith [58] (p. 11) states that “heritage does not really exist” and argues that “there is a rather hegemonic discourse about heritage that creates the way we think, talk and write about heritage”, and that heritage is “ultimately a cultural practice concerned with creating and regulating and understanding a spectrum of values” [58] (p. 11). The phenomenon of heritage can be defined as a kind of mediator between mythical (constant and unchanging holistic system) and discursive (changing system of attitude towards myth, only reflecting that period) realities [16].
Linn-Tynen [19] notes that heritage is used as a means of asserting and transmitting identity, just as one’s own identity influences what is recognized as heritage, and heritage allows present individuals to connect with the past, a process that contributes to self-understanding and identity formation. Some authors argue that heritage is an incomplete and selective process [12]. Identity or cultural memory indeed changes quite often, but only in its formal expression or action, which is based on conscious intention [16]. Heritage, in this context, is thus not automatically viewed as ‘heritage’ without prejudice; rather, it is a discourse as a “cultural practice” [14]. In recent decades, there has been a significant increase in what is considered cultural heritage [58,59,65].
Harrison [59,66] described this period as a ‘heritage boom’, concluding that, with the accumulation of so many different traces and memories of the past, we rarely consider which heritage objects, places and practices can be removed from museums and galleries or allowed to collapse, and, very rarely, those objects, places and/or practices privileged as heritage become or are transferred and transformed into something else. As cultural heritage is important to individuals, groups and communities [20], it is thus necessary to identify, discuss and analyze the destruction of memory and heritage to understand the causes of destruction of heritage and memory.
Rethinking the conceptual evolution of cultural heritage, as pointed out by Viejo-Rose [67], cultural heritage can be perceived as simultaneous processes, such as places, products, projects, performances, etc., but is now generally understood as property or objects. Overall, it is emphasized that the perception of culture is related to people’s interpretations [21]. Modern networks, and the processes of integration of the various disciplines arising from them, create an environment where cultural heritage is seen as a narrative phenomenon lying between myth and reality [13]. Although heritage and memory are related to self-construction at a personal level, as Viejo-Rose [67] notes, they are also strongly intertwined with society in the ever-growing and ever-changing relationship between the self and the world. Di Pietro et al. [15] argue that the relationship between identity and heritage can be studied both with individuals, in the formation of their personal, interpersonal and cultural self-awareness, and with nations, regions and localities. Linn-Tynen [19] notes that cultural heritage can evoke intense emotions. According to O’Donovan [17], critical heritage is one way of understanding the progressive and condemning potential of nostalgia, which relies on the intimate connection with the past. Thus, Biskas et al. [18] argue that, although nostalgia is related to the past and influences perceptions of the future, heritage and memory are strongly interrelated, and are dynamic and changing phenomena.
As Sather-Wagstaff [68] states, heritage and memory are similar, with a synergy of productivity across multiple forms of communication; at the same time, we share and create memories together with others through different narratives and ways of telling and doing, and heritage is shared and created through telling, retelling, working with landscapes, performing, etc. Therefore, it is important to understand how this interaction is experienced. Apaydin [20] defines memory as an extremely complex concept, as it has been interpreted from different perspectives. Cultural memory can be understood as the process of remembering and forgetting, in which individuals and groups continue to reshape their relationship to the past, thus repositioning themselves in the relational sites of established and emergent memory [69]. Sather-Wagstaff [68] notices that heritage and memory share many related characteristics, allowing their symbiotic and dynamic relationship to interact with each other in social life.
Heritage and memory can be experienced individually and collectively, and require long-term social and interpersonal interaction to persist, so, in practice, memory and heritage are partial, subjective, contested and thus dynamically changing—never changing and static. Additionally, the question of how to define memory remains open.

3.3. Towards Heritage Transformations

The transformations of heritage are analyzed in the scientific literature in the context of climate change and changes of eras, industry and cultural environment. The authors discuss how part of the heritage is lost and how it is rediscovered by people again, already transformed, creating new interpretations, meanings and attachments to the existing place/location or object.

3.3.1. Heritage Transformations in the Context of Climate Change

When discussing heritage transformations in the context of climate change, Seekam and Jo [27] use the concept of resilience, showing that, by extending the heritage paradigm from a pure conservation perspective to also include a transformation perspective, loss can be addressed and learning facilitated. The researchers apply the concept of transformational continuity to the field of heritage, enabling the continuity of heritage values and the development of local meanings and benefits to society in the context of climate change.
When heritage features are significantly affected by climate events, some of them could remain damaged as a reminder of the vulnerabilities embedded in events and places, as transformation allows for a reshaping of values. The authors suggest that a change in heritage policy could enable two distinct moments of learning from loss: (a) following impacts that severely damage areas, (b) actively cultivating and transforming heritage values, allowing of appearance of new heritage values in the future in these rapidly changing areas. Concepts of transformative continuity in relation to time and memory thus become decisive aspects of political change. However, research is needed to document the success or failure of heritage adaptation actions, because there remains a potential danger that adaptation actions may negatively affect the values of the communities involved [23,70,71].
Scholars recognize that landscape transformation depends on heritage and identity values. Heritage here focuses on traditionally linked community values and broader societal values [72]. In fact, UNESCO, in its policy guidelines for sustainable development, recognizes that “people and the environment, interacting and influencing each other in complex ways, are key components of the resilience of communities” [73] (p. 3). Therefore, heritage researchers consider the rethinking of the traditional conservation pattern (i.e., the static preservation of the tangible heritage resource’s condition) and related policies, taking into account the expected impact on tangible heritage resources and intangible values, the diverse and dynamic attributes of those values, and the probability of loss from changing climate conditions.
Seekam and Jo [27] suggest that the heritage field adopts the ecological resilience framework to expand the conservation paradigm, and use the concept of transformational continuity when talking about heritage change. Transformative continuity is a rarely used, but relevant, concept in the field of heritage, emerging from historical and ethnographic studies of local social structures and cosmologies, and concerned with the “relative dynamism and power” (i.e., structure) of interacting local and global forces [74] (p. 102).
Here, transformative continuity is understood as the ability to convey aspects of the cultural landscape, especially tangible and intangible heritage, cultural values and connections to places, and benefits to society, whether or not they are restored through continuous adaptation, or reshaped after disturbance, in advance, or by autonomously adapting to new cultural landscapes [27]. In other words, the authors argue that transformative continuity recognizes that cultural landscapes are constantly being remade.
The initial shift in aspects of the disrupted cultural landscape is to preserve some of these climatic impacts and associated vulnerabilities to the associated social and environmental vulnerabilities embedded in specific geographic locations [27]. Similar to other imperatives, such as sites of genocide [75] and sites of “negative heritage” where heritage features are destroyed or created during conflict [76], there is precedent for the preservation of “heritage as memory”, where sites of natural hazards and the effects of climate change function because they not only transfer the memory of change, but can also be a means of disaster mitigation [27]. It is also argued that heritage not only allows for the recollection of “past meanings and representations in the present” [77] (p. 94), but also supporting a process of ongoing memory formation, in which people can shape and discover new meanings through the negotiation of the present and the future. The ability to discover predictable and autonomous qualities of world heritage, that move from climate change impacts to adaptation, can also foster ‘transformative learning’ [78], allowing ongoing reflection on—or recollection of—lived experiences and connections to cultural and natural heritage.
According to transformative learning theory, individuals interpret and re-interpret their experiences to make sense of the world around them. Going beyond the simple acquisition of knowledge that informs future actions [27], this directly shapes adaptive decisions: by being clearly involved in heritage planning and decision-making, communities can interpret and reinterpret resilience when focusing on their values, traditions, assets and capacity for reflection. Furthermore, enabling change in world heritage properties threatened or affected by climate change could be a strategy to “open ourselves to a more meaningful and reciprocal engagement with the material past” [30] (p. 179).
Thus, when transforming heritage sites, a logical path towards a new framework could be to focus on preparing heritage sites for transformation by action, but only those that are “minimally intrusive” [30] (p. 160), to facilitate the shift of value from the known, to overcome the tendency to constantly invest in maintenance, and to prolong the inevitable. Thus, Crowley et al. [49] argue that understanding how people envision their futures in the context of climate change requires an understanding of the role of intangible cultural heritage in adaptation and resilience, which is very different from how heritage can be dynamic in terms of responses to local needs and experience.
Coastal sites, which are close to the water, are already experiencing some of the most damaging effects of climate change. The situation is predicted to get worse in the future [28]. Coasts are one of the first places where climate change can have a big impact on heritage that occur over the longer term, especially since they are so visible and easy to see [70,79].
Venture et al. [44] study the natural and cultural heritage case of traveling north around the coast from the Marconi Memorial to Gunwalloe Storm Church, which also faces a radically uncertain future due to the projected impacts of climate change, though a number of adaptive measures are planned to ensure that the buildings continue to serve the local community while responding to the changing coastline. Such a complicated continued physical existence of cultural heritage forces communities all over the world to face difficult decisions, inviting them to constantly think about how to take care of cultural heritage, taking into account environmental changes.
Perceived mismanagement of any of these heritage values can lead to tensions and misunderstandings between heritage professionals and the communities that value them. Lindsay et al. [26] point out, that heritage managers need to make a conscious and rational decision to whether or not to take action, and default should not result in loss. Venture et al. [44] argue that impact of climate change is likely to be most visible on tangible, physical assets, but environmental change processes will also have a significant impact on traditional cultures and intangible heritage practices in the coming decades: the relationship between tangible heritage and intangible expressions of community, memory and belonging is complex and dynamic, and will only become stronger as change accelerates—as climate change can lead to the emergence of new collective meanings and memories and the erosion or disappearance of the old. The shore we see today is not the same shore we saw yesterday, nor will it be the shore we will see tomorrow [44]. Many places in the world will need to be protected in different ways in the future, but it is important to think about what protection and actions can be taken now in helping them. Dawson et al. [28] remind us that our decisions today will affect what we pass down to future generations, and Berenfeld [80] believes that we should spend our money more wisely on “creating a future history of that doomed place“, because the efforts to shore up eroding sites will eventually fail.
Thus, it is still necessary to think carefully and evaluate whether it is worth investing in the preservation of heritage, or whether it is still necessary to allow it to change, create new values and open up new meanings for us and the communities. Here, the idea of transformative continuity proposed by the authors could be a lens through which we could look at the transformation of heritage.

3.3.2. Heritage Transformations as the Loss of Heritage

Climate change is causing archaeological sites all over the world to be damaged. These sites provide information about the past, and can help us understand our place in the present world. Venture et al. [44] believe that a conversation is needed to help people and practitioners understand and engage with change. Researchers analyze the future of coasts in the context of climate change today, and discuss the adaptation of heritage and communities to the inevitable changes. There are many different ways of dealing with heritage loss, and we need to come up with creative solutions quickly. However, authors do not address the question of how to preserve and protect coastal or other heritage, but rather seek to explore how to respond to and understand loss.
Thus, heritage is considered a non-renewable physical resource that, once lost, disappears forever. This notion of heritage continues, but aims to contribute to an emerging critical literature in which heritage is a resource in constant flux. Recognizing that loss is not absolute or universally experienced, it is nevertheless argued that it is time to start thinking about new ways of engaging people with the themes of loss, change and transformation of cultural and natural heritage.
If the eroding physical site can eventually be lost, preserving a place means making records of it in different ways, such as drawings, photographs, or compiling oral stories, so that people can remember it even if the physical site is destroyed. Using such means can open new opportunities for public engagement and, as Ives et al. [25] reported, the public desires to be involved in practical work at threatened places “while the sites still exist.“ In this way, the community has a connection with these places.
The importance of involving the public in preserving coastal heritage sites is growing in a time of accelerating heritage loss. One of the key elements, when managing risks associated with climate change [26] and working with a range of stakeholders, that allows the integration of resources [81] and the involvement of members of local communities [24], is the building of the partnership.
Venture et al. [44] identified four distinct themes related to the loss of coastal heritage—although independent, these themes may interact with each other over time: (1) invisible loss (invisible), which deals with previously overlooked heritage; (2) adaptive loss (adaptive), which acknowledges the transformative nature of place; (3) inevitable loss (inevitable), which includes loss of inheritance over long but unpredictable periods; (4) radical loss (radical), where future history of landscape-scale change needs to be considered. Heritage will be at “risk of significant change”, not only from the physical processes of climate change, but also from human efforts to mitigate it. Heritage organizations are increasingly perceiving that the climate is changing, and that, without action to mitigate the impacts of climate change, it may be necessary to address those changes rather than deal with them [82].
Much of the academic literature on climate change and heritage emphasizes heritage management and conservation approaches to prevent or minimize damage to historic structures [23]. However, in recent years, literature started to examine aspects of inevitable change and loss, that focus on creative and cross-sectoral approaches in responding to climate change, and emphasize innovative community engagement strategies. Related sciences have begun to explore the transformative aspects of heritage loss and alteration, and the potential for value to appear through natural processes [22,30,31]
When working with communities, it is important to address loss, foster engagement, and foster the confidence-inspiring conversations needed to address challenges and seize opportunities, while leaving space to react when the unexpected happens [44]. Thus, Cunsolo Willox [83] points out that, if incomplete, healthy grief can lead to an inability to reconnect with the altered landscape after certain losses.
Naramski et al. [52] argue that openness of the transformation processes can help deal with the negative heritage issues that often occur in former significant industrial areas which have lost their original function. Hogberg et al. [32] believe that heritage should be more creatively and more effectively connected with the social, economic, political, and ecological challenges of our time. Authors hope that this can be achieved with future solutions through greater creativity and comprehensiveness.
Heritage sites are often organized around a particular moment in time, a significant period that is chosen as appropriate to tell the story of that particular place and often includes past changes and adjustments in interpretive narratives, while contemporary and future changes are not [32,66]. Because of today’s stability and drive to preserve, current and future changes can be difficult to understand and accept; however, loss is not inherently negative and is not definitely a linear process, so the prospect of loss can even rekindle interest in certain places or topics, giving them new inspiration [84]. Therefore, transformational processes of change can provide opportunities for the human world and for the natural world [82]. Actively recognizing the positive aspects of loss can help us establish a new relationship with the environment that will become increasingly important when facing an uncertain and unknown future [44] as an evolving phenomenon, reflecting our contemporary sensibilities and values [29].
Initially, a place may be classified as subject to imminent loss, but funding sources and community interest may initiate a transition to adaptation to the loss. If funding or interest declines, the location may return to imminent losses or even begin a journey toward radical losses [44]. This framework is also useful for practitioners to understand how change and loss have been experienced historically and how these experiences can inform contemporary responses. When working together, society and practitioners would be able to construct narratives of past change in relation to changing futures, and highlight how transitions have provided new opportunities in the past and may do so again [85,86,87].
While this framework has been developed specifically for the physical loss of cultural property affected by accelerating coastal change, it provides clear guidance for understanding other types of loss and the range of possible responses. By seeing loss as a transformative process rather than a terminal process, a journey rather than an end, it is hoped that the heritage sector will be able to engage in more constructive conversations about vulnerable places and guide their management, now and into the future.

4. Discussion: Experiencing Heritage Transformations

Taking the above into consideration, how do we experience heritage transformations today? Living in times of change, we are experiencing the demolition and transformation of heritage. In recent years, heritage researchers have engaged in a provocative and useful debate about the heritage process from a transformational perspective. Therefore, Apaydin [20] notices that researchers argue that the destruction and transformation of heritage is also part of the necessary heritage process, which can even be a positive change, creating new heritage and memories. So what happens to ideas of memory and heritage at present? Viejo-Rose [67], considering current ideas of information and knowledge dissemination, notes that emerging models of understanding memory and heritage have moved significantly, from a hierarchical vision guided by the brain, to one of an interconnected network of online networks, and finally to today’s flexible, free-floating network–“cloud” model, holding together through a symbiotic balance of input and output. This supports Rudokas’ [13] idea that today we are becoming increasingly aware of the field of cultural heritage of the 21st century by carrying out processes of disciplinary integration, which include not only the cultural, but also the holistic, comprehensive field, covering areas of modern life. Thus, it seems sensible to rethink Smith’s [58] (p. 11) idea that “heritage does not really exist” because it is constantly transforming.
When discussing and experiencing the phenomenon of heritage transformations, this integrative review highlights the importance of paying attention to three layers of connection to the possible perspectives: personal, local, and regional. Thus, the discussion is divided into the following sections: heritage transformations—“I”—as personal transformations, heritage transformations—“Place”—as local perspective, and heritage transformations—“R”—as regional perspective (Figure 1).

4.1. Heritage Transformations “I”—As Personal Perspective

When discussing the theme of transformations, various studies on tourism also explore the theme of personal human transformations, through experiencing tourism and heritage [9,10,35]. Personal transformation is a complex and invisible phenomenon, meaning a “radical inner rearrangement through processes not yet understood by science“ [36] (p. 52). Although philosophers and psychologists have discussed personal transformation for a long time, it is only recently that it has attracted attention in the study of tourism experiences.
Researchers present early research that specifically examines personal changes in travelers. Sheldon [37] recently reviewed the multidisciplinary literature describing elements of transformational experiences, and discussed tourism scenarios that facilitate personal change processes, combining transformation with moments of fear, challenge, flow experiences, and mindfulness.
Similarly, Pung et al. [35] analyze the essential aspects of the experience that tourism tends to change, and provided a conceptual framework for tourism change, rejecting the idea of the climactic moment of a place as a major factor contributing to the tourist’s self-transformation. Reflection, interpretation of experience, value integration, and change of knowledge and attitudes are among other factors leading to self-transformation in tourism [7,35,37]. Numerous investigations on personal experiences have been concerned with the forms, conditions and results of change within the tourism environment, with small consideration paid to what the transformative experiences actually are.
The latter multidisciplinary research of Ross’ [36] concept of transformation suggests that three constructs of the human—ego, mind, and body—change in transformation experiences. The author points out that, for transformation to occur, any of these forms must first exist, and should be affected by the creative forces that create these forms and life itself. New circumstances, relationships, and events in a person’s life are the creative force that leads to new states of life experience and being. However, Ross [36] (p. 59), notes that “many transformational processes occur deep within the individual”, so changing forms are difficult to notice “until the individual has almost changed”. The authors’ analysis suggests that the ego transforms when it experiences greater self-awareness or self-acceptance. Secondly, the mind changes as individuals experience climactic shifts in thought and revelation, and in the body, which is a structure for storing energy and matter, sensations and emotions are recorded. Therefore, personal change takes place in many ways through various changes in ego, mind and body.
Matteucci [10] presents the concept of existential hapax created by French rationalist Michel Onfray to understand experiences of self-transformation. The concept of existential hapax is, as argued by the author, to be distinct from the more benign transformational experiences of tourism. In the case of hapax, the three forms of ego, mind, and body are greatly transformed. Furthermore, hapax is in fact a special and irreversible physical experience that embodies the climax of a life crisis. In order to better understand such a transformative experience, the author suggests emphasizing individual biographies and embodied, relational experiences, not only during a tourist’s trip. Matteucci [10] thus asks what are the key aspects that tourism researchers can learn from this concept? According to one researcher [10], studies that connect emotions, body sensations and memories of the past can add value to concepts of tourism transformation.
In their research, Richardson and Insch [9] talk about the existential transformation of individuals through nature tourism (specifically, in this case, the Orokono Eco-Sanctuary—Te Korowai o Mihiwaka in Dunedin, New Zealand) by identifying the characteristics of transformative tourism experiences before and during the trip. The findings of this study suggest that personal status is a vital element in the transformational outcomes of travel. As part of a shift in personal existence, the authenticity of experience through travel has become an increasingly popular topic in tourism studies. Scholars argue that now individuals, as human being who are consuming tourism, are seeking a meaningful transformation from it [7]. Although research is focusing on positive post-travel outcomes after transformative travel experiences, the literature provides little information about the characteristics of such experiences before and during travel. In order to evaluate the transformation of tourists, reflecting on past experiences and understanding the present, it is important to study not only tourists’ evaluations after the trip, but also their emotions and feelings during the trip.
Authenticity in tourism and the achievement of inner transformation through the tourism experience are “both the motivation for travel and its unexpected outcome” [52] (p. 4). Kirillova et al. [7] and Soulard et al. [11] point out the need to study the role of emotions in transformation. There is no a specific desire of the tourist experiencing a transformation before traveling. The tourist participates in activities that provide excitement and meaning for him during the trip, but he will have reflection on these existential givens [9]. Later, usually at the end of the trip there suddenly occurs the spontaneous event. Then, by remembering these evocative events, visitors begin to understand what their travel experience was like, and when this awareness extends into their daily lives, visitors can better understand themselves. In order to live authentically, the tourist after the trip will perceive his existential anxiety as a warning about irreconcilable differences, encouraging him to realize and resolve them. The quest for authenticity continues, and after gaining a clearer understanding of self-perception, tourists begin making significant changes in their lives. In this case, as Apter’s reversal theory explains, the tourist’s mindset plays a central role in the transformation [88]. According to Richardson and Insch [9], the main difference between visitors (tourists) in experiencing personal transformation is their personal state of being—they are all open to the experience in a paratelic way. Thus, paratelic thinking is about the state or mindset of participants, as well as openness to new experience and the ability to see that experience with a new, unbiased eyes, and it allows for transformative steps to occur [88,89]. Thus, the personal transformation of a tourist experiencing heritage is multi-layered and based on experience and openness to what is happening in the present—the “here and now”.
After a deeper consideration of the “I”, the personal perspective, it seems that the tourist experiences some self-transformations during or after the trip. The structure of his ego, mind and body, or all of them, may change, and perhaps his entire life. It has become clear that people perceive tourism in an authentic way, and there is no doubt that tourism is a phenomenon that has transformative power and can influence individual perceptions of heritage.

4.2. Heritage Transformations “Place”—As Local Perspective

As, nowadays, the phenomena of globalization has increased mobility and spatial homogeneity, and the loss of cultural specificity emerges more and more often, researchers are plagued by the question: does the concept of “place” still mean something to individual people [90,91]? The answer should be positive, as places have not lost their meaning [39]. If anything, the concept of “place” has enhanced its value nowadays, particularly in regional areas, as neighborhoods, villages and small towns [92,93]. Place points to a space that has acquired meaning through individual, collective or cultural processes: [94,95] the multisensory memories, symbols and experiences experienced and felt in a place. Similarly, Leonard [96] defines a place as a collection of spaces made meaningful through people’s experiences and ideas.
Place attachment is not only the subject of analytical research, but also a norm-oriented debate [45]. Place attachment is shaped by cultural, socio-economic, environmental, and historical variables, and the relationship of place attachment is complex [46]. The term is broad, and includes the connections that individuals develop towards the various dimensions of place. Individuals can make connections with their neighborhood, village, city, province, state, etc. [97]. Marieke et al. [51] recognize that place attachments are diverse, as residents may be more or less attached to different aspects of a place, and place attachments are stratified along different dimensions. For example, Raymond et al. [98] presented a conceptual model of place attachment that distinguished place identity, place dependence, social connectedness, and nature connection as important dimensions of place attachment. Place attachment is also understood as an emotional connection between a specific person and a specific place or its characteristics [38,99,100]. As a process, place attachment involves a relationship people have with a place that involves many senses and emotions [101,102]. Marieke et al. [51] claim that individual biographies are impacted by place of residence, when local customs, traditions and language are considered by residents to be an integral part of their identity, which determines the sense of community and attachment to the region. The concept of place attachment is multi-layered [45]. One aspect of that concept, for example, is the natural or tourism features that can foster attachment to a place by giving the place an aura of uniqueness and distinctiveness [103]. Therefore, the information about a place and what it offers to residents and tourists, aesthetic landscapes and place factors can be an important part of attachment [104].
Authors [40,42,105] present their version of ‘place’—creating a sense of place through place storytelling. Zonn [40] emphasizes that the stories people tell about places reflect the identities of both—personal and collective identities—and, therefore, suggests that any understanding of their essential connections must begin with personal accounts. According to the author, personal stories of place are framed and told to provide a connection between an individual’s identity and the place they are telling, which can serve as examples of pathways that, in turn, can reveal bigger and more complex stories beyond the self. One researcher [40] observes that the role of history, memory and change, in individual and collective contexts, is integral to the process of place identity formation. The identities of people and place can be mutually constitutive, and begin at the most organic level—the individual and his immediate environment.
Pollice et al. [42] point out that place narrative is a type of place narrative that fosters place development and helps foster a sense of identity and belonging among community members. Telling stories about lived and experienced places is the inherent and intriguing appeal of these stories—a distinctive and unique statement of how personal backgrounds, experiences, events, histories, and individual personalities are somehow expressed in the way places are made [40]. Placetelling, as the method of creating place stories and a strategic asset, supports communication and advertising processes [42]. Carmona [106] argues that placemaking depends on context, placemaking processes and power relations between the stakeholders involved.
Placetelling provides pragmatic evidence for the importance of the territorial element and identity in defining shared, bottom-up narratives about place and, consequently, how these elements could coalesce into an effective strategic instrument for place development [42]. A good example is sustainable tourism destination narratives. According to the author, the link between placetelling and sustainability is self-evident, arising from the need to create a narrative mechanism that allows the local community to recognize the interrelationships that bind it to its place, and this interrelationship makes it a unique social organism; here, the adjective “indigenous” means that the community is such that it identifies and symbioses with its territory. Casonato and Vedoà [47] notice that there is a growing interest in sustainable tourism and projects that involve local communities to promote lesser-known places. Such narratives can increase feelings of belonging to other cultures, fusing territorial appeal and promoting mutual empathic connection [107].
The essential purpose of placetelling is to form an identity narrative that emerges from the local community’s process of self-representation. This is very relevant for ideas of possession in island sites. Thus, the authors [105] analyze the case of the Cape Verde Islands. In the case of Cape Verde, insularity leads to debates about local communities’ self-representation through the use of their cultural and symbolic heritage, as well as tourism in the development of local development strategies. Although Cape Verde has a wide assortment of environmental and cultural resources, it is considered to be only a coastal location with high exposure to resource scarcity and landscape degradation processes. Economic reforms are underway to attract foreign investment and increase job opportunities; these also include strategies to diversify the tourism supply according to the principle of sustainable tourism, focused on the essential goal of preserving territorial capacity. Additionally, it is important to understand how to increase the attractiveness and charisma of a place through actions that can stimulate the emotional imagination of tourists, especially given that tourists are increasingly motivated by a desire for intense cultural experiences [108]. It is important to mention that tourists are not the only actors in the placetelling process: the main actor is the place itself.
The tourism literature also discusses the experiential benefits consumers derive from visiting a heritage site [87,109,110,111]. First, the heritage experience is proven to be authentic, i.e., experiences of certainty, reality, and truth [112]. Objects and places play an important role in authentic experiences [113]. Second, literature has also highlighted the fact that immersion in heritage experiences encourages consumers to discover and expand their knowledge, a source of excitement and joy [114]. This intellectual stimulation prompts them to reinterpret the stories that heritage offers [115] and develop their own past experiences [116]. Third, the experience of heritage is essentially also an aesthetic experience, and visitors value heritage not only for what it stands for, but also for its aesthetics [109,113]. These studies suggest that cultural heritage consumption can have an impact on individuals through attachment and loyalty to cultural heritage, or to a concrete heritage place [117]. Heritage experiences also influence consumer identity [8]. This effect can occur both at the individual level, which forces people to redefine themselves after the experience [118,119] and at the collective level, as heritage facilitates community solidarity [120]. It seems that here that when the „Place“ perspective meets the „I“ perspective, a tourist transforms himself after the special, unique and authentic heritage and/or place experience.
According to Zoon [40] (p. 4), “a place is a place that has meaning for someone through experience”. Place, in this context, is the place that can be identified in space, time, and content, and meaning is the element that gives a place its identity. Thus, one of the goals of telling local stories is to help create a sense of belonging to a place, to increase the awareness of the existing identity, not only for the tourist, but also to provide a new development direction for tourism, the development of the region, and, through experience, to help transform the existing local heritage as well.

4.3. Heritage Transformations “R”—As Regional Perspective

The processes associated with heritage transformation are based on various aspects of human knowledge and creativity, taking into account economic, social and cultural changes and societal needs. The sustainable cities/regions of the future are widely perceived as creative, smart and revolutionary, if urban and regional sustainability is gained through new technologies or innovations [34]. However, given that cities and the built environments of their neighborhoods are very resilient, it is also important to focus on how to make cities resilient using resources (stories, artifacts and places) taken from the past. Lillevold and Haarstad [34] regard this as a “deep city” view of the transformation of cities and places. According to the authors, depth—the sense of place that is shared—can be used as a resource against unsustainable development and the development of commercial centers.
In another example of place transformation, Chilingaryan [54] suggests that, nowadays, many former industrial and mining areas are adopting tourism as a strategic tool for their regional and economic revitalization. This is also the revitalization of former industrial regions. It is clear that many architectural structures adapt to the changing needs of society by fitting into the conventions of a certain period of time. All good environments have grown slowly over a long period of time; thus, redevelopment paradigms seeking to improve and integrate the built environment inherited from the past are part of today’s heritage management [54,121].
Current political debates on sustainable urban development are often based on economic and technical terms, positing that urban transformation is achieved through intelligence and innovation [34]. Urban locations are recognized worldwide for their role in fostering these innovations by creating an environment that encourages entrepreneurship, forward thinking and risk taking [122]. Despite this, the significance of the city’s historic context is usually unnoticed or taken for granted.
A new scholarly literature on cultural heritage and sustainability is emerging, detailing how cultural heritage shapes the sense of self and compactness of place [34]. Additionally, and above all, it is about how heritage can be used to transform cities and places in different contexts. This new knowledge broadens our understanding of how historical perspectives, historical artifacts and a sense of place can be used as resources for the sustainability of cities and places, and deepens discussions of sustainable urban development.
Therefore, it is relevant to examine how the historic structures of urban places can be effectively applied, as capabilities and resources, for sustainable territorial transformations to help maintain compact urban centers, energy efficiency or innovative consumption. Lillevold and Haarstad [34] argue that a historical sense of place—the so-called urban “depth”—can be a source of change for harmoniously developing cities and places. According to the authors, this historically conditioned sense of place promotes harmonious urban development by combating urban sprawl, often associated with high energy consumption and automobile dependence, preserving historic urban structures and teaching sustainable urbanization. Researchers analyze the case study of the city of Røros in central Norway. The city center is decorated with historic wooden buildings dating from the 17th and 18th centuries. The entire city center is on the UNESCO World Heritage List. It is a popular tourist destination, with many cultural events based on the city’s history. As pointed out by authors, the key here is to answer questions about how heritage can be used for urban/place change in different contexts, and how cultural heritage and its protection influences the development and meaning of culture. They do this by examining Røros relating to sustainable urbanization. Sustainable urban planning is prevalent and cities are now seen as key venues for addressing a range of social issues.
However, there are many nuances in these debates; it is clear that there are core political perspectives focused on innovation and technology, such as post-industrial politics or advanced entrepreneurship, with dominant visions of future cities [122,123]. Narratives of post-industrialization and creative urban development have led cities to transcend their historical heritage and attempt to restructure [124]. Against this trend, a large academic literature is emerging that examines the role of strata, structures and historical artifacts in sustaining and transforming urban areas. It can be said that more attention has been paid to the links between cultural heritage and sustainability [34]. The sustainable development of a place is a mix of the old and the new, not just pushing new ideas as if the canvas were blank [33]. These insights show, in important ways, how the remnants and traces of the past shape the possibilities of current and future projects of urban transformation [125]. A historically derived sense of place—“depth”—can be a source of sustainable transformation.
The term “deep city” [34] is an emerging concept arising from archeology and heritage studies. The nature of cities is interconnected and multi-layered, and one can only wonder if and how these urban structures can be a resource for future cities, and help to reshape them while maintaining them. The historical depth of the city is associated with the image of memory, which is historical, material, and has the power of memory [126] To adopt this conception of the city, we also consider the human historical influence on urban life, as Duff [127] (p. 881) argues that “thick spaces are created between affect, habit and practice that allow for personal enrichment and deepening of emotional experience”.
As Rossi [128] points out, cities retain and reveal their memories through buildings. In this respect, to become smart or de-industrial, cities must not only overcome the artefacts of the past, but also recognize that they are valuable tools for the change process. In summary, cultural heritage is a source of sustainability. The idea that the past is a resource for sustainable change is also supported by the scientific literature on climate change. For example, Van de Noort states that he sees the past as a “repository of ideas and concepts that can help build the resilience of communities in times of rapid climate change” [129] (p. vii). Furthermore, Amundsen [130] believes that attachment to place may provide a better starting point for adaptation to climate change than emphasizing the impacts of climate change itself. The author notices that people’s sense of place is a powerful driver of action and engagement, and is therefore critical to place-based sustainability transformations. Abbiss [41] proposes an important new framework, within which drama in the television age can be analyzed, recognizing and introducing elements of an aesthetic methodological process that represented a more advanced vision than many previous academic responses. According to Lillevold and Haarstad [34], when heritage helps reinforce a certain sense of place, mall-based development and sprawl are inappropriate.
In summary, we can highlight the fact that heritage has played and continues to play an important role in planning impacts on cities and societies. Urban transformation, considering the sustainability of the built environment, cannot be based only on innovation and environmental destruction. It is therefore important to reveal how a historically conditioned sense of place, called the “depth” of a city, can create new possibilities for the discussion of sustainable development resources. Urban development must be based on the reuse, repurposing, and adaptation of the structures that make up our regional places.

4.4. Towards Heritage Transformation Perspectives

Cultural heritage, as Otero [53] points out, represents one of the most important global industries today, delivering significant economic benefits to host countries, regions and communities. When summarizing the discussion, it seems important to support Rudokas’ [13] idea that, today, awareness of the field of cultural heritage of the 21st century is growing, due to carrying out processes of disciplinary integration that include not only the cultural, but also the holistic, comprehensive field, covering the areas of modern human life. Therefore, it seems logical to rethink Smith’s [58] (p. 11) idea that “heritage does not really exist”, because it is constantly transforming.
Additionally, when discussing the phenomenon of heritage transformations and experiencing it, this integrative review highlighted the importance of paying attention to three layers to global perspectives: personal, local, and regional. Thus, the discussion, when layered into three layers—heritage transformations “I”—as personal transformations, heritage transformations “Place”—as local perspective, heritage transformations “R”—as regional perspective (Figure 1)—has revealed that all three discussed heritage transformation perspectives are experiencing significant global connections. The biggest challenge of current and future heritage transformations is a dependence on being constantly interconnected (individually, locally, regionally), and on being constantly influenced by the world’s challenges and its development trends. Furthermore, when trying to answer the question of how heritage transformations and their perspectives could be integrated to future tourism development, it seems important to pay attention to individually, locally, and regionally interconnected layers of heritage transformations, leading to the integration and creation of interwoven tourism values and experiences.

5. Concluding Insights

Heritage transformation allows for a transformation of values focused on the discovery of future values embedded in shifts in relevance and interests. When dealing with climate change and cultural heritage, some heritage may remain damaged to commemorate events and place vulnerabilities [27]. We should pay attention to Silberman’s [43] remark, about the long-term future effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on global society. Additionally, we should agree with Chilingaryan [54], who states that heritage consists of things, such the buildings and nature around us, as well as the traditions and customs that people have, as well as society—its traditions, knowledge and cultural expression—and he further suggests that it is the important part of our lives, and we should take care of it. Therefore, to where is heritage oriented? Scholars define heritage as present-oriented, being “created, shaped and managed for and in response to the needs of the present [63] (p. 3). Although heritage and memory are related at the most personal level of a person’s self-construction, they are also firmly intertwined with society, in the ever-expanding and ever-changing connection and relationship between the self and the world [67]. Therefore, the question of how to define memory remains open: Fitzpatrick et al. [50] point out that it is very unlikely that the global environment will start to decouple from economic growth completely; Rowin et al. [2] argue that it is necessary to change the dominant way of thinking about heritage, trying to look for the ways to embrace the path dependency of the landscape. Giliberto [48] notes that heritage research is a field that can help bring together different groups of people and help them work together. Additionally, the idea of transformative continuity could be a lens through which we could examine the transformation of heritage.
Personal transformation, through the experience of tourism and heritage, is a very complex and even invisible phenomenon, which is defined as “a radical internal rearrangement through processes that science does not yet understand in principle” [36] (p. 52). Reflection, interpretation of experience, and integration of values and knowledge, as well as changes in attitude, are among the factors that determine self-transformation in tourism. Travelers seek to meaningfully transform themselves through the consumption of tourism [7]; therefore, the experience of existential authenticity during travel becomes an important part of an individual’s existential transformation, and it becomes an important part for local and regional development [131,132,133,134].
When discussing local perspective, the construction of meaning, as Hooper-Greenhill [135] notices, should be related not only to individual interpretative processes, but also to the interpretative communities. We should pay attention to the place storytelling—placetelling—has in helping local communities to directly engage in the preservation of their common heritage and pass it on to future generations. Furthermore, we should direct our attention to the architectural structures adapting to the changing needs of society, fitting into a certain period of time, and therefore becoming important when considering how historical trajectories and sense of place can become resources for local sustainability.
Therefore, the regional perspective, as the transformation of the region, can be a long-term process that requires strategic decisions and modern public management. Climate change can lead to the emergence of new collective meanings and memories and the erosion or disappearance of the old. It is necessary to start thinking about new ways of involving people in the topics of loss, change, and transformation of cultural and natural heritage, because loss is not itself a purely negative and linear process. Potential loss can rekindle and inspire interest in new places and subjects. The transformational process of change can provide opportunities for both the human world and the natural world, and, by actively acknowledging the positive aspects of loss, we can develop a new relationship with our environment.
In conclusion, we should agree with Appadurai’s [136] idea, that “cultures are and always have been interactive to some degree” (p. 181), and with Bhabha [4], who points out that culture is characterized as mixedness, even as cultural hybridity; that culture is about ever-changing, ever-transforming processes. Thus, the biggest challenge of current and future heritage transformations is a dependence on being constantly interconnected (individually, locally, regionally), and being constantly influenced by the world’s challenges and its development trends. Additionally, when looking towards future tourism development, it seems important to pay attention to individually, locally, and regionally interconnected layers of heritage transformations, leading to the constant integration and creation of interwoven tourism values and experiences.

Author Contributions

Data collection: R.P. and E.Z.; methodology: R.P. and E.Z.; visualization: R.P. and E.Z.; writing—original draft: R.P. and E.Z.; writing—review and editing: R.P. and E.Z. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

MDPI Research Data Policies.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest in the results.

References

  1. Gravari-Barbas, M. Nouveaux Défis Pour Le Patrimoine Culturel [New Challenges for Cultural Heritage], Foresight Research 2014. Agence Nationale Pour La Recherche. Available online: https://www.academia.edu/14912034/New_Challenges_for_Cultural_Heritage (accessed on 20 November 2022).
  2. Van Lanen, R.J.; van Beek, R.; Kosian, M.C. A different view on (world) heritage. The need for multi-perspective data analyses in historical landscape studies: The example of Schokland (NL). J. Cult. Herit. 2022, 53, 190–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Bergman Rosamond, A. The ethics and politics of world heritage: Local application at the site of Laponia. J. Glob. Ethics 2022, 18, 286–305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Bhabha, H.K. The Location of Culture, 2nd ed.; Routledge: London, UK, 1994. [Google Scholar]
  5. Torraco, R.J. Writing integrative literature reviews: Using the past and present to explore the future. Hum. Resour. Dev. Rev. 2016, 15, 404–428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Whittemore, R.; Knafl, K. The integrative review: Updated methodology. J. Adv. Nurs. 2005, 52, 546–553. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Kirillova, K.; Lehto, X.; Cai, L. What triggers transformative tourism experiences? Tour. Recreat. Res. 2017, 42, 498–511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Mencarelli, R.; Chaney, D.; Pulh, M. Consumers’ brand heritage experience: Between acceptance and resistance. J. Mark. Manag. 2020, 36, 30–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Richardson, N.; Insch, A. Enabling transformative experiences through nature-based tourism. Tour. Recreat. Res. 2021, 48, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Matteucci, X. Existential hapax as tourist embodied transformation. Tour. Recreat. Res. 2021, 47, 631–635. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Soulard, J.; McGehee, N.; Knollenberg, W. Developing and testing the transformative travel experience scale (TTES). J. Travel Res. 2021, 60, 923–946. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Smith, L.; Campbell, G. Nostalgia for the Future’: Memory, Nostalgia and the Politics of Class. Int. J. Herit. Stud. 2017, 23, 612–627. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Rudokas, K. Narrativity of Urban Heritage. Ph.D. Thesis, Kaunas Technology University, Kaunas, Lithuania, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  14. Su, J. Conceptualising the Subjective Authenticity of Intangible Cultural Heritage. Int. J. Herit. Stud. 2018, 24, 919–937. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Di Pietro, L.; Guglielmetti Mugion, R.; Renzi, M.F. Heritage and Identity: Technology, Values and Visitor Experiences; Taylor & Francis: Abingdon, UK, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  16. Rudokas, K. Holistic Perception of Urban and Architectural Heritage: Eschatological Approach. Logos-J. Relig. Philos. Comp. Cult. Stud. Art 2019, 101, 147–158. [Google Scholar]
  17. O’Donovan, M. Nostalgia and Heritage in the Carousel City: Deindustrialization, Critical Memory, and the Future. J. Community Archaeol. Herit. 2019, 6, 272–282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Biskas, M.; Cheung, W.Y.; Juhl, J.; Sedikides, C.; Wildschut, T.; Hepper, E. A Prologue to Nostalgia: Savouring Creates Nostalgic Memories That Foster Optimism. Cogn. Emot. 2019, 33, 417–427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Linn-Tynen, E. Reclaiming the Past as a Matter of Social Justice: African American Heritage, Representation and Identity in the United States. In Ritical Perspectives on Cultural Memory and Heritage: Construction, Transformation and Destructi; Apaydin, V., Ed.; UCL Press: London, UK, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  20. Apaydin, V. Critical Perspectives on Cultural Memory and Heritage: Construction, Transformation and Destruction; UCL Press: London, UK, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  21. Wang, M.; Zhao, M.; Lin, M.; Cao, W.; Zhu, H.; An, N. Seeking Lost Memories: Application of a New Visual Methodology for Heritage Protection. Geogr. Rev. 2020, 110, 556–574. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Harrison, R.; DeSilvey, C.; Holtorf, C.; Macdonald, S.; Bartolini, N.; Breithoff, E.; Fredheim, H.; Lyons, A.; May, S.; Morgan, J.; et al. Heritage Futures: Comparative Approaches to Natural and Cultural Heritage Practices; UCL Press: London, UK, 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Fatorić, S.; Seekamp, E. Securing the future of cultural heritage by identifying barriers to and strategizing solutions for preservation under changing climate conditions. Sustainability 2017, 9, 2143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  24. Dawson, T.; Hambly, J.; Graham, E. A central role for communities: Climate change and coastal heritage management in Scotland. In Public Archaeology and Climate Change; Dawson, T., Nimura, C., López-Romero, E., Daire, M.-Y., Eds.; Oxbow Books: Oxford, UK, 2017; pp. 23–33. [Google Scholar]
  25. Ives, T.H.; McBride, K.A.; Waller, J.N. Surveying coastal archaeological sites damaged by Hurricane Sandy in Rhode Island, USA. J. Island Coast. Archaeol. 2018, 13, 66–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Lindsay, R.S.; England, K.; Beswick, A. A changing climate for development. In Climate Ready Clyde and Adaptation Scotland; Sniffer: Edinburgh, Scotland, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  27. Seekamp, E.; Jo, E. Resilience and transformation of heritage sites to accommodate for loss and learning in a changing climate. Clim. Chang. 2020, 162, 41–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Dawson, T.; Hambly, J.; Kelley, A.; Miller, S. Coastal heritage, global climate change, public engagement, and citizen science. Anthropology 2020, 117, 8280–8286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  29. Rockman, M.; Hritz, C. Expanding Use of Archaeology in Climate Change Response by Changing Its Social Environment. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2020, 117, 8295–8302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  30. DeSilvey, C. Curated Decay: Heritage beyond Saving; University of Minnesota Press: Minneapolis, MN, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  31. DeSilvey, C. The Art of Losing; University of Minnesota Press Blog. 2017. Available online: http://www.uminnpressblog.com/2017/02/the-art-of-losing.html (accessed on 4 May 2022).
  32. Högberg, A.; Holtorf, C.; May, S.; Wollentz, G. No Future in Archaeological Heritage Management? World Archaeol. 2017, 49, 639–647. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  33. Haarstad, H.; Oseland, S.E. Historicizing Urban Sustainability: The shifting ideals behind Forus Industrial Park, Norway. Int. J. Urban Reg. Res. 2017, 41, 838–854. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Lillevold, K.; Haarstad, H. The deep city: Cultural heritage as a resource for sustainable local transformation. Local Environ. 2019, 24, 329–341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Pung, J.M.; Gnoth, J.; Del Chiappa, G. Tourist transformation: Towards a conceptual model. Ann. Tour. Res. 2020, 81, 102885. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Ross, S.L. A concept analysis of the form that transforms as a result of transformation. Int. J. Psychol. Stud. 2020, 12, 52–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Sheldon, P. Designing tourism experiences for inner transformation. Ann. Tour. Res. 2020, 83, 102935. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Sandow, E.; Lundholm, E. Which families move out from metropolitan areas? Counterurban migration and professions in Sweden. Eur. Urban Reg. Stud. 2020, 27, 276–289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Sebastien, L. The power of place in understanding place attachments and meanings. Geoforum 2020, 108, 204–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Zonn, L. “A Place Belongs Forever”: Telling Stories for the Personal Place Project. GeoHumanities 2020, 6, 151–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Abbiss, W.S. Proposing a Post-heritage Critical Framework: The Crown, Ambiguity, and Media Self-consciousness. Telev. New Media 2020, 21, 825–841. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Pollice, F.; Rinella, A.; Epifani, F.; Miggiano, P. Placetelling® as a Strategic Tool for Promoting Niche Tourism to Islands: The Case of Cape Verde. Sustainability 2020, 12, 4333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Silberman, N. Good-bye to all that: COVID-19 and the transformations of cultural heritage. Int. J. Cult. Prop. 2020, 27, 467–475. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Venture, T.; DeSilvey, C.; Onciul, B.; Fluck, H. Articulating Loss: A Thematic Framework for Understanding Coastal Heritage Transformations. Hist. Environ. Policy Pract. 2021, 12, 395–417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Birnbaum, L.; Wilhelm, C.; Chilla, T.; Kröner, S. Place attachment and digitalisation in rural regions. J. Rural Stud. 2021, 87, 189–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Blondin, S. Staying despite disaster risks: Place attachment, voluntary immobility and adaptation in Tajikistan’s Pamir Mountains. Geoforum 2021, 126, 290–301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Casonato, C.; Vedoà, M. Heritage and Tourism Education in Fragile Landscape. Enhancing the Image of Suburbia. Img J. 2021, 3, 64–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Giliberto, F. Heritage for Global Challenges. In A Research Report by PRAXIS: Arts and Humanities for Global Development; University of Leeds: Leeds, UK, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  49. Crowley, K.; Jackson, R.; O’Connell, S.; Karunarthna, D.; Anantasari, E.; Retnowati, A.; Niemand, D. Cultural heritage and risk assessments: Gaps, challenges, and future research directions for the inclusion of heritage within climate change adaptation and disaster management. Clim. Resil. Sustain. 2022, 1, e45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Fitzpatrick, N.; Parrique, T.; Cosme, I. Exploring degrowth policy proposals: A systematic mapping with thematic synthesis. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 365, 132764. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Van der Star, M.E.; Hochstenbach, C. Continuity among stayers: Levels, predictors and meanings of place attachment in rural shrinking regions. J. Rural Stud. 2022, 96, 369–380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Naramski, M.; Herman, K.; Szromek, A.R. The Transformation Process of a Former Industrial Plant into an Industrial Heritage Tourist Site as Open Innovation. J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2022, 8, 74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Otero, J. Heritage Conservation Future: Where We Stand, Challenges Ahead, and a Paradigm Shift. Glob. Chall. 2022, 6, 2100084. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Chilingaryan, N. Industrial Heritage: In-Beetwen Memory and Transformations. Ph.D. Thesis, Bauhaus-Universität Weimar, Weimar, Germany, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  55. Throsby, C.D. The Economics of Cultural Policy; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, NY, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  56. Tunbridge, J.E.; Ashworth, G.J. Dissonant Heritage: The Management of the Past as a Resource in Conflict; Wiley: Chichester, UK, 1996. [Google Scholar]
  57. Harvey, D.C. Heritage pasts and heritage presents: Temporality, meaning and the scope of heritage studies. Int. J. Herit. Stud. 2001, 7, 319–338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Smith, L. Uses of Heritage; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  59. Harrison, R. Heritage: Critical Approaches; Routledge: Abingdon, NY, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  60. Sjöholm, J. Heritagisation, Re-Heritagisation and De-Heritagisation of Built Environments: The Urban Transformation of Kiruna, Sweden. Ph.D. Thesis, Luleå University of Technology, Norrbotten, Sweden, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  61. Mason, R. Assessing Values in Conservation Planning. In The Heritage Reader; Fairclough, G.J., Ed.; Routledge: London, UK, 2008; pp. 99–124. [Google Scholar]
  62. Graham, B. Heritage as knowledge: Capital or culture? Urban Stud. 2002, 39, 1003–1017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Graham, B.; Howard, P. The Ashgate Research Companion to Heritage and Identity; Ashgate Pub. Co.: Farnham, UK, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  64. Graham, B.J.; Ashworth, G.J.; Tunbridge, J.E. A Geography of Heritage: Power, Culture and Economy; Routledge: London, UK, 2000. [Google Scholar]
  65. Walsh, K. The Representation of the Past: Museums and Heritage in the Post-Modern World, 1st ed.; Routledge: London, UK, 1992. [Google Scholar]
  66. Harrison, R. Forgetting to remember, remembering to forget: Late modern heritage practices, sustainability and the ‘crisis’ of accumulation of the past. Int. J. Herit. Stud. 2013, 19, 579–595. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Viejo-Rose, D. Cultural Heritage and Memory: Untangling the Ties That Bind. Cult. Hist. Digit. J. 2015, 4, e018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  68. Sather-Wagstaff, J. Heritage and Memory. The Palgrave Handbook of Contemporary Heritage Research; Palgrave Macmillan: London, UK, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  69. Erll, A.; Rigney, A. Introduction. Cultural Memory and Its Dynamics. In Mediation, Remediation, and the Dynamics of Cultural Memory; Erll, A., Rigney, A., Eds.; Walter de Gruyter: Berlin, Germany, 2009; pp. 1–14. [Google Scholar]
  70. Rockman, M.; Morgan, M.; Ziaja, S.; Hambrecht, G.; Meadow, A. Cultural Resources Climate Change Strategy. In Cultural Resources, Partnerships, and Science and Climate Change Response Program; National Park Service: Washington, DC, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  71. Thornton, T.F.; Manasfi, N. Adaptation–Genuine and spurious: Demystifying adaptation processes in relation to climate change. Environ. Soc. 2010, 1, 132–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Tengberg, A.; Fredholm, S.; Eliasson, I.; Knez, I.; Saltzman, K.; Wetterberg, O. Cultural ecosystem services provided by landscapes: Assessment of heritage values and identity. Ecosyst. Serv. 2012, 2, 14–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. UNESCO Policy document for the integration of a sustainable development perspective. In Proceedings of the World Heritage Convention Adopted by the General Assembly of States Parties to the World Heritage Convention at Its 20th Session, Paris, France, 19 November 2015.
  74. Clifford, J. Taking identity politics seriously: ‘The contradictory, stony ground...’. In Without Guarantees: In Honour of Stuart Hall; Gilroy, P., Grossber, L., McRobbie, A., Eds.; Verso: London, UK, 2000; pp. 94–112. [Google Scholar]
  75. Butler, B. Heritage and the present past. In Handbook of Material Culture; Tilley, C., Keane, W., Küchler, S., Rowlands, M., Spyer, P., Eds.; Sage: London, UK, 2006; pp. 463–479. [Google Scholar]
  76. Meskell, L. Negative heritage and past mastering in archaeology. Anthropol. Q. 2002, 75, 557–574. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Graham, B. Sharing space? Geography and politics in post-conflict Northern Ireland. In Cultural Memories: The Geographical Point of View; Meusburger, P., Ed.; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  78. Mezirow, J. Transformative Dimensions of Adult Learning; Jossey-Bass: San Francisco, CA, USA, 1991. [Google Scholar]
  79. Sabbioni, C.; Brimblecombe, P.; Cassar, M. The Atlas of Climate Change Impact on European Cultural Heritage: Scientific Analysis and Management Strategies; Anthem Press: New York, NY, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  80. Berenfeld, M.L. Planning for permanent emergency: “Triage” as a strategy for managing cultural resources threatened by climate change. Georg. Wright Forum 2015, 32, 5–12. [Google Scholar]
  81. Jarvis, J.B. Policy memorandum 14-02: Climate change and stewardship of cultural resources. In Policy Memorandum 14-02; National Park Service: Washington, DC, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  82. Fluck, H. Climate Change Adaptation Report. 28; Historic England: Portsmouth, UK, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  83. Cunsolo Willox, A. Climate Change as the Work of Mourning. Ethics Environ. 2012, 17, 137–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Holtorf, C. Averting Loss Aversion in Cultural Heritage. Int. J. Herit. Stud. 2015, 21, 405–421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Ferraby, R. Narratives of Change on the Jurrassic Coast World Heritage Site. In The Future of Heritage as Climates Change. Loss, Adaptation and Creativity; Harvey, D., Perry, J., Eds.; Routledge: Oxford, UK, 2015; pp. 25–42. [Google Scholar]
  86. DeSilvey, C. Making Sense of Transience: An Anticipatory History. Cult. Geogr. 2012, 19, 31–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Massara, F.; Severino, F. Psychological distance in the heritage experience. Ann. Tour. Res. 2013, 42, 108–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Hills, P.; Argyle, M.; Reeves, R. Individual differences in leisure satisfactions: An investigation of four theories of leisure motivation. Personal. Individ. Differ. 2000, 28, 763–779. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Cohen, E. A phenomenology of tourist experiences. Sociology 1979, 13, 179–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  90. Beatley, T. Native to Nowhere. Sustaining Home and Community in a Global Age; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2004. [Google Scholar]
  91. Casey, E. The Fate of Place. A Philosophical History; Univ of California Press: Oakland, CA, USA, 1998. [Google Scholar]
  92. Janz, B. Walls and Borders: The Range of Place. City Community 2005, 4, 87–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Kruger, L.E.; Jakes, P.J. The importance of place: Advances in science and application. For. Sci. 2003, 49, 819–821. [Google Scholar]
  94. Tuan, Y. Place: An Experiential Perspective. Geogr. Rev. 1975, 65, 151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Stedman, R.C. Is It Really Just a Social Construction? The Contribution of the Physical Environment to Sense of Place. Soc. Nat. Resour. 2003, 16, 671–685. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Leonard, S.P. The need to ‘belong’: Social connectedness and spatial attachment in Polar Eskimo settlements. Polar Rec. 2013, 50, 138–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Gustafson, P. Place attachment in an age of mobility. In Place Attachment: Advances in Theory, Methods and Applications; Manzo, L.C., Devine- Wright, P., Eds.; Routledge: Abingdon, NY, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  98. Raymond, C.M.; Brown, G.; Weber, D. The measurement of place attachment: Personal, community, and environmental connections. J. Environ. Psychol. 2010, 30, 422–434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Hidalgo, C.M.; Hern´andez, B. Place attachment: Conceptual and empirical questions. J. Environ. Psychol. 2001, 21, 273–281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  100. Scannell, L.; Gifford, R. Comparing the theories of interpersonal and place attachment. In Place Attachment: Advances in Theory, Methods and Research; Manzo, L.C., Devine-Wright, P., Eds.; Routledge: Oxford, UK, 2014; pp. 23–36. [Google Scholar]
  101. Relph, E. Spirit of place and sense of place in virtual realities. Techne 2007, 10, 17–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Scannell, L.; Gifford, R. Defining place attachment: A tripartite organizing framework. J. Environ. Psychol. 2010, 30, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Massey, D. The conceptualization of place. In The Shape of the World: Vol. 4. A Place in the World? Places, Cultures and Globalization; Massey, D., Jess, P., Eds.; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 1995; pp. 45–86. [Google Scholar]
  104. Walker, A.J.; Ryan, R.L. Place attachment and landscape preservation in rural new england: A Maine case study. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2008, 82, 141–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Cameron, E. New geographies of story and storytelling. Prog. Hum. Geogr. 2012, 36, 573–592. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Carmona, M. The Place-shaping Continuum: A Theory of Urban Design Process. J. Urban Des. 2014, 1, 2–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Briguglio, L. Small island developing states and their economic vulnerabilities. World Dev. 1995, 23, 1615–1632. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Dallen, T.J. Tourism and the Personal Heritage Experience. Ann. Tour. Res. 1997, 24, 751–754. [Google Scholar]
  109. Chronis, A. Co-constructing heritage at the Gettysburg storyscape. Ann. Tour. Res. 2005, 32, 386–406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Goulding, C. Romancing the past: Heritage visiting and the nostalgic consumer. Psychol. Market. 2001, 18, 565–592. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Kempiak, J.; Hollywood, L.; Bolan, P.; McMahon-Beattie, U. The heritage tourist: An understanding of the visitor experience at heritage attractions. Int. J. Herit. Stud. 2017, 23, 375–392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Grayson, K.; Martinec, R. Consumer perceptions of iconicity and indexicality and their influence on assessments of authentic market offerings. J. Consum. Res. 2004, 31, 296–312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Goulding, C. The commodification of the past, postmodern pastiche, and the search for authentic experiences at contemporary heritage attractions. Eur. J. Market. 2000, 34, 835–853. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Calver, S.J.; Page, S.J. Enlightened hedonism: Exploring the relationship of service value, visitor knowledge and interest, to visitor enjoyment at heritage attractions. Tour. Manag. 2013, 39, 23–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Chronis, A.; Hampton, R.D. Consuming the authentic Gettysburg: How a tourist landscape becomes an authentic experience. J. Consum. Behav. Int. Res. Rev. 2008, 7, 111–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Beeho, A.J.; Prentice, R.C. Conceptualizing the experiences of heritage tourists: A case study of New Lanark world heritage village. Tour. Manag. 1997, 18, 75–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Chen, C.F.; Chen, F.S. Experience quality, perceived value, satisfaction and behavioral intentions for heritage tourists. Tour. Manag. 2010, 31, 29–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. González, M.V. Intangible heritage tourism and identity. Tour. Manag. 2008, 29, 807–810. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Poria, Y.; Butler, R.; Airey, D. The core of heritage tourism. Ann. Tour. Res. 2003, 30, 238–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  120. Park, H.Y. Heritage tourism: Emotional journeys into nationhood. Ann. Tour. Res. 2010, 37, 116–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Fitch, J.M. Historic Preservation: Curatorial Management of the Built World; McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 1982. [Google Scholar]
  122. Glaeser, E.L. Triumph of the City: How Our Greatest Invention Makes Us Richer, Smarter, Greener, Healthier and Happier; The Penguin Press: London, UK, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  123. Dameri, R.P.; Rosenthal-Sabroux, C. Smart City. How to Create Public and Economic Value with High Technology in Urban Space; Springer: Heidelberg, Germany; New York, NY, USA; Dordrecht, The Netherlands; London, UK, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  124. Holgersen, S. Crisis and the Post-Industrial City: Or is Malmö Building Yesterday's City Tomorrow, Again? Tijdschr. Voor Econ. Soc. Geogr. 2015, 106, 231–245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Hommels, A. Studying Obdurancy in the City: Toward a Productive Fushion between Technology Studies and Urban Studies. Sci. Technol. Hum. Values 2005, 30, 323–351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Halbwachs, M. The Collective Memory; Harper and Row: New York, NY, USA, 1980. [Google Scholar]
  127. Duff, C. On the Role of Affect and Practice in the Production of Place. Environ. Plan. D Soc. Space 2010, 28, 881–895. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. Rossi, A. The Architecture of the City; The MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1982. [Google Scholar]
  129. Van de Noort, R. Climate Change Archaeology: Building Resilience from Research in the World’s Coastal Wetlands; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  130. Amundsen, H. Place attachment as a driver of adaptation in coastal communities in Northern Norway. Local Environ. Int. J. Justice Sustain. 2015, 20, 257–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  131. Perkumienė, D.; Pranskūnienė, R. Overtourism: Between the Right to Travel and Residents’ Rights. Sustainability 2019, 11, 2138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  132. Marcinkevičiūtė, L.; Pranskūnienė, R.; Makutėnienė, D. Opportunities for Ecosystem Services in the Protected Areas in the Coastal–Rural Area of the Nemunas Delta and the Curonian Lagoon (Lithuania). Sustainability 2022, 14, 9647. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  133. Perkumienė, D.; Pranskūnienė, R.; Vienažindienė, M.; Grigienė, J. The Right to A Clean Environment: Considering Green Logistics and Sustainable Tourism. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 3254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  134. Zabulioniene, E.; Pranskuniene, R. Personal experiences of bioeconomy development: Autoethography approach. Manag. Theory Stud. Rural Bus. Infrastruct. Dev. 2021, 43, 346–353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  135. Hooper-Greenhill, E. Museums and the Interpretation of Visual Culture; Routledge: Oxford, UK, 2000. [Google Scholar]
  136. Appadurai, A. The future as cultural fact: Essays on the global condition. Rass. Ital. Sociol. 2013, 14, 649–650. [Google Scholar]
Sustainability 15 06135 g001 550
Figure 1. The three layers perspective framework of “IPR” on heritage transformations.
Figure 1. The three layers perspective framework of “IPR” on heritage transformations.
Sustainability 15 06135 g001
Table
Table 2. A brief description of publications selected for review analysis (the largest number of publications selected for analysis is on the topic of transformations, seeking to discuss it from various perspectives).
Table 2. A brief description of publications selected for review analysis (the largest number of publications selected for analysis is on the topic of transformations, seeking to discuss it from various perspectives).
AuthorsYearJournal/
Book		Keywords
Transformative experiences and tourism
Kirillova et al. [7]2017Tourism Recreation ResearchTransformative experience; tourism experience; triggers; phenomenology; experience economy.
Mencarelli et al. [8]2020Journal of Marketing ManagementBrand heritage experience, heritage, resistance, brand museums, branding.
Richardson and Insch [9]2021Tourism Recreation ResearchTransformative experiences; existential transformation; eco-tourism; transformative tourism.
Matteucci [10]2021Tourism Recreation ResearchExistential hapax; maturation; embodied transformation; ataraxia; tourist experience.
Soulard et al. [11]2021Journal of Travel ResearchTransformation, travel, experience.
Heritage and memory
Smith and Campbell [12]2017International Journal of Heritage StudiesNostalgia; emotion; affect; deindustrialization; labor heritage; class.
Rudokas [13]2017Kaunas Technology UniversityHeritage; heritage narrative; architecture; urbanism.
Su [14]2018International Journal of Heritage StudiesIntangible cultural heritage; subjective authenticity; existential authenticity; tourism; China.
Di Pietro et al. [15]2018Taylor & FrancisIdentity; visitor experience; technology; QR codes; cuisine; crowdfunding.
Rudokas [16]2019Logos-VilniusHolistic perception; urban and architectural heritage; eschatology
O’Donovan [17]2019Journal of Community Archaeology & HeritageNostalgia, critical heritage, archaeology, deindustrialization, Endicott–Johnson.
Biskas et al. [18]2019Cognition and EmotionNostalgia, savoring, optimism, memory.
Linn-Tynen [19]2020UCL PressPast, social justice, heritage.
Apaydin [20]2020UCL PressMemory, culture, critical perspectives, transformation.
Wang et al. [21]2020Geographical ReviewVisual analysis, neuroscience, eye-tracking, cultural heritage, overseas-Chinese culture.
Harrison et al. [22]2020UCL PressHeritage studies; conservation; preservation; ethnography; archaeology; museology; museum studies; ethnographic; UNESCO; National Trust; IUCN; ICOMOS; cryopreservation; world heritage site.
Climate change
Fatorić and Seekamp [23]2017SustainabilityNeeds assessment; climate change adaptation; cultural resource management; historic preservation
Dawson et al. [24]2017Public Archaeology and Climate ChangeClimate change, coastal heritage management
Ives et al. [25]2018Archaeol.Coastal archaeological survey; coastal erosion; Hurricane Sandy; Native American; National Register of Historic Places; Rhode Island
Lindsay et al. [26]2019Climate Ready Clyde and Adaptation ScotlandFD; financial crisis; economy; price; G20 industrial nations; development path; market participant; climate finance; management practice; emissions trading; carbon tax; climate change; global.
Seekamp and Jo [27]2020Climatic ChangeClimate change, heritage management, continuity, world heritage.
Dawson et al. [28]2020AnthropologyCoastal heritage, climate change, public engagement, citizen science.
Rockman and Hritz [29]2020Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of AmericaArcheology, climate change, social environment, change.
Transformations
DeSilvey (Curated decay) [30]2017University of Minnesota Press, MinneapolisHeritage
DeSilvey (The Art of Losing) [31]2017University of Minnesota Press Blog.Heritage, heritage loss
Högberg et al. [32]2017World ArchaeologyArchaeological practice; conservation ethos future; consciousness; heritage futures.
Haarstad and Oseland [33]2017International Journal of Urban and Regional ResearchHistory, heritage, urban sustainability
Lillevold and Haarstad [34]2019Local EnvironmentCultural heritage; built environment; local development; sustainability; Norway.
Pung et al. [35]2020Annals of Tourism ResearchTransformation, transformative tourism, conceptualization, transformative learning, existential transformation.
Ross [36] 2020International Journal of Psychological StudiesTransformation, initiation, consciousness, post-traumatic growth, evolution, peak experience, transpersonal, spiritual growth.
Sheldon [37] 2020Annals of Tourism ResearchTransformation, tourism, awakening, enlightenment, inner journeys.
Sandow and Lundholm [38]2020European Urban and Regional StudiesMigration, family, profession, metropolitan.
Sebastien [39]2020GeoforumPlace, power, meaning, understanding.
Zonn [40] 2020GeoHumanitiesIdentity, place, positionalities, self, storytelling.
Abbiss [41] 2020Television & New MediaPost-heritage, critical frameworks, movies.
Pollice et al. [42]2020SustainabilityPlacetelling; local heritage; islands; sustainable tourism; Cape Verde.
Silberman [43]2020International Journal of Cultural PropertyCultural heritage, COVID-19, cultural economics, tourism, public engagement, culture change.
Venture et al. [44]2021The Historic Environment: Policy & PracticeCoastal heritage, heritage loss, transformation, decision-making, heritage management, uncertainty.
Birnbaum et al. [45]2021Journal of Rural StudiesPlace attachment, regional identity, digitalization, rural areas, sense of place, regional development.
Blondin [46]2021GeoforumPlace attachment, voluntary immobility, adaptive capacity, Pamirs Tajikistan.
Casonato and Vedoà [47]2021Img JournalHeritage education, tourism education, territorial fragilities, everyday landscapes, suburban landscape representation.
Giliberto [48]2021University of LeedsHeritage, challenges, globality.
Bergman Rosamond [3]2022Journal of Global EthicsWorld heritage, cosmopolitanism, Indigenous justice, Sápmi, extraction.
Crowley et al. [49]2022Climate Resilience and SustainabilityHeritage, culture, assessment.
Fitzpatrick et al. [50]2022Journal of Cleaner ProductionDegrowth, post-growth, policies, policy-making, transition, proposals.
Marieke et al. [51]2022Journal of Rural StudiesRegional shrinkage, population decline, place attachment, sense of belonging, Norway, the Netherlands.
Naramski et al. [52]2022Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and ComplexityIndustrial heritage; tourism; open innovations; transformation; ERIH.
Otero [53]2022Global ChallengesFuture, heritage, conservation.
Rowin et al. [2]2022Journal of Cultural HeritageWorld heritage, historical landscapes, heritage management and conservation, historical geographical information systems (hgis), landscape, archaeology, multi-perspective data integration.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Pranskūnienė, R.; Zabulionienė, E. Towards Heritage Transformation Perspectives. Sustainability 2023, 15, 6135. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15076135

AMA Style

Pranskūnienė R, Zabulionienė E. Towards Heritage Transformation Perspectives. Sustainability. 2023; 15(7):6135. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15076135

Chicago/Turabian Style

Pranskūnienė, Rasa, and Erika Zabulionienė. 2023. "Towards Heritage Transformation Perspectives" Sustainability 15, no. 7: 6135. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15076135

APA Style

Pranskūnienė, R., & Zabulionienė, E. (2023). Towards Heritage Transformation Perspectives. Sustainability, 15(7), 6135. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15076135

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