Climate Change and Cultural Heritage: A Global Mapping of the UNESCO Thematic Indicators in Conjunction with Advanced Technologies for Cultural Sustainability

Abstract

This study investigates the relationship between cultural heritage and climate change, assessing the global implementation of advanced technologies in line with UNESCO’s Thematic Indicators for Cultural Sustainability. Few studies have been conducted on this topic; hence, theoretical background examines the keywords related to cultural heritage preservation, conservation, restoration, climate change mitigation, and adaptation, as well as the intersection of culture and climate change. It also analyses the definitions provided by leading global organizations and explores the use of advanced technologies in protecting cultural heritage. The research methodology is based on an analytical method consisting of a bibliometric assessment and a scientometric assessment. The bibliometric and scientometric analyses map occurrences, frequencies, and intercorrelations of these keywords with UNESCO Thematic Indicators and advanced technology utilization. The findings reveal a predominance of conservation-related Thematic Indicators, suggesting a conservative approach to cultural sustainability, particularly for environmental resilience, wealth, and livelihoods. In terms of advanced technologies, laser scanning and photogrammetry are used for both conservation and restoration purposes, while chromatography and virtual tours are mainly applied to conservation and preservation practices. Otherwise, infrared thermography, X-ray imaging, and online platforms are used, respectively, for heritage preservation, restoration, and conservation. On the other hand, ground-penetrating radar and remote sensing exhibit fewer connections to heritage protection. The mapping of culture and climate change also highlights the importance of conservation in responding to changing climate conditions. Climate adaptation is closely linked to both conservation and preservation efforts, highlighting the critical role of cultural heritage in fostering climate resilience.

1. Introduction

Climate change (CC) poses direct and indirect threats to both natural and man-made environments, including World Heritage Sites. These changes have widespread impacts on ecosystems, socio-economic sectors, human health, and urban livability [1]. According to the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), one-third of natural sites and one-sixth of Cultural Heritage Sites (CHSs) are currently threatened by CC hazards and risks [2]. In response to this pressing concern, the global community has escalated its endeavors following the United Nations ‘Paris Climate Agreement 2015’, intensified efforts to fulfill worldwide commitments towards complementary actions for adapting to both observed and projected climate impacts in the future [3,4,5]. This notion has been fostered and furthered in the Conference of Parties—COP26—to mitigate carbon emissions by 45% by 2030 and reach net zero by 2050. Such targets were further conferred at COP27 and COP28 [5,6,7].

Despite efforts to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, the consequences of CC will persist for decades due to part emissions and climate system inertia [8]. This poses significant challenges for UNESCO’s World Heritage sites, with more frequent impacts (e.g., wildfires, floods, and storms) [9].

1.1. Climate Change Impacts and Resilience on Cultural Heritage

With regard to the global trend of decarbonization and to create equitable and inclusive pathways for climate action, culture and heritage play a crucial role in mitigating and adapting CC. The International Centre for the Study of the Preservation and Restoration of Cultural Property (ICCROM) [10] has launched a new multi-partner capacity development initiative to implement heritage-based mitigation and adaptation strategies for reducing the impacts of CC on both heritage and people. Recently, many studies have provided systematic literature reviews to investigate the correlation between CC and cultural heritage. The British Council [11] conducted a systematic literature review on climate change impacts on cultural heritage, highlighting the importance of assessing cultural resilience and economic and social values of heritage with appraisal tools for energy management and life-cycle approaches.

Climate resilience (CR) was defined by Clauss–Ehlers in two different ways: (a) culturally focused resilient adaptation and (b) how culture and the sociocultural context affect resilient outcomes. However, CR contemplates how cultural background, including culture, cultural values, language, and customs, helps people and communities in overcoming difficulties. The notion of CR suggests that individuals can manage challenges not only with their personal traits but also with the help of larger sociocultural factors [12]. Another definition of CR refers to the ability of a cultural system to withstand adversity, adapt to change, and continue to develop [13,14]. Therefore, CR implies continuity and change: disturbances that can be absorbed are not an enemy to be avoided but a partner in the dance of cultural sustainability [13,14]. Persistent natural and anthropogenic hazards, along with extreme climate change events, increasingly threaten cultural heritage (CH) globally. These challenges compound conservation needs and jeopardize the social, cultural, historical, and economic aspects of CH assets, as well as citizen safety. Research into adaptation strategies and methodologies is vital for safeguarding CH from decay-inducing consequences [15].

Over the past decade, there has been a tendency to prioritize natural world heritage sites over cultural sites, despite cultural sites making up 80% of total world heritage properties [16]. This trend stems from the more observable impacts in natural environments. Despite this, the response to CC in World Heritage Sites has intensified, but it has not adequately matched the severity and widespread effects of CC on global heritage properties. UNESCO’s systems have yet not offered a clear solution or explanation for this threat. Furthermore, there is a growing call for interdisciplinary perspectives and collaboration between developing and developed countries. Sesana et al. emphasized the lack of studies addressing CC from different perspectives [17].

Best-practice approaches for refurbishing historical buildings to decrease their energy consumption are presented, as perceived by the interviewees, as well as the identification of the enablers and barriers in mitigating CC in the cultural built heritage sector [18]. In addition, Fatorić and Seekamp provided a global exploration of cultural heritage and resources at risk from CC [19], emphasizing the need for bottom-up preservation and adaptation strategies from transdisciplinary viewpoints. Samuels and Platts also highlighted the gaps in the convention designed to address threats to recognized heritage [20]. Nevertheless, reviews of key bodies of the CC and heritage literature were conducted to comprehend how CC impacts and vulnerability risks are perceived by the scientific and professional literature [21]. Moreover, the European Commission (EC) furnished a set of recommendations to protect and manage (CH), chiefly creating heritage Climate Change Risk Maps (CCRMs), developing an early warning platform, providing a database of best practices, and communicating climate information to stakeholders [22,23,24]. In addition, the EC provides easily accessible high-risk climate predictions and long-term observing techniques. To pursue this, relying on advanced technologies such as big data, Artificial Intelligence (AI), and remote sensing is important—as they play an essential role in promoting cost-effective solutions—to track changes to indoor and outdoor assets over time and detect anticipated damage.

1.2. Advanced Technologies (ATs) as Climate Mitigation Strategies

Other studies supported this approach by emphasizing the role of advanced technologies (ATs) as climate mitigation strategies to protect CH, such as integrating Information and Communication Technology (ICT) infrastructure within institutional and urban planning processes [25] or examining the environmental performance of buildings [26]. These technologies improve documentation, conservation, monitoring, and access to CH, ensuring its preservation, transmission, and engagement with a broader audience. By embracing these advances, the commitment to preserve CH for present and future generations can be a strength, fostering cultural sustainability on a global scale. In addition, this practice is essential for creating a connection between the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) defined by the United Nations and the practices of heritage ‘preservation’, ‘restoration’, and ‘conservation’.

1.3. UNESCO Thematic Indicators

The integration of ATs in heritage conservation, preservation, and restoration aligns with the UNESCO Thematic Indicators (TIs) [27]. This publication provided a framework that measures and monitors the progress of culture, enabling contribution to the execution of the SDGs at the national level.

The UNESCO TIs are divided into four dimensions in line with the 17 SDGs. They include (a) Environment and resilience—particularly addressing SDGs 2, 6, 9, and 11–16 that aim to assess the role of culture in sustainable human settlements, focusing on cultural and natural heritage and the quality of the urban environment. The indicators evaluate how well countries preserve heritage and use traditional knowledge in planning. (b) Prosperity and livelihood—primarily tackling SDGs 8, 10, and 11 where culture can support livelihoods and boost sustainable economies by creating jobs, income, and revenue through cultural goods, services, and enterprises. (c) Knowledge and skills—dealing specifically with SDGs 4, 8, 9, 12, and 13 that evaluate culture’s contribution to building knowledge and skills (e.g., integrating cultural knowledge into curricula and promoting cultural training). (d) Inclusion and participation—mainly relating to SDGs 9, 10, 11, and 16 to measure culture’s impact on social cohesion, inclusion, and participation, like facilitating cultural accessibility.

However, the UNESCO TIs are highlighted in the same four pillars and are presented in twenty-two indicators [28]. The distribution of these indicators for the four dimensions are as previously stated (each has five indicators), while the prosperity and livelihood dimension has seven indicators. Based on these facts, a review of ATs for CH preservation, conservation, and restoration is important to safeguard heritage sites from CC impacts.

1.4. Research Goals

This study aims to identify, map, and evaluate the use of ATs for heritage preservation from CC, aligning with the objectives outlined by the TIs for cultural sustainability. This study also contributes through the promotion of interdisciplinary collaboration among the authors’ scientific domains that will lead to exploring additional insights supporting the results of references [17,19,25]. This can be achieved by exploring the following research questions (RQs):

• RQ 1: To what extent are the four dimensions of UNESCO applied to the occurrence of the three keywords, ‘preservation’, ‘conservation’, or ‘restoration’?
• RQ 2: What are the current implementations and best practices for utilizing advanced technologies (ATs) in terms of the three keywords (preservation, conservation, or restoration) in CH?
• RQ 3: How is the term ‘Culture and Climate Change’ in conjunction with the three keywords (preservation’, ‘conservation’, or ‘restoration’)?

The five-year search limit was chosen because the UNESCO TIs were published in 2019. This selection also enables an understanding of the latest developments and future perspectives of these technologies.

1.5. Study Hypothesis

According to the EU Open Method of Coordination experts’ group, the Strengthening Cultural Heritage Resilience for CC, making the European Green Deal meeting the cultural heritage (CH), and the mandate of the EU-OMC groups reports, among others, found that some objectives address many important points, such as (a) innovative measures for the protection of cultural heritage, (b) examine the CH contribution towards mitigating CC in line with the Green Deal’s goals, (c) assess the current and emerging threats posed by CC impacts of CC on cultural heritage, and (d) confer the appropriate adaptation and mitigation measures [1].

Hence, this study hypothesizes that the findings of the Bibliometric search [29] on the UNESCO Tis, in conjunction with the ATs and climate change mitigation (CCM), climate change adaptation (CCA), and culture and climate, can provide some answers to these objectives, in addition to discovering the progression and trends of the field since launching the UNESCO TIs.

2. Theoretical Background

It is imperative to delve into the definitions of the research background and keywords aligned with leading global institutions. These three definitions fall into three distinct groups: (a) terms related to the keywords ‘preservation’, ‘conservation’, or ‘restoration’ relevant to UNESCO TIs; (b) ATs in CH; and (c) culture and climate change (CCC). The first aspect being considered is to understand the definition of all the keywords ‘conservation’, ‘preservation’, or ‘restoration’ based on leading global institutions as the basis of this study. It is vital to differentiate between these terms and to use them in the analytical assessments.

2.1. Cultural Heritage Definitions

Defining cultural heritage preservation, conservation, and restoration is crucial for diagnosing the differentiations between them and their juxtaposition within the mapping.

Table 1. Definition of cultural heritage terminologies according to leading global institutions.

Terminology Institution	Conservation	Preservation	Restoration
UNESCO	Practices and interventions to stabilize, repair, and maintain cultural artifacts, sites, and landscapes, considering their historical, aesthetic, and cultural significance (30).	Measures to protect and maintain cultural heritage, including documentation, risk assessment, and preventive conservation strategies (30).	Actions to return cultural heritage to a specific historical state based on research, documentation, and the use of reversible techniques (30).
European Union (EU)	Professional practices and interventions to address deterioration, damage, or loss while respecting the historical, aesthetic, and cultural significance of the objects or sites (31).	Activities aimed at safeguarding cultural heritage from deterioration, damage, and loss, ensuring its long-term survival and accessibility (31).	Actions taken to return cultural artifacts or sites to a specific historical state rely on research, documentation, and reversible techniques (31).
International Council of Museums (ICOM)	Professional practices and interventions to address deterioration, damage, or loss while respecting the historical, aesthetic, and cultural significance of the objects/sites (32).	Strategic efforts to prevent or minimize deterioration and damage to cultural heritage, focusing on maintaining its original material, form, and context (32).	Actions to recreate the original appearance and function of cultural heritage rely on historical research, documentation, and expert craftsmanship (32).
2004 National Code of Cultural Heritage and Landscape	Professional practices and interventions to stabilize, repair, and maintain cultural artifacts, sites, and landscapes while respecting their historical, aesthetic, and cultural significance (30).	Proactive and preventive measures to protect and maintain the integrity of cultural heritage, focusing on long-term sustainability and accessibility (30).	Actions to return cultural heritage to a known or assumed state, often a specific time period, by removing later additions or alterations, ensuring authenticity and accuracy (30).

Source: developed by the authors after UNESCO, European Union for Cultural Heritage, and ICOM [30,31,32].

lists the three terms according to UNESCO, the European Union (EU), the International Council of Museums (ICOM), and the 2004 National Code of Cultural Heritage and Landscape (NCoCCL) [30,31]. We developed a summary definition for ‘conservation’, ‘preservation’, and ‘restoration’.

Thus, resuming ‘conservation’ involves professional practices and interventions aimed at stabilizing, repairing, and maintaining cultural artifacts, sites, and landscapes. These efforts address deterioration, damage, or loss while preserving the historical, aesthetic, and cultural significance of the objects or sites. The focus is on maintaining the integrity and importance of CH through careful and respectful actions. Otherwise, ‘preservation’ comprises proactive and preventive strategies, aiming to maintain the original material, form, and context of CH, emphasizing long-term sustainability and accessibility. This includes activities like documentation, risk assessment, and preventive conservation strategies. Finally, ‘restoration’ implicates actions aiming to recreate the original appearance and function of CH, as well as remove later additions or alterations. This is achieved through research, documentation, and the application of reversible techniques through expert craftsmanship and historical research. Additionally, it is also crucial to define keywords related to CC in relation to CH.

2.2. Climate Change Definitions

To characterize UNESCO’s TIs and dimensions,

Table 2. Climate change mitigation and adaptation and culture and climate definitions based on global institutions.

Terminology Institution	Climate Change Mitigation	Climate Change Adaptation	Culture and Climate Chang
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)	Decreasing the emissions released into the atmosphere and reducing the current concentration of CO2 by enhancing sinks (e.g., increasing the area of forests). Also, efforts should be made to cut emissions and enhance sinks (33).	Making clean and efficient energy the heart of power generation and building communities and economies that are most resilient to CC are entirely complementary strategies to bring many co-benefits, e.g., less pollution and better health, more jobs, broader wealth, energy security, and greater ability to resist natural disasters. There is no ‘one-size-fits-all-solution’ when it comes to CCA, including a wide range from building flood defenses, early warning systems, and switching to crops that fare better under drought conditions to redesigning communication systems, business operations, insurance solutions, and government policies (33).
UNESCO	Basic Science (BS) that can help stimulate low-carbon innovation and support new low-carbon business models. It goes for the role of BS in renewable energy (RE) resources and environmental control (34).	Adjustment in natural or human systems in response to actual or expected climatic stimuli or their effects, which moderates harm or exploits beneficial opportunities (35).	Culture is a vital resource for CCM and CCA. The urgency of the climate crisis means we cannot afford to wait to integrate CH into global climate action (36).
United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)	A human intervention to lower the sources or enhance the sinks of GHGs (using fossil fuels more efficiently for industry, electricity generation, switching to RE, improving buildings’ insulation, and expanding forests and other ‘sinks’ to remove greater amounts of CO2 from the atmosphere) (37).	A vast range of CCA solutions and best practices (the use of ecosystem restoration and nature-based solutions to defend against CCIs, help to develop National CCA Plans, build weather stations to provide early warning climate forecasts to vulnerable communities, develop water security strategies, and more) (37).
European Commission (EC) and European Environmental Agency (EEA)	Making the impacts of CC less severe by preventing or reducing the emission of GHGs into the atmosphere. CC mitigation is achieved either by reducing GHGs’ sources, e.g., by increasing the share of renewable energies or establishing a cleaner mobility system, or by improving the storage of GHGs, e.g., by increasing the forests’ size. In short, mitigation is a human intervention that reduces the GHG emissions’ sources and/or enhances the sinks (39) or reduces the flow of heat-trapping GHGs into the atmosphere by cutting GHGs from main sources, such as power plants, factories, cars, and farms. Forests, oceans, and soil also absorb and store these GHGs and are an important part of the solution. Reducing and avoiding emissions requires reshaping everything we do—from how we power our economy and grow our food to how we travel and live, and the products we consume (40).	Anticipating the adverse effects of CC and taking appropriate action to prevent, minimize the damage they can cause, or taking advantage of opportunities that may arise (e.g., large-scale infrastructure changes, such as building defenses to protect against sea level rise, as well behavioral shifts, such as individuals reducing their food waste). Adaptation can be understood as the process of adjusting to the current and future effects of CC (39).	Climate change’s (CC)impact on built heritage, archaeological sites, and cultural landscapes begun to be considered as a relevant threat and attracted more interest in the past decade at the policy and research levels (41). Also, there is an impact of gradual CC on indoor CH and the future energy demand. Alternatively, CH can deliver solutions to mitigate the climate crisis (42). In addition, the atlas of CC impact on European Cultural Heritage (CH) saturates the existing gap in studies on the effects of future climate variations on CH, producing maps that link CC science to the potential damage to CH (41).
International Monetary Fund (IMF)	Efforts/measures are required to address the underlying problem by slowing or stopping the rise in carbon emissions that irreversibly and catastrophically raise the Earth’s temperature (43).	Actions are needed to help people and governments withstand and minimize the ravages of CC that are already manifested globally (43).
International Council of Museums (ICOM)	Mitigation through museums means supporting all of society to reduce its GHG emissions, and mitigation in museums refers to aggressively reducing their GHG emissions across all aspects of their activity (44)	Adaptation through museums refers to supporting all of society to cope with current and projected CC impacts, while adaptation in museums means understanding how CC will impact them and adapting their practice, location, program, and collection to be fit for the future (45).	Role of intangible and tangible CH, creativity, and Indigenous people’s knowledge to drive climate action and contribute to CC mitigation and adaptation (46).
ICCROM		Needs for concerted actions to safeguard cultural and natural heritage in disaster-prone areas, e.g., efforts to reduce the CO2 footprint ofcultural institutions and uses of historic buildings to adapt to CC (47).	Integrate CH in the global risk agenda as a vital resource for building resilient communities (47).

Source: developed by the authors based on UNFCCC, UNEP, UNESCO, and European Commission—EEA, IMF, and ICOM [33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47].

lists the terms ‘CCM’, ‘CCA’, and ‘CCC’, according to global institutions, such as the United Nations Farmwork Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), and UNESCO, as well as the European Commission (EC)—the EEA, the International Monitory Fund (IMF), the ICOM, and the ICCROM [30,31,32].

Nevertheless, it is crucial to note that some of the listed definitions currently lack explicit definitions. This intentional omission is attributed to our exclusive focus on definitions furnished by leading international organizations. Nonetheless, more can be found in the European Commission, Directorate General for Research and Innovation, Heritage at Risk: EU research and innovation for a more resilient cultural heritage [48].

2.3. Advanced Technologies in Cultural Heritage Protection

We explain the application of advanced technologies for cultural heritage safeguarding and activities, as they play a crucial role in enhancing the ‘preservation’, ‘conservation’, or restoration efforts of CH. Subsequently, it is essential to review them to understanding the impact of CC of CH. Based on the literature, ATs can be categorized into seven folds, which are summarized as follows:

(a)

Three-dimensional (3D) scanning and modeling: 3D scanning techniques, such as laser scanning and photogrammetry, create highly accurate digital replicas of cultural artifacts, monuments, and sites. These 3D models can be used for documentation, analysis, and virtual restoration.

(b)

Virtual Reality (VR) and Augmented Reality (AR): VR and AR technologies offer immersive experiences that allow users to virtually explore and interact with cultural heritage sites, artifacts, and artworks. They have been used for virtual tours and educational purposes and to enhance visitor engagement [49,50,51,52].

(c)

Digital Documentation and Archiving: Digital documentation methods (DDMs), including high-resolution photography and multispectral imaging, enable the preservation of fragile artifacts by creating detailed records. Digital archives facilitate remote access, further research, and conservation planning [53,54,55,56].

(d)

Non-Destructive Testing (NDT): Advanced NDT techniques, such as infrared thermography, X-ray imaging, ground-penetrating radar, and remote sensing, facilitate the examination of structural integrity, material composition, damage, and energy performance without direct interaction with the object of interest. These methods assist in identifying hidden features and potential deterioration [57,58,59].

(e)

Material Analysis and Conservation Science (MACS): Various analytical techniques, such as spectroscopy, microscopy, chromatography, and environmental sensors, are used to identify the chemical composition of materials used in CH objects. This knowledge aids in understanding degradation mechanisms and developing appropriate conservation strategies [60,61,62].

(f)

Data Management and Visualization (DMV): Efficient data management systems, visualization tools, online platforms, and social media are essential for CH due to the increasing volume of digital data. Researchers have explored metadata standards, data interoperability, and data visualization techniques to facilitate data sharing and analysis.

(g)

Robotics and Automation (RA): Robots and automated systems are used in CH conservation for laser cleaning, microbial control, monitoring, and restoration. Such technologies limit human intervention and potential risks to delicate artifacts.

In relation to CH activities, we can group ATs into four main folds (Figure 1) as follows:

(a)

Documentation and Digitization, which includes the following:

• 3D Scanning and Photogrammetry: Advanced imaging techniques enable the creation of high-resolution 3D models and accurate digital representations of cultural artifacts, sites, and landscapes. This documentation facilitates conservation, research, and virtual access to CH [63,64].
• Digital Archiving: Digital platforms and databases provide secure storage and accessibility to vast collections of CH materials, including images, documents, audio, and video recordings. This ensures their preservation and wider dissemination [65].

(b)

Conservation and Restoration, which contains the following:

• Non-Destructive Testing: Technologies such as infrared thermography, X-ray imaging,
• and multispectral imaging allow conservation professionals to analyze and assess the condition of cultural artifacts without causing harm. This aids in identifying hidden features, understanding material properties, and planning appropriate conservation treatments [57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65].
• Laser Cleaning and Microbial Control: Laser technology enables precise and controlled cleaning of delicate surfaces, removing pollutants and accumulated dirt without damaging the original material. Advanced microbial control methods also help combat biological deterioration and preserve organic artifacts [66].

(c)

Monitoring and Risk Assessment, which encompasses the following:

• Remote Sensing: Satellite imagery, LiDAR (Light Detection and Ranging), and aerial drones provide valuable data for monitoring and assessing the condition of CH sites, landscapes, and ecosystems. This aids in identifying potential risks, such as natural disasters or human activities, and implementing preventive measures.
• Environmental Sensors: Deploying sensors to monitor temperature, humidity, light levels, and air quality within cultural heritage spaces to help maintain optimal conditions for preservation, preventing damage caused by environmental factors [67].

(d)

Access and Engagement, which comprises the following:

• Virtual Reality (VR) and Augmented Reality (AR): Immersive technologies allow virtual visits to CH sites, offering interactive and educational experiences to global audiences. AR applications enhance on-site visits by offering extra information and virtual reconstructions.
• Online Platforms and Social Media: Digital platforms and social media networks facilitate the sharing of CH content, fostering engagement, dialogue, and collaboration among diverse communities. This promotes cultural sustainability by raising awareness and encouraging participation in preservation efforts [68].

Figure 1. Advanced technologies in CH sites for preservation, conservation, and restoration (source: developed by the authors).

Figure 1. Advanced technologies in CH sites for preservation, conservation, and restoration (source: developed by the authors).

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Research Structure and Methodology

To articulate how this study’s aim was carried out and how the research questions were tackled, this study blends diverse analytical methods (Figure 2). The research methodology is divided into two main analytical parts: bibliometric assessment and scientometric assessment. The theoretical background informs these analytical methods as shown in Figure 2.

3.1.1. Bibliometric Assessment (Part 1)

The aim is to manage vast scientific data, discover emerging research trends, and generate substantial research impact by investigating the juxtaposition between cultural heritage conservation, preservation, and restoration and by identifying the frequency of occurrences and the most significant terms with the following:

• UNESCO Thematic Indicators (Section 3.2—Phase 1) to answer RQ1;
• Advanced technologies (Section 3.2—Phase 2) to answer RQ2;
• Culture and climate change (Section 3.2—Phase 3) to answer RQ3 and identify the frequency.

3.1.2. Scientometric Assessment (Part 2)

To visualize the crucial terms extracted from scientific literature (studying bibliometric networks), VOSViewer software was used to diagnose the correlation between variables and maps and visualize, and construct co-occurrence networks and clusters of terms extracted from the scientific literature (studying bibliometric networks) utilizing text-mining functionality. Figure 2 recaps the methodology and research structure.

3.2. Research Methodology

3.2.1. The UNESCO Thematic Indicators for Agenda 2030 for Culture

It is imperative to list the 22 TIs that were established by UNESCO for Agenda 2023 for Culture. Figure 3 shows the TIs in conjunction with the following four dimensions: (a) environment and resilience; (b) prosperity and livelihood; (c) knowledge and skills; and (d) inclusion and participation.

3.2.2. Analytical Method

In the digital age, ATs play a key role in augmenting the effort concerning the protection of CH. By mapping the ATs in alignment with the UNESCO TIs and the keywords (‘preservation’, ‘conservation’, and ‘restoration’), we can establish their contribution, utilization, and potential in safeguarding and promoting CH globally. To conduct this comprehensive mapping, bibliometric and scientometric reviews were performed by exploiting the SCOPUS platform and the VOSViewer tool. These include three phases (Figure 4). (a) Phase 1: map the three keywords, ‘conservation’, ‘preservation’, or ‘restoration’, with the UNESCO 22 TIs for the time range from January 2019 to December 2023. (b) Phase 2: map the seven ATs in CHSs with the keywords, ‘conservation’, ‘preservation’, or ‘restoration’. (c) Phase 3: map the same keywords with the terms ‘CC Mitigation in CH’, ‘CC Adaptation in CH’, and ‘Culture and CC’.

The findings of the bibliometric and scientometric reviews and the analyses of the three phases can assist in identifying the gap. Consequently, support narrowing the work scope and analysis to concentrate on the highest score terms to refine the best approach. Also, a quantitative approach to the results can be conducted to map the ATs in CH’s preservation, in line with the UNESCO TIs. The preliminary outcomes of the search are presented below.

• Phase 1: Bibliometric assessment of the three keywords with the UNESCO TIs

Table 3. Mapping the keywords (preservation, conservation, and restoration) with UNESCO Thematic Indicators, advanced technologies, and culture and climate change **.

Keywords, Dimensions, and Indicators	‘Conservation’	‘Preservation’	‘Restoration’ or Conservation’	‘Preservation’ or ‘Restoration’
22 Thematic Indicators
A. Environment and Resilience
1. Expenditure on heritage	10 *	8	7	18
2. Sustainable management of heritage	717	337	111	907
3. Climate adaptation and resilience	438	51	169	573
4. Cultural facilities	184	139	61	316
5. Open space for culture	6	11	5	19
B. Prosperity and Livelihood
6. Culture in GDP	9	2	0	11
7. Cultural employment	58	44	10	98
8. Cultural businesses	113	81	23	201
9. Household expenditure	84	5	23	98
10. Trade in cultural goods & services	8	0	1	8
11. Public finance for culture	2	1	1	4
12. Governance of culture	157	50	30	214
C. Knowledge and Skills
13. Education for sustainable development	763	195	81	946
14. Cultural knowledge	2075	1159	491	3077
15. Multilingual education	2	21	2	15
16. Cultural and artistic education	11	17	5	26
17. Cultural training	166	192	60	349
D. Inclusion and Participation
18. Culture for social cohesion	42	26	13	71
19. Artistic freedom	3	3	3	9
20. Access to culture	98	99	26	210
21. Cultural participation	490	231	96	719
22. Participatory processes	636	96	148	805
Advanced Technologies
A. 3D Scanning Techniques and Modeling
Laser scanning	398	371	305	826
Photogrammetry	562	445	345	1029
B. Virtual Reality and Augmented Reality
Virtual tours	40	34	17	51
C. Digital Documentation and Archiving
High-resolution photography	1 *	2	0	3
Multispectral imaging	70	37	46	109
D. Non-Destructive Testing (NDT)
Infrared thermography	104	63	54	159
X-ray imaging	30	22	23	68
Ground-penetrating radar	93	98	70	206
Remote sensing	4390	650	2009	6315
E. Material Analysis and Conservation Science
Spectroscopy	2816	2085	2217	6517
Microscopy	2479	2350	2286	6606
Chromatography	1067	991	566	2466
Environmental sensors	21	9	2	27
F. Data Management Systems
Visualization tools	21	10	9	36
Online platforms	50	37	18	98
Social media	551	220	108	843
G. Robotics and Automation
Robots and automated systems	3	0	1	4
Laser cleaning	37	12	30	53
Microbial control, monitoring, and restoration	9	1	67	67
Climate Change Mitigation, Climate Change Adaptation in Cultural Heritage (CH) Sites, and Culture and Climate
A. Climate Change Mitigation in CH	16	15	3	23
B. Climate Change Adaptation in CH	8	12	0	17
C. Culture and Climate Change	196	36	48	247

Source: developed by the authors based on SCOPUS data. * Numbers below ten will not be included in plotting the cluster, links, and strength. ** This analysis was conducted in December 2023.

shows the bibliometric search of the three keywords, ‘preservation’, ‘conservation’, and ‘restoration’, in line with the UNESCO 22 TIs. It provides quantitative insights into the prevalence of specific themes within the dimensions and indicators associated with these keywords. So, the numerical values represent the frequency of occurrences for each keyword across distinct dimensions.

For example, the keyword ‘conservation’ is the most frequently used in conjunction with UNESCO TIs (Table 3), followed by preservation and restoration. Additionally, the ‘Knowledge & Skills’ dimension is the most frequently occurring theme, especially thanks to TI n. 14 ‘Cultural knowledge’, as it has a considerable occurrence number of all the keywords (2075 for ‘conservation’, 1159 for ‘preservation’, and 491 for ‘restoration’).

In the Environment and Resilience dimension, TI n. 2 ‘Sustainable management of heritage’ is highly considered across all three keywords (717 for ‘conservation’, 337 for ‘preservation’, and 111 for ‘restoration’). TI n. 3 ‘Climate adaptation & resilience’ is prominent, particularly in the ‘conservation’ keyword (438 for ‘conservation’ followed by 169 for restoration and 51 for preservation). Also, TI n. 4 ‘Cultural facilities’ has a significant focus, especially for the ‘conservation’ and ‘preservation’ keywords (184 and 139). For the ‘Prosperity & Livelihoods’ dimension, TI n. 8 ‘Cultural businesses’ is prominent across all three keywords (113, 81, and 23).

Finally, the dimensions ‘Inclusion & Participation’, ‘Participatory processes’ and ‘Cultural participation’ are notable, particularly within the ‘conservation’ and ‘preservation’ keywords. It is vital to mention that all three keywords, ‘conservation’, ‘preservation’, or ‘restoration’, were used in the search together. The occurrence number did not display the mathematical sum of the number in the first, second, and third columns. This is due to repetition in a single keyword search, such as ‘conservation’, in the same publication. This clarification can be seen in Table 3.

• Phase 2: Bibliometric Assessment of Advanced Technologies in Cultural Heritage

Table 3 lists the data mining of the three keywords, ‘preservation’, ‘conservation’, or ‘restoration’, with the seven ATs, including (a) 3D Scanning Techniques and Modeling (3D STM); (b) Virtual Reality (VR) and Augmented Reality (AR); (c) Digital Documentation & Archiving (DDA); (d) Non-Destructive Testing (NDT); (e) Material Analysis and Conservation Science (MACS); (f) Data Management Systems (DMS); and (g) Robotics and Automation (RA).

Table 3 provides a quantification of the frequency of the keywords (‘conservation’, ‘preservation’, or ‘restoration’) related to the seven ATs. The usage of these keywords reflects the emphasis on specific techniques within each category. Inside the topic, ‘3D STM’, laser scanning (LS), and photogrammetry are commonly used in heritage contexts.

The topics ‘VR & AR’ and ‘DDA’ are less frequently used, with minimum levels for restoration objectives. Remote sensing (RS) is the most used method in ‘NDT’, especially for conservation and restoration purposes. Otherwise, infrared thermography (IT) and ground-penetrating radar (GpR) are commonly used for conservation purposes. The most frequently used keywords are related to ‘MACS’, with similar numbers across all heritage keywords.

Spectroscopy and microscopy are highly utilized, while chromatography has moderate usage, and environmental sensors have limited usage. Online platforms (OLPs) are the only DMS frequently used, particularly in conservation. Within the R&A field, laser cleaning (LC) is the only method widely used, especially for conservation, while automated robotic systems (RASs) and microbial control (MC) have limited applications.

• Phase 3: Bibliometric Assessment of ‘Climate Change Mitigation’ and ‘Climate Change Adaptation’ in Cultural Heritage and ‘Climate and Culture’.

Table 3 also shows the bibliometric assessment of the keywords ‘preservation’, ‘conservation’, and ‘restoration’ with the ‘CC Mitigation in CH’, ‘CC Adaptation in CH’, and ‘Culture and CC’.

It is noticeable in Table 3 that the frequency of keywords related to ‘Culture and CC’ in the categories of ‘conservation’, ‘preservation’, and ‘restoration’ are variable. Their usage is relatively low for ‘CC Mitigation in CH’ across all categories. However, ‘CC Adaptation in CH’ has moderate usage in conservation and preservation, while no occurrences are observed for restoration.

Finally, ‘Culture and CC’ has been widely used across all categories, particularly in conservation. The usage patterns indicate a stronger association with conservation and preservation than restoration, suggesting a significant consideration for preventing CC on CH compared to restoring the problems caused by its impact.

4. Results

The scientometric assessment encompasses three stages; in this process, we exploited the VOSViewer (1.6.20) software, a tool for developing maps based on network data, and visualizing and exploring these maps. VOSViewer performs a scientometric analysis and constructs clusters for studying bibliometric networks. It could be adjusted to generate, visualize, and explore maps based on the type of network data [69]. During December 2023, a SCOPUS data analysis was performed for the last five years (2019–2023), concentrating on article titles, abstracts, and keywords in English. The database yielded 8694 publications of 22 TIs related to the keywords ‘Preservation’, ‘Conservation’, or ‘Restoration’ across all subject areas.

Notably, the advanced technologies (ATs) domain related to the previous three keywords has 32,876 publications within all subject areas. However, the analysis was narrowed down to specific subject areas, including Materials Science, Physics and Astronomy, Environmental Science, Engineering, Arts and Humanities, Earth and Planetary Sciences, Chemistry, Agricultural and Biological Sciences, Computer Science, Business, Management, and Accounting, and Chemical Engineering, resulting in a filtered total of 25,483 publications. Additionally, utilizing three keywords, a targeted search on CC mitigation in CH, CC adaptation in CH, and culture and CC produced 448 publications across all subject areas that filtered to 287 publications within Environmental Science, Arts and Humanities, Earth and Planetary Sciences, and Engineering.

4.1. Scientometric Analysis of the UNESCO Thematic Indicators with the Keywords

In the assessment of UNESCO 22 TIs with the three keywords, ‘conservation’, ‘preservation’, and ‘restoration’, we used the VOSViewer data gathered from the SCOPUS database and filtered them according to subject area, document type, time limitation, and language. Then, the filtered data were exported as a CSV file and imported into VOSViewer. Additionally, keywords (items) are clustered with their strengths (represented by a number that expresses their strongness) and defined as the links (the connection between two items) [69]. Finally, three visualization maps have been created: ‘Network visualization’, ‘Overly visualization’, and ‘Density visualization’, but we decided to present only the network visualization. A network visualization map was chosen to construct a co-occurrence network for all keywords.

In

Table 4. Scientometric assessment of the most important UNESCO Thematic Indicators with the keywords using VOSViewer.

Network Visualization of the Keywords, ‘Conservation’, ‘Preservation’, or ‘Restoration’
TI n. 2 Sustainable management of heritage	TI n. 3 Climate adaptation and resilience
TI n. 12. Governance of culture	TI n. 13. Education for sustainable development
TI n. 14 Cultural knowledge
TI n. 17 Cultural training	TI n. 20 Access to culture
TI n. 21. Cultural participation	TI n. 22. Participatory processes

Source: Developed by the authors based on VOSViewer platform analysis. This analysis was conducted by the authors on the SCOPUS database in December 2023.

,

Table 5. Scientometric assessment of the vital mapped advanced technologies with the keywords using VOSViewer.

Network Visualization of the Keywords, ‘Conservation’, ‘Preservation’, or ‘Restoration’
Laser scanning	Photogrammetry
1—3D Scanning Techniques and Modeling
Ground-penetrating radar	Remote sensing
4. Non-Destructive Testing (NDT)
Spectroscopy	Microscopy
Chromatography	Social media
5. Material Analysis and Conservation Science	6. Data Management Systems

Source: Developed by the authors based on VOSViewer platform analysis. This analysis was pursued by the authors on the SCOPUS database in December 2023.

and

Table 6. Assessment of CC mitigation and adaptation and culture and climate with the three terms using VOSViewer.

Network Visualization for Climate and Culture
Culture Heritage and Climate Change 3. Culture and Climate

Source: Developed by the authors based on VOSViewer platform analysis. This analysis was conducted by the authors on the SCOPUS database in December 2023.

, network visualization represents the keywords as nodes grouped into clusters based on their strength and connection with assorted colors. Table 4 lists the most significant findings of the scientometric assessment of the fourteen TIs, in line with the three keywords. It was developed based on the data in Table 3.

4.2. Scientometric Analysis of the Advanced Technologies

Table 5 lists the important findings from the scientometric assessment of the ATs in connection with the three keywords, ‘conservation’, ‘preservation’, or ‘restoration’. It shows that AT 5 (MSCS: 5.2) microscopy has the highest number of publications (6606). However, AT 4 (NDT: 4.4) remote sensing (RS) is the hot indicator linked to the three keywords, with the biggest number of publications in this category reaching 6315. It also shows that AT 4 (NDT: 4.4 RS) indicates that the keyword ‘conservation’ is the most trending, with 920 links, and the largest node is in a red cluster, with a strength of 12065. In network visualization, it is highly related to the other terms and emphasizes the novelty of the conservation keywords concerning AT 4 NDT: 4.4 RS. It was developed based on the data in Table 3.

4.3. Scientometric Assessment of Culture and Climate

In the context of Culture and Climate, three terms were used: ‘CC Mitigation in CH’, ‘CC Adaptation in CH’, and ‘Culture and CC’. Table 6 presents CCM in CH, CCA in CH, and Culture and CC with the three terms using the VOSViewer tool. Table 6 also depicts the most significant term above with the three keywords, ‘conservation’, ‘preservation’, and ‘restoration’, which was developed based on the data in Table 3. Moreover, the results of mapping the keywords ‘preservation’, ‘conservation’, and ‘restoration’ in conjunction with the 22 UNESCO TIs, ATs, and culture and CC are represented in Table 4, Table 5 and Table 6, in addition to Figure 5, Figure 6, Figure 7, Figure 8, Figure 9, Figure 10, Figure 11, Figure 12 and Figure 13 and

Table A1. UNESCO TIs with the highest occurrences in response to the following keywords: “preservation”, “conservation”, and “restoration”.

UNESCO Thematic Indicator Plotted *	Keywords	Clusters	Strength	Links	Occurrence
2. Sustainable management of heritage	Conservation	5	747	230	120
	Preservation	2	76	54	16
	Restoration	1	93	58	15
	Sustainable management	1	165	106	25
	Heritage	5	180	100	30
3. Climate adaptation and resilience	Conservation	4	551	213	52
	Historic preservation	3	82	58	7
	Restoration	4	410	170	45
	Climate adaptation	5	228	108	35
	Adaptation	6	1187	273	132
	Resilience	5	903	250	122
	Climate resilience	3	462	186	30
7. Cultural facilities	Conservation	1	238	213	11
	Preservation	10	14	14	1
	Restoration	17	55	53	3
	Cultural heritage	5	96	95	4
	Cultural heritages	11	19	19	1
	Employment	13	374	352	18
12. Governance of culture	Conservation	3	92	49	26
	Governance	1	74	41	18
	Culture	4	62	35	19
13. Education for sustainable development	Conservation	1	722	247	93
	Preservation	1	71	1	10
	Restoration	1	90	64	12
	Sustainable development	2	3958	439	449
	Education	5	1869	371	150
14. Cultural knowledge	Conservation	1	2157	548	308
	Preservation	2	98	73	16
	Restoration	2	360	182	47
	Cultural knowledge	3	71	79	8
17. Cultural training	Preservation	9	35	26	5
	Restoration	1	157	96	20
	Cultural heritage	6	332	187	46
	Training	2	207	135	26
20. Access to culture	Conservation	1	38	22	18
	Preservation	2	30	21	8
	Culture	1	39	25	10
21. Cultural participation	Conservation	1	493	144	85
	Historic preservation	1	73	33	20
	Restoration	1	35	27	10
	Cultural heritage	1	369	108	83
	Culture	3	40	30	7
22. Participatory processes	Conservation	2	1214	333	109
	Preservation	1	24	21	5
	Historic preservation	1	78	63	19
	Restoration	5	171	111	15
	Participatory processes	1	80	70	10

Source: Developed by the authors from data conducted in the bibliometric search. * Thematic indictors 1, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 15, 16, 18, and 19 scored below 10; hence, they were excluded in the analysis.

,

Table A2. Advanced technologies at highest occurrences related to the following keywords: “preservation”, “conservation”, and “restoration”.

Advanced Technologies (ATs) Plotted *	Keywords	Clusters	Strength	Links	Occurrence
1. 3-D Scanning Techniques and Modeling (3DSM)
1.1 Laser scanning (LS)	Conservation	4	792	227	81
	Heritage conservation	1	147	85	19
	Cultural heritage conservation	1	49	36	6
	Preservation	1	57	44	10
	Heritage preservation	2	5	36	5
	Cultural heritage (CH) preservation	2	7	40	7
	Restoration	1	107	361	1048
	Laser scanning	1	1166	252	157
1.2. Photogrammetry	Conservation	1	758	255	88
	Heritage conservation	5	218	122	26
	CH conservation	2	64	52	8
	Preservation	2	124	76	19
	Heritage preservation	2	45	33	6
	CH preservation	2	137	82	13
	Restoration	2	1149	321	110
	Climate resilience	3	462	186	30
2. Virtual Reality and Augmented Reality (VR/AR)
2.1 Virtual tours (VTs)	Conservation	11	63	60	5
	Preservation	17	63	60	4
	CH preservation	4	31	29	2
	Restoration	7	12	10	2
	Virtual tours	2	40	37	3
3. Digital Documentation and Archiving (DDA)
3.1 High-resolution photography (HrP)	Conservation	1	-	14	1
	Historic preservation	2	-	11	1
	CH preservation	2	-	11	1
	Restoration	0	-	-	-
	High-resolution photography	1	-	14	1
3.2 Multispectral imaging (MSI)	Conservation	2	210	183	14
	Preservation	20	22	20	2
	Historic preservation	4	202	168	13
	Restoration	1	219	189	14
	Multispectral imaging	36	1091	834	72
	Multispectral imaging (MSI)	20	49	49	3
4. Non-Destructive Testing (NDT)
4.1 Infrared thermography (IRT)	Conservation	1	56	51	8
	Heritage conservation	20	63	52	5
	Preservation	6	26	18	4
	Historic preservation	1	557	373	33
	Restoration	12	256	186	22
	Infrared thermography	1	945	610	74
	Infrared thermography (IRT)	1	89	76	4
4.2 X-ray imaging (XRI)	Conservation	19	20	20	3
	Preservation	25	10	10	1
	Restoration	5	151	135	8
	X-ray	8	147	124	4
	X-rays	10	21	21	1
4.3. Ground-penetrating radar (GpR)	Conservation	9	150	108	11
	Heritage conservation	24	35	32	3
	Preservation	22	47	46	3
	Historic preservation	7	342	186	26
	Restoration	2	128	87	11
	Ground-penetrating radar	3	1650	773	119
	Ground-penetrating radar (GPR)	12	621	369	39
4.4 Remote sensing (RS)	Conservation	1	12065	920	900
	Historic preservation	3	827	251	95
	Restoration	3	7158	855	581
	Remote sensing	3	60454	999	5108
	Remote sensing (RS)	3	273	178	23
	Remote sensing techniques	3	940	400	70
5. Material Analysis and Conservation Science (MSCS)
5.1 Spectroscopy	Conservation	2	2445	589	266
	Preservation	1	1839	576	157
	Restoration	1	3571	741	377
	Spectroscopy	2	5854	893	645
5.2 Microscopy	Conservation	5	1572	521	256
	Preservation	4	1773	575	154
	Historic preservation	5	932	287	131
	Restoration	5	5580	756	436
	Microscopy	1	5686	870	390
5.3 Chromatography	Conservation	1	1582	522	120
	Preservation	4	1511	554	88
	Restoration	2	979	417	68
	Chromatography	4	1576	638	95
5.4 Environmental sensors (ESs)	Conservation	14	75	75	3
	Heritage conservation	14	16	16	1
	Historic preservation	11	91	89	5
	Restoration	12	21	21	1
	Environmental sensor	15	122	116	7
6. Data Management Systems (DMS)
6.1 Visualization tools (VTs)	Conservation	10	55	52	4
6.2 Online platforms (OLPs)	Historic preservation	3	69	63	4
	Restoration	3	33	33	2
	Visualization tools	6	15	15	1
	Conservation	21	206	194	12
	Preservation	27	0	0	2
	Historic preservation	2	147	123	10
	CH preservation	2	14	14	1
	Restoration	9	49	49	2
	Online platforms	2	365	315	24
6.3 Social media (SM)	Conservation	2	882	234	116
	Heritage conservation	5	59	38	12
	Preservation	5	10	7	7
	Historic preservation	1	74	43	18
	Restoration	1	129	66	23
	Social media	5	2719	292	434
7. Robotics and Automation
7.1 Robots and automated systems (RASs)	Conservation	2	21	21	1
7.2 Laser cleaning (LC)	Preservation	0	-	-	-
	Image restoration	4	20	20	1
	Robots	4	20	20	1
	Semi-automated systems	3	17	17	1
	Conservation	14	86	78	8
	CH restoration and conservation	2	7	7	1
	Conservation of CHs	2	14	14	1
	Historic preservation	2	110	95	6
	Restoration	17	114	97	9
	Laser cleaning	4	561	415	41
7.3 Microbial control, monitoring, and restoration	Conservation	0	-	-	-
	Heritage preservation	0	-	-	-
	Restoration	2	18	225	86
	Microbial activity	1	9	140	75
	Quality control	1	10	183	81
	Controlled study	2	22	448	102

Source: Developed by the authors from data conducted in the bibliometric search. * AT 2 (VR and AR (2.1 VT), AT 3 DDM (3.1 HrP), AT 4 NDT (4.1 IRT and 4.3 X-ray imaging) (5.4 ESs), AT 6 DMS (6.1 VTs), and AT 7 (7.2 LC) scored below 10 were excluded in the analysis.

and

Table A3. Culture and climate change with the highest occurrences related to the following keywords: “preservation”, “conservation”, and “restoration”.

Culture and Climate	Keywords	Clusters	Strength	Links	Occurrence
1. Climate Change Mitigation in Cultural Heritage	Conservation	7	19	19	1
	Heritage conservation	2	82	77	3
	Cultural heritage conservation	10	25	25	2
	Preservation	10	7	7	1
	Historic preservation	8	76	67	4
	Cultural heritage preservation	12	5	5	1
	Restoration	0	-	-	-
	Climate change	11	192	169	14
	Mitigation	2	35	33	2
	Cultural heritage	6	180	162	10
	Cultural heritages	9	90	80	5
2. Climate Change Adaptation in Cultural Heritage	Conservation	10	5	5	1
	Heritage conservation	1	19	19	1
	Historic preservation	4	14	14	1
	Heritage preservation	12	6	6	1
	Restoration	0	-	-	-
	Climate change	2	101	88	9
	Climate change adaptation	2	36	33	3
	Cultural heritage	7	78	68	8
	Cultural heritages	4	34	33	2
	Heritage sites	6	8	8	1
3. Cultural and Climate Change	Conservation	4	124	51	36
	Preservation	0	-	-	-
	Restoration	1	37	21	8
	Culture	1	40	32	10
	Climate change	1	591	79	149

Source: Developed by the authors from data conducted in the bibliometric search.

(Appendix A).

4.4. Mapping the Cluster, Strength, Links, and Occurrence

Figure 5 shows the mapping of the twenty-two UNESCO TIs in conjunction with the three keywords, ‘conservation’, ‘preservation’, or ‘restoration’, while Figure 6 illustrates the mapping ATs with the three keywords, considering the data in Table 3. Also, Figure 7 presents the mapping of the terms ‘CC Mitigation in CH’, ‘CC Adaptation in CH’, and ‘Culture and CC’ with the three keywords based on data in Table 3.

In addition, Figure 8 depicts UNESCO TIs 14, 2, 22, 13, 21, 3, 12, 7, and 20, and the keyword ‘conservation’ occurs the most frequently.

Table A1 (Appendix A) lists the highest occurrence of ‘conservation’, ‘preservation’, ‘restoration’, and others. Only five UNESCO TIs scored below ten, and these are TI 1—expenditure on heritage, TI 4—cultural facilities, TI 5—open space for culture, TI 6—culture in GDP, TI 8—cultural businesses, TI 9—household expenditure, TI 10—trade in cultural goods and services, TI 11—public finance for culture, TI 15—multilingual education, TI 16—cultural and artistic education, TI 18—cultural and artistic education, and TI 19—artistic freedom. In contrast, 17 TIs were found with occurrences above 10, ranging from 308 to 11. TI 14—cultural knowledge has the highest occurrence of the keyword ‘conservation’, with 308, followed by TIs 2, 22, 13, 21, and 3 with the occurrence of 120, 109, 93, 85, and 52, respectively. However, TIs 20, 12, and 7 have the lowest scores of 26, 18, and 11 (Table A1 in Appendix A). Figure 9 shows the keywords ‘conservation’, ‘preservation’, and ‘restoration’ with the highest occurrence for UNESCO TIs 14, 2, 22, 13, 21, 3, 12, 7, and 20.

Based on the data listed in Table 3, Figure 10 also shows the keywords ‘conservation’, ‘preservation’, and ‘restoration’. AT 1 (3-DSTMs: 1.1 (LS), 1.2 Photogrammetry); AT 3 (DDA: 3.2 MSI); AT 4 (NDT: 4.4 RS); AT 5 (MSCS: 5.1 Spectroscopy, 5.2 Microscopy, 5.3 Chromatography); and AT 6 (DMS: 6.2) have the highest occurrence of these terms. Figure 11 displays the highest occurrence of the term ‘conservation’ in publications for ATs 6, 5, 4, and 1.

Moreover, Figure 12 also shows the correlation between the keywords, ‘conservation’, ‘preservation’, and ‘restoration’, and the cluster No., strength, links, and occurrence for the terms CC mitigation in CH, CC adaptation in CH, and culture and CC. Figure 13 illustrates the highest occurrence of ‘conservation’ for the CCM in CH, CCA in CH, and culture and the CC created using the information found in Appendix A, Table A3. The occurrence of ‘conservation’ in different ATs has shown that 3D-STM has a high frequency among ATs, with similar occurrences for laser scanning (81) and photogrammetry (88). Also, NDT plays a leading role in highlighting the compatibility of these techniques with heritage conservation, as seen in Table A2 in Appendix A, as they allow for the investigation of conservation and structural and energy efficiency aspects without affecting the materiality and aesthetic appearance. With 900 occurrences, remote sensing (RS) plays a vital role. Material Analysis and Conservation Science (MACS) is also important, with similar occurrences for spectroscopy (266) and microscopy (256), reflecting the significant reliance on these instruments for material characterization and conservation science, with chromatography playing a complementary role (120). Finally, social media (SM) integration plays a significant role in data management systems, with 116 occurrences. The result suggests an increasing integration of SM platforms into conservation data management, possibly as tools for information dissemination, collaboration, or public engagement.

In addition, Table A3 (Appendix A) lists the cluster No., strength, links, and occurrences for the different keywords about culture and CC. Also, ‘Climate Change’ emerges as a dominant cluster in all categories, showing the significant role that this issue has played in the field of conservation. Similarly, ‘Cultural heritage’ (more than ‘Cultural heritage’) also plays a key role in the first two categories, representing the distinctive subject of heritage conservation research. Finally, the keywords ‘Cultural heritage conservation’ and ‘Heritage conservation’ are also of high importance, indicating a growing interest in adapting cultural heritage practices to a changing climate.

Figure 5. Mapping the 22 UNESCO TIs in conjunction with the keywords, “conservation”, “preservation”, and “restoration”. Source: Developed by the authors based on data in Table 3.

Figure 5. Mapping the 22 UNESCO TIs in conjunction with the keywords, “conservation”, “preservation”, and “restoration”. Source: Developed by the authors based on data in Table 3.

Figure 6. Mapping advanced technologies with the three keywords, “conservation”, “preservation”, and “restoration”. Source: Developed by the authors based on the data in Table 3.

Figure 6. Mapping advanced technologies with the three keywords, “conservation”, “preservation”, and “restoration”. Source: Developed by the authors based on the data in Table 3.

Figure 7. Mapping the terms “Climate Change Mitigation in Cultural Hertiage”, “Climate Change Adaptation in Cultural Heritage”, and “Culture and Climate” with the three keywords, “conservation”, “preservation”, and “restoration”. Source: Developed by the authors based on data in Table 3.

Figure 7. Mapping the terms “Climate Change Mitigation in Cultural Hertiage”, “Climate Change Adaptation in Cultural Heritage”, and “Culture and Climate” with the three keywords, “conservation”, “preservation”, and “restoration”. Source: Developed by the authors based on data in Table 3.

Figure 8. The highest occurrence of “conservation” for UNESCO TIs 14, 2, 22, 13, 21, 3, 12, 7, and 20. Source: Developed by the authors based on data in Table A2 (Appendix A).

Figure 8. The highest occurrence of “conservation” for UNESCO TIs 14, 2, 22, 13, 21, 3, 12, 7, and 20. Source: Developed by the authors based on data in Table A2 (Appendix A).

Figure 9. Keywords “conservation”, “preservation”, and “restoration” with highest occurrence for the UNESCO TIs n. 14, n. 2, n. 22, n. 13, n. 21, n. 3, n. 12, n. 7, and n. 20. Source: Developed by the authors based on data in Table A1 (Appendix A).

Figure 9. Keywords “conservation”, “preservation”, and “restoration” with highest occurrence for the UNESCO TIs n. 14, n. 2, n. 22, n. 13, n. 21, n. 3, n. 12, n. 7, and n. 20. Source: Developed by the authors based on data in Table A1 (Appendix A).

Figure 10. The keywords “conservation”, “preservation”, and “restoration” with highest occurrence for ATs 1, 3, 4, 5, and 6. Source: Developed by the authors based on data in Table A2 (Appendix A).

Figure 10. The keywords “conservation”, “preservation”, and “restoration” with highest occurrence for ATs 1, 3, 4, 5, and 6. Source: Developed by the authors based on data in Table A2 (Appendix A).

Figure 11. The highest occurrence of “conservation” for the advanced technologies (ATs): AT 4 (NDT: 4.4 RS), AT 5 (MACS: 5.1 Spectroscopy, 5.2 Microscopy, and 5.3 Chromatography), AT 6 DMS: 6.3 SM), and AT 1 (3-DSTMs: 1.1 LS and 1.2. Photogrammetry). Source: Developed by the authors based on data in Table A2 (Appendix A).

Figure 11. The highest occurrence of “conservation” for the advanced technologies (ATs): AT 4 (NDT: 4.4 RS), AT 5 (MACS: 5.1 Spectroscopy, 5.2 Microscopy, and 5.3 Chromatography), AT 6 DMS: 6.3 SM), and AT 1 (3-DSTMs: 1.1 LS and 1.2. Photogrammetry). Source: Developed by the authors based on data in Table A2 (Appendix A).

Figure 12. The correlation between the keywords, “conservation”, “preservation”, “restoration”, and the cluster No., strength, links, and occurrence for the terms CC mitigation in CH and CC adaptation in CH, and culture and CC. Source: Developed by the authors based on data in Table A3 (Appendix A). Note: The terms “Cultural heritage” and “Cultural heritages” are mentioned twice in the graphs due to their appearance in the searched publications.

Figure 12. The correlation between the keywords, “conservation”, “preservation”, “restoration”, and the cluster No., strength, links, and occurrence for the terms CC mitigation in CH and CC adaptation in CH, and culture and CC. Source: Developed by the authors based on data in Table A3 (Appendix A). Note: The terms “Cultural heritage” and “Cultural heritages” are mentioned twice in the graphs due to their appearance in the searched publications.

Figure 13. The highest occurrence of “conservation” for the CC mitigation in CH, CC adaptation in CH, and culture and CC. Source: Developed by the authors based on data in Table A3 (Appendix A).

Figure 13. The highest occurrence of “conservation” for the CC mitigation in CH, CC adaptation in CH, and culture and CC. Source: Developed by the authors based on data in Table A3 (Appendix A).

5. Discussions

The interpretation of the assessment of this study’s results is presented below.

5.1. Mapping the Keywords with TIs, ATs, and CC

Table 3 summarizes bibliometric data for the ‘preservation’, ‘conservation’, and ‘restoration’ keywords across the 22 TIs. The keyword ‘conservation’ is the most used term, followed by preservation and restoration (as shown in Figure 9), and conservation has the highest occurrence in TIs 14, 2, 22, 13, 21, and 3 in reference to other keywords. Key themes include ‘Knowledge & Skills’, ‘Cultural knowledge’, and ‘Climate adaptation & resilience’, which are especially related to the ‘conservation’ keyword. Other aspects are less studied for all three keywords.

Table 3 quantifies the frequency of the three keywords in conjunction with specific ATs, shedding light on the prevalent techniques in heritage contexts. Notably, laser scanning (LS) and photogrammetry are frequently used but have lower usage, particularly in the restoration keywords. On the contrary, in a restoration project [70], it was recommended to use aerial photogrammetry and remote sensing in performing restoration. Another study [71] aligns with our research finding, stating that among many technologies, the 3D scanner was the most useful in the restoration activity.

Remote sensing (RS), MACS, DMS, and LC are predominant in AT 4 NDT, especially for ‘conservation’ and ‘restoration’, and many recent researchers [71,72,73]. AT 5 MACS is seen to be consistently used, with spectroscopy and microscopy being highly utilized, and it is commonly described in a presented report [74]. AT 6 DMSs mainly involve OLPs, particularly in ‘conservation’. LC stands out in AT 7 R&A, especially for conservation, while other techniques, like automated systems and microbial control, have limited applications in our bibliometric search; conversely, some research stated that underwater heritage commonly uses microbial control [75].

Additionally, the highest occurrence with the keyword ‘conservation’ is in conjunction with the highest ATs, mainly, AT 1, AT 3, AT 4, AT 5, and AT 6, which shows that heritage conservation reaches more than 600 times in the existing publication’s occurrence using a bibliometric search (Figure 11), where RS, followed by microscopy and chromatography, occur the most in the ‘conservation’ field among all existing publications. That is also verified by another review study that added the use of fluorescence spectroscopy, holographic interferometry, Raman spectroscopy, thermal quasi-reflectography, and terahertz imaging as other advanced tools [76].

Based on Table 3, it can be said that conservation is the most used keyword, followed by ‘preservation’, and the least is ‘restoration’ for the term CCM in CH, but it is different for CCA in CH, where ‘preservation’ has the highest score (12) and ‘restoration’ is nil. In contrast, ‘conservation’ is the highest for the term ‘Culture and CC’ related to the ‘conservation’ keyword, followed by both restoration and preservation with minor variation (38 and 36 studies).

The hot indicator associated with the three keywords is cultural knowledge (CK), with the highest number of publications reaching 3077 in this domain (Table 3). It also illustrates that ‘conservation’ emerges as the most trending term (TI n. 14). In network visualization, it is closely interconnected with the other terms, boasting 548 links and serving as the largest node within a red cluster with a strength of 2157.

Based on Table 5, the AT of microscopy is notably prominent across the three keywords, with a considerable number of publications (6606), followed by AT 4 (NDT: 4.4 RS) reaching 6315 (Table 3). However, it was found that the ‘conservation’ keyword is linked to RS, which appears to be the hottest term in all ATs, whereas the network visualization analysis reveals the ‘conservation’ keyword in the blue cluster, which emerges as a central node. Interestingly, ‘conservation’ exhibits tight connections with the other terms that appeared in the same and other clusters.

The ‘Culture and CC’ terms stand out as the most important terms associated with all three keywords, boasting the highest publication count of 247 in this category (Table 3). Specifically, conservation emerges as the most trending term, particularly in terms of culture and climate change. In network visualization (Table 6), it exhibits close interconnections with other terms, forming 51 links and serving as the central node behind the climate change node in a red cluster with a strength of 124 (Figure 7).

In Figure 12, the assessment of the terms CCM in CH reveals comparable strength and links to both heritage ‘preservation’ and ‘conservation’. In contrast, CCA in CH shows some links and strength solely in the context of cultural heritage and CC, while displaying minimal relationships with the other studied keywords. Regarding the search on culture and climate change, a distinct connection is evident, primarily showcasing the strength relationship between CC and ‘conservation’, albeit with fewer occurrences than the other associations, while Figure 13 indicates that among the three terminologies (‘CCM in CH’, ‘CCA in CH’, and ‘Culture and CC’), the highest occurrence is associated with ‘conservation’ in the existing publications.

In the correlation between keywords ‘conservation’, ‘preservation’, and ‘restoration’ and the cluster No., strength, links, and occurrence for the UNESCO Thematic Indicators, it was observed that ‘conservation’ is the most trending term, with TI n. 14 culture knowledge (CK), which it is tightly close with the other terms in the network and has 308 links and serves as the central node that has the highest weight of the connection between further nodes within a strength of 2157; additionally, it has the highest occurrence and reaches 308 times for a particular entity that appears or is present in the dataset. This value reflects the depth of the term with TI n. 14 CK, indicating its widespread use. Such findings support the argument of Brückle, who emphasized the role of knowledge skills as the most critical competency in conservation [77].

The interaction between the three keywords and the twenty-two UNESCO TIs, among which the ‘conservation’ keyword assumes the highest values (Figure 5 and Table 3) and occurs specifically for both TI n. 2 ‘Sustainable management of heritage’ and TI n. 14 CK (values = 717, 2075), such findings support Bertolin and Berto, who call for the need for more research to evaluate the associated risks and digital preservation of sustainable energy management in a Norwegian context [78]. The third value = 636 is present on TI n. 22 ‘Participatory processes’. This highlights the importance of this TI, especially the engagement of young people in culture training programs, which raises awareness and promotes preservation efforts performed by Menkshi et al., 2021 [79]. Our findings also supported the tendency to participate in heritage regulatory frameworks to attain SDGs, as concluded by the study of Rosetti et al., 2022 [80].

Moreover, the ‘preservation’ keyword assumes lower values, respectively, on TI n. 2 ‘Sustainable Management of Heritage’ (value = 350/800) and TI n. 13 ‘Education for Sustainable Development’, plus TI n. 17 ‘Cultural Training’ and TI n. 21. ‘Cultural Participation’ (with the same value = 200/800). Finally, the ‘restoration’ keyword shows the minimum values on both TI n. 1 ‘Expenditure on Heritage’ and TI n. 3 ‘Climate Adaption and Resilience’ with the same value = 150/800.

As shown in Figure 6, the occurrence’s highest value is reached for ‘conservation’ 4500/4500 (specifically, it is on the RS axis) and, furthermore, on spectroscopy (3000/4500). Afterward, ‘preservation’ and ‘restoration’ are equally present in ‘Material Analysis and Conservation Science’, with values (2000–2500) in both microscopy and spectroscopy. Our findings support the recent advances in spectroscopy, such as the development of Attenuated Total Reflection–Fourier-Transform Infrared (ATR-FTIR) spectroscopy and ATR-FTIR spectroscopic imaging, which opened up a window of opportunities for the characterization of materials in Material Analysis and Conservation Science [81].

All three keywords have the same occurrence with respect to the element photogrammetry (the value is around 500/4500). In the AT 5 MACS variable, the three keywords have a higher recurrence to the element microscopy (2250/4500). The occurrence with the maximum value of 4500 occurs for conservation on RS.

Despite a study elucidating four main trending themes in the applications of RS in coastal and marine conservation [82], it is important to use future hybrid applications of remote sensing, which endorses our findings—the highest 4500 occurs for conservation on RS. This is also in agreement with another study that used data from different sources in combination with state-of-the-art technologies, where satellite RS and GIS successfully resolved the problem of an integrated and multi-layer monitoring system for a vast area [83].

In addition, the interaction between the three keywords, ‘conservation’, ‘preservation’, and ‘restoration’, and the processes ‘CCM in CH’, ‘CCA in CH’, and ‘Culture and CC’ is described in Figure 7. The ‘Culture and CC’ represents the process with the highest values for all three keywords. The ‘conservation’ keyword assumes a maximum value = 170/180, while ‘preservation’ and ‘restoration’ assume the values = 40/180. Our findings support the results of the understanding of the current conservation circumstances of the monuments in relation to their environment, as well as predicting the future development of the present hazards [83].

5.2. The Correlation between the Keywords and the Variables

The interface between the three keywords and the UNESCO TIs indicates that the ‘conservation’ keyword assumes the maximum value for the element strength for TI n. 2 (value = 800/800, while ‘preservation’ and ‘restoration’ both assume value = 0). For TI n. 3, the highest value = 1000/1500 is assumed for ‘adaptation’, while both ‘conservation’ and ‘restoration’ assume the value = 500/1500. Links and occurrence follow the same asset in both indicators, assuming descending values, respectively. For TI n. 4, the maximum value is assumed by the cluster element regarding restoration (15/20).

For TI n. 7, the link variable on employment represents the highest value of 400/400, compared to restoration with a value of 50/400 and preservation with a value of 0/400. The same asset is observed for TI n. 8, where the links are the highest on habitat restoration with a value of 30/30, preceding the cluster No. on culture conservation with a value of 20/30. For TI n. 9, strength is the highest value (80/80) in households, preceding household expenditure (value = 60/80) and conservation (value = 20/80). TI n. 12, strength assumes the highest value on conservation (value = 90/100), and cultures unexpectedly assumes the lowest value (60/100). This is despite Saba et al., who emphasized that the literature neglects governance issues, which play a very important role in monitoring conservation efforts [84].

For TI n. 13, the highest value is represented by strength on ‘Sustainable development’ (value = 4000/4000) and, unexpectedly, it is only second to education (value = 2000/4000). While in TI n. 14, a similar asset is observed with the maximum represented by the strength on ‘restoration’ (value = 400/400) and not on ‘Cultural knowledge’ (value = 0/400). For TI n. 16, both the links with the highest value = 60/60 on ‘Cultural heritage’ and the clusters with the same highest value = 20/60 on ‘Conservation and restoration’ and ‘Historical and Artistic Heritage’ represent the maximum matches. Finally, for TI n. 17, strength, CH (value = 300/400) is the highest value, preceding training and restoration, both with the value = 200/400.

Regarding TI n. 18, both strength and links on ‘Culture’ have the highest values = 80/100. In the match between the three keywords and indicator n. 20, strength distributes homogeneously on ‘conservation’, ‘preservation’, and ‘culture’ with a value = 40/40 TI n. 21, strength represents the highest value = 500/600 on both conservation and CH. Similarly, for indicator n. 22, strength represents the highest value = 1250/1500.

Table A2 (Appendix A) shows that the ‘conservation’ keyword is linked to RS, which emerges as the most prominent keyword. It has the highest intensity or weight of a relationship between keywords in the network, with 12,065 strengths. It also has 920 links connected to the other terms. Furthermore, it has 900 occurrences, indicating its prevalence in the literature. These numbers indicate the keyword’s extensive usage and highlight the depth and breadth of research in these areas.

Based on Table A3 (Appendix A), the ‘Culture and CC’ term is related to the three keywords as mentioned previously, and it has the highest number of publications. The ‘conservation’ keyword, associated with culture and CC in that category, is the most common term. With 124 strengths, the relationship between ‘conservation’ and the other terms in the network has the highest weight. It also has 51 connections that are related to the other terms. Furthermore, its 36 appearances show how the ‘conservation’ keyword is the breadth of research in these areas. These tables demonstrate the scope and depth of conservation in these fields, as well as the term’s widespread usage. Infrared thermography (IRT) has the highest strength in terms of ‘preservation’. This suggests its effectiveness in capturing and assessing thermal data thanks to its non-intrusive nature. X-ray imaging is more related to ‘restoration’ and the strong association of X-ray imaging with restoration. RS only shows a high relationship strength. Last, spectroscopy has some strength with ‘restoration’, and chromatography shows some strength with both ‘conservation’ and ‘preservation’.

In the relationship between environmental sensors and heritage ‘preservation’, there are several applications, such as the monitoring of environmental parameters, used to maintain adequate conditions for preservation, mitigate risks, and prevent deterioration and potential damage. Additionally, online platforms (OLPs) exhibit a distinct strength and connections with ‘conservation’. OLPs can serve as repositories of knowledge, facilitating information sharing among conservationists, researchers, and the public. There is also a notable correlation with social media, indicating a degree of strength in its association with ‘conservation’ as well. Additionally, charts show links between semi-automated robots and image restoration with ‘conservation’.

5.3. The Highest Occurrences

The relationships between the UNESCO TIs and the three keywords are examined in Table A1 (referring to Figure 8 and Figure 9). Regarding strength, only values greater than 500 are examined. Among these, 3958 is the maximum value—present on TI n. 13—while the minimum is 551, which can be found on TI n. 2, where its number is 3/5 for both Tis, n. 2 and n. 3. The third element, links, is only considered for values greater than 250. Among these, the minimum is resilience = 250 presented in TI n. 3, and the maximum is 548, which is found on ‘conservation’ in TI n. 14. Finally, the occurrence of ‘conservation’ is considered, where only values >100 are discussed. Among these, there are three values ranging from 109 in TI n. 22 to 120 in TI n. 2 to 308 in TI n. 14. The main meanings from these figures show that ‘conservation’ is the most represented in 5/13 examined indicators, except in the TIs 3, 7, 12, and 20, where in the examined ranges, it is low or absent. The objects in Figure 8 are the indicators with the highest recurrence of the keyword ‘conservation’ for the UNESCO TIs (resulting in the maximum in TI n. 14 (300/350), followed by TIs 2, 22, 13, 21, 3, 12, 7, and 20).

5.4. Addressed Research Questions

It is imperative to delve into how the research method, mapping, and analyses addressed and answered the three research questions highlighted in Section 1.1. For example, concerning RQ 1—to what extent are the four UNESCO dimensions applied to the occurrence of the three keywords ‘preservation’, ‘conservation’, and ‘restoration’? It can be concluded that the distribution of values in the UNESCO TIs’ mapping varies depending on each of the four dimensions that gather the 22 TIs. For example, in indicators of Dimension A ‘Environment and Resilience’, there is a prevalence of maximization (the highest value) on the keyword ‘conservation’, while in Dimension B, ‘Prosperity and Livelihoods’ conservation maximizes on TI n. 7 and n. 12. Concerning TI n. 8, the links are maximized on the parameter habitat restoration, which is surprisingly only followed by a lower value in the homonym ‘Sustainable business’ cluster. Also, the numerical values indicate the occurrence of each keyword within those dimensions. The keyword ‘conservation’ is the most commonly used in conjunction with UNESCO TIs, followed by ‘preservation’ and ‘restoration’. Briefly, the ‘Knowledge & Skills’ dimension is the most frequent theme, led by ‘Cultural knowledge’, while ‘Climate adaptation & resilience’ is prominent in ‘conservation’, ‘Participatory processes’, and ‘Cultural participation’ and stands out in ‘conservation’ and ‘preservation’ for the ‘Inclusion & Participation’ dimension. Our study findings, in terms of conservation culture heritage addressing the UNESCO TIs for sustainable development, responded to the gap found, as recommended by Mekonnen et al., as well as the promotion of conservation to achieve economic and social sustainability [85]. Additionally, our study supports the notion highlighted by Petti that allows for the conclusion that mainstream cross-different databases of those indicators could help in the accomplishment of the Agenda 2030 of Heritage [86]. Moreover, our findings contribute to obtaining knowledge on cultural resource management that meets socio-economic sustainability, as discussed in different contexts in Europe [87] and the Middle East [88].

For RQ 2—the current implementations and best practices of utilizing ATs in terms of the three keywords, ‘preservation’, ‘conservation’, and ‘restoration’, in CH, ATs are vital for preserving cultural heritage, supporting professional practices to address deterioration and damage while respecting its historical, aesthetic, and cultural significance (conservation). In addition, ATs are beneficial in assessing risks and provide proactive measures to prevent deterioration and damage, ensure long-term survival and accessibility (preservation), and support the actions taken to return cultural heritage to a specific historical state (restoration). Moreover, ATs can be categorized into seven types—3D STM, VR and AR, Digital Documentation, NDT, Material Analysis, data Management, and Robotics. Furthermore, ATs help in analyzing and reinstating cultural heritage objects, identifying hidden features, and minimizing risks to delicate artifacts. LS and photogrammetry are commonly used in ‘3D-STM’, while remote sensing is the most used method in ‘NDT’. Spectroscopy and microscopy are highly utilized in ‘Material Analysis & Conservation Science’. LC is the only widely used method in the field of Robotics and Automation (R&A).

Regarding RQ 3—how the term ‘Culture and CC’ are in conjunction with the three keywords (‘preservation’, ‘conservation’, and ‘restoration’), ‘Culture and CC’ is widely used in all categories, indicating a stronger association with conservation and preservation than restoration. While climate change mitigation (CCM) in CH’ shows low usage, climate change adaptation (CCA) in ‘CH’ has moderate usage in conservation and preservation. Also, ‘CC’ dominates in all categories, while ‘Cultural heritage’ plays a vital role in the first two categories. The keywords ‘Cultural heritage conservation’ and ‘Heritage conservation’ are highly important, indicating a growing interest in adapting cultural heritage practices to a changing climate. Finally, this study paved the way for further assessment in the field. Additionally, a quantitative assessment can be carried out to find out more about the weight of the mapping. Our study defined the priorities of heritage experts by safeguarding cultural heritage at risk of climate change at the policy level supporting the findings of Bonazza and Sardella [89], and practical implications can assist environmentalists in tackling specific environmental damages, like air pollution (Esteban-Cantillo, et al. [90].

In line with the European Quality Principles (QPs) for EU-funded Interventions with potential impact upon Cultural Heritage—Revised edition November 2020 [20], the bibliometric assessment and evaluation of UNESCO TIs, ATs, and their interaction with the ‘conservation’ of cultural heritage emerges as a central theme, both in TIs and ATs, followed by ‘preservation’ and ‘restoration’ in terms of both frequency and impact. Key themes of UNESCO TIs include ‘Knowledge & Skills’, with a focus on ‘Cultural Knowledge’ and ‘Climate Adaptation & Resilience’, especially in relation to ‘conservation’. In fact, ‘conservation’ takes a central role and is particularly evident in indicators related to ‘Sustainable management of heritage’ and ‘Education for sustainable development’, emphasizing its role in sustainable heritage practices and educational initiatives. In addition, it has a significant influence on ‘Participatory Processes’ and ‘Cultural Education’, highlighting its relevance in public engagement and social practices. Within ATs, microscopy stands out across all three keywords, followed by remote sensing. This analysis aligns with the European Quality Principles (QPs) for EU-funded interventions, which emphasize the importance of ‘conservation’ in the broader context of cultural heritage. Finally, the current bibliographical overview on the topic favors the analysis of the impact of the CC on CH [11] and the analysis of case studies [17,25]. Our mapping introduces the matching between UNESCO TIs and advanced technologies (ATs) in the frame of cultural sustainability. Among the references we selected, the two reviews conducted in 2017 [19], and, above all, the one conducted in 2022 [21], are most directly connected to the results of the work presented in this paper, with respect to which our investigation is updated and implements the previous reviews with the current presence of a connection between the three most relevant practices relating to the CH represented by the three keywords, ‘conservation’, ‘preservation’, and ‘restoration’, as well as the ATs, on the one hand, and UNESCO TIs, on the other.

5.5. Limitations of This Study

We believe that the data presented are comprehensive and interdisciplinary in nature, as mapped, in detail, by the tendencies and trajectories of cultural heritage policies, practices, and research. This can be very useful for cultural heritage experts, bodies, authorities, researchers, scholars, and policymakers. However, limitations of this study include its specific time frame, the availability and quality of data sources, and the research methodology (data scraping, mapping, and analysis techniques) that may influence the comprehensiveness and accuracy of the bibliometric and scientometric assortments. This study’s findings are based on specific contexts and datasets, which may limit their generalizability to broader cultural heritage, as well as climate change scenarios. For instance, utilizing a specific database, SCOPUS (characterized by ample coverage), and searching other databases, like Google Scholar and Web of Science, might expand the results. Nonetheless, the authors intend to combine the results obtained and provide a quantitative assessment to present a holistic analysis to augment the knowledge of this issue. Therefore, future research is needed to update and validate the findings with evolving trends and advancements in the field. Further works will explore innovative thinking to address climate actions for enhancing conservation practices in cultural heritage management, in addition to a deeper analysis of global mapping to understand the links and connections among the different factors involved.

6. Conclusions

A comprehensive mapping of advanced technologies in conjunction with the UNESCO Thematic Indicators (TIs) for culture was conducted, addressing cultural sustainability, climate change, and cultural heritage. This included the study of the relationship between these aspects and the three keywords, ‘preservation’, ‘conservation’, and ‘restoration’, through bibliometric and scientometric assessments using SCOPUS data and VOSViewer software, considering the connection between Sustainable Development Goals and cultural heritage practices. Briefly, the presence of ‘conservation’ across all four dimensions of the UNESCO TIs suggests a conservative and not proactive perspective, potentially indicating a need for updates to these indicators issued in 2019. ‘Preservation’, defined in this study as the practice including the objectives of survival and accessibility in alignment with the TIs (refer to Table 1), emerges to be the least recurrent practice in the conducted data scraping. The key findings of this study regarding the UNESCO TIs are outlined in four main points as follows: (a) Dimension A ‘Environment and Resilience’ primarily focuses on environmental aspects particularly climate change (CC), with a strong emphasis on the keyword ‘conservation’; (b) Dimension B ‘Prosperity and Livelihoods’ sees the prevalence of ‘restoration’ and ‘conservation’; and (c) Dimension C ‘Knowledge & Skills’ is the most frequent theme and is particularly driven by ‘‘Cultural knowledge’’, and there is a strong emphasis on the keyword ‘restoration’. When this happens, ‘Sustainable management of heritage’ is highly regarded, while ‘Climate adaptation & resilience’ is prominent under ‘conservation’. ‘Cultural facilities’ and ‘Cultural businesses’’ play substantial roles in ‘conservation’ and ‘preservation’, respectively, and (d) Dimension D ‘Inclusion and Participation’ notes the prevalence of the ‘conservation’ and ‘preservation’ keywords, respectively, for ‘Cultural participation’ and ‘Inclusion & Participation’. Advanced technologies (ATs) play a significant role in cultural heritage activities, such as preservation, conservation, and restoration.

Key findings of this aspect (ATs) are related to the followings nine points: (a) ‘conservation’ is the most prevalent term associated with their use in cultural heritage, indicating a focus on maintaining and safeguarding cultural properties using various technological tools; (b) laser scanning and photogrammetry are impactful in ‘conservation’ and ‘restoration’, enhancing documentation and repair with precise measurements and modeling; (c) virtual tours are linked with ‘conservation’ and ‘preservation’, offering immersive experiences that enhance understanding and appreciation of cultural sites; (d) infrared thermography enables non-invasive ‘preservation’ by detecting hidden issues, such as moisture and structural defects, without damage to historical sites; (e) X-ray imaging is pivotal in ‘restoration’ for revealing the internal structure of artifacts, aiding in their examination and repair without physical contact; (f) ground-penetrating radar and remote sensing are more specialized, and are used mainly for subsurface mapping and environmental analysis rather than direct heritage preservation; (g) spectroscopy is noted for its application in ‘restoration’ due to its material analysis capabilities, aiding in the selection of appropriate restoration techniques; (h) chromatography is beneficial in both ‘conservation’ and ‘preservation’ for its ability to breakdown and study complex material mixtures found in cultural artifacts; and (i) online platforms stand out in ‘conservation’, highlighting their role in spreading knowledge and encouraging public engagement with heritage. Overall, ‘conservation’ is the most prevalent term associated with the use of ATs in CH, indicating a focus on maintaining and safeguarding cultural properties using various technological tools. Finally, key findings on climate change mapping of cultural heritage are summarized in four points as follows: (a) ‘conservation’ is the most prevalent term, revealing the importance of conservative practices both for mitigation and adaptation strategies, and (b) ‘Culture and climate change’ is widely used in all categories, indicating a stronger association with ‘conservation’ and ‘preservation’ rather than ‘restoration’ practices. This shows an increasing interest in adapting heritage practices to climate change. (c) Climate change mitigation in cultural heritage is minimally used, showing linkages with both ‘preservation’ and ‘conservation’ practices, and (d) climate change adaptation in cultural heritage shows moderate usage in ‘conservation’ and ‘preservation’ contexts.

Practical recommendations for the UNESCO TIs could refer to four main points. (a) Incorporate a stronger emphasis on environmental aspects, particularly climate change, within Dimension A, reflecting the significance of conservation efforts in mitigation and adaptation strategies for climate change, as well as encouraging further research, practices, and collaboration on the intersection of culture and climate change. (b) Enhance Dimension B to further promote prosperity and livelihood through restoration and conservation initiatives, investments, capacity buildings, and other activities, acknowledging their important roles in cultural heritage preservation. (c) Strengthen Dimension C by fostering cultural knowledge and sustainable management practices and advocate for the widespread adoption of non-invasive advanced techniques, such infrared thermography, X-ray imaging, spectroscopy, etc. (d) Foster inclusive participation in Dimension D by encouraging engagement with conservation and preservation activities, promoting broader community involvement in cultural heritage initiatives, and use virtual tours, immersive experiences, online platforms, social media, and other ATs.