sustainability
Article
Heritage as Action Research
Guillermo Reher
Department of Education, Research Methods and Evaluation, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences,
Comillas Pontifical University, 28108 Alcobendas, Spain; gsreher@comillas.edu
Abstract: This paper intends to weigh the importance of archaeology by how much impact it has, or
could have, on society. Heritage values are precisely the language in which that impact translates to
the general public. It is necessary, however, to balance the duty to protect heritage with the mutating
and negotiated nature of these values. Archaeologists should not be seen as the wardens but rather
as the enablers, the midwives, of local communities coming to terms with a deeper understanding
of their past. The more effectively this heritage stimulates the relation of the community with these
values, the greater the potential it will have to stimulate social innovation, which is the foundation
for sustainable development or abandonment. For many the boon of cultural heritage is tourism,
and this is true but to an insufficient extent. In order to be sustainable, tourism must be part of
a broader social innovation strategy that foregoes easy pickings in favor of the creation of quality
brands, employment, and the protection of traditional lifeways. Only in this way can heritage truly
unlock a sustainable horizon.
Keywords: cultural heritage; landscape; knowledge transfer; sustainable development; social innovation; tourism; impact assessment
Citation: Reher, G. Heritage as
Action Research. Sustainability 2022,
14, 282. https://doi.org/10.3390/
su14010282
Academic Editors: Ana Pastor Pérez,
David Barreiro Martínez and Eva
Parga Dans
Received: 24 November 2021
Accepted: 22 December 2021
Published: 28 December 2021
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affiliations.
Copyright:
© 2021 by the author.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
1. Introduction
The goal of this article is to prove that action research of cultural heritage is possible,
but it requires a sharp, goal-oriented focus aiming at social innovation. This research is
structured as a discourse where the conclusions are the logical outcomes of the previous
steps. It considers existing research dialectically as a way of moving the ball forward.
The paper aims to explore the theory behind many of the principles that deal with action research, archaeological practice, and cultural heritage but in a narrative flow. It,
therefore, encompasses a theoretical exploration and the summation of various research
outcomes, in order to arrive at conclusions that can stress the action-research potential of
cultural heritage.
2. Can Public Archaeology Be Considered Action Research?
The principles of participatory action research (PAR), as outlined in Latin America
during the Cold War, seek to use research to fix the problems of local communities primarily
through education and social innovation [1]. According to Chevalier and Buckles, the three
pillars of PAR are community participation, transformative action, and quality research [2].
The balance, however, seems to reveal enormous variation based on the theoretical and
methodological approaches used [3]. In a way, this may also be reflected in the way public
archaeology embodies PAR at times.
In theory, public archaeology reflects these principles in its theoretical underpinnings,
if one is to follow the “European” understanding of the concept [4]. The practice, however,
is often times too tilted in favor of public participation as a goal in itself [5]. This serves to
upend the Gramscian concept of traditional intellectual activity as an endorsement of elite
hegemony, but it hardly contributes to the transformative potential of PAR; the “A” stands
for “action”.
4.0/).
Sustainability 2022, 14, 282. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14010282
https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability
Sustainability 2022, 14, 282
2 of 9
Some would argue that the participation is, indeed, the action; that by participating
in archaeological projects, social transformation is achieved [6]. This, however, is far from
proven through sociocultural impact studies or the support of a theoretical framework.
It is, therefore, little more than wishful thinking that volunteers in an excavation will be
more sensitive to heritage values [7]. A side effect of this prioritization of participation
above action is that the effective knowledge transfer of archaeology is fettered. Participatory archaeology becomes an end in itself, thereby, releasing the activity from any
ulterior potential.
Participatory action research ultimately aims to solve the problems of society through
science not to solve scientific problems with society. Notice the effect this has on the transfer
of knowledge. In recent years, archaeology has been called upon to fulfill a much more
fundamental role in helping contemporary society to tackle problems such as climate
change and sustainable development [8]. In a way, the core of public archaeology has
acknowledged as much through the Public Archaeology monographic issue Archaeology
and Economic Development [9]. In it, the editors posit that archaeologists really do not
understand the impact they have in society, not just economically speaking—which is their
main concern—but also, I would argue, regarding the real social, cultural, and educational
impact of their activity. This begs the following questions: What is archaeology for? What
does it achieve in terms of action?
Don Henson wrote a chapter with the provocative title Does Archaeology Matter? in
which he explored the actual use and impact of this activity [10]. He found that archaeology
improved the quality of life in three ways, which are depicted in Figure 1.
Figure 1. How archaeology can improve quality of life (derived from Table 1 in [10]).
Figure 1 helps conceptualize the quality of life-related benefits that archaeology provides according to Henson. A problem with public archaeology, as many understand it,
is that the goals are not the arrows but rather the rows, representing the lack of objectiveminded follow-through that pervades many participatory projects.
The concept of “applied archaeology” helps bridge this gap by providing a more solid
framework for what PAR really is when relating to archaeology [11,12]. It focuses more
Sustainability 2022, 14, 282
3 of 9
on the relation between archaeological knowledge and the use this knowledge has for
society—the actual “action” that embodies knowledge transfer [13]. This had already been
revealed as an area of contention by Smith:
Archaeological theory falls short in addressing heritage management and how archaeological knowledge is used within the management process. ([14] p. 300)
Nonetheless, it is precisely the use of the archaeology in the management of cultural
heritage that causes friction in certain aspects. This begs a brief foray into the issues of
conservation and management from an action-research perspective.
3. Please Stay Off the Walls: Protection and Conservation
The vision of cultural heritage as a museum cabinet, a display case for things to be
seen in perfect conservation and extricated from their social and cultural context, has
gone the way of landlines and Blu-ray discs. The inaugural issue of the Journal of Cultural
Heritage Management and Sustainable Development contained an editorial that stated the
conviction that the management of cultural heritage was one aspect that was inseparable
from sustainable development [15].
Conservation is necessary, but cultural heritage must be intimately tied to the society
and landscape it comes from. This principle has helped inform, and transform, the policy
and scientific field of heritage management on the basis of the two Council of Europe
Conventions, the European Landscape Convention [16] and the Convention on the Value of
Cultural Heritage for Society (also known as the Faro Convention [17]). Both stress the
democratic, accessible, and dynamic nature of cultural heritage as an integrated and
integral part of sustainable development and societal well-being. This has resulted in far
more dynamic models of heritage protection [18,19], often shifting the focus away from the
site and the object to the landscape it is part of. Protecting heritages, and their landscapes,
has become a possibility only inasmuch as local cultural values and development strategies
were part of the picture [20]. This conservation–development dialectic has proved to
be fraught in places where the drivers of change were more intent on transforming the
landscape and, hence, the cultural values associated [21].
One of the greatest issues at stake is being able to convince society that protecting
cultural heritage is worth it. This is problematic because the concept of “worth” is often tied
to a very econometric perception, which can marginalize other forms of value—cultural,
educational, or environmental, which may be just as important. Surprisingly, this is
reflected in the very ecosystem services model that, although inclusive of non-monetary
forms of value, actually fails to produce any models that can help balance the ledger with
aspects that are not measured in dollars [22]. It has proved problematic to weigh in this
debate with actual figures, due to the general lack of studies to demonstrate the impact of
cultural heritage [23].
Some methodologies used for this purpose again fail to assess aspects that are not
measured, and others simply disregard any categories that cannot be quantified [23].
An interesting attempt in recent years has been the work of Francesca Nocca [24]. The
appearance of the sustainable development goals of Agenda 2030 warrants further impulse
toward being able to measure how said goals are being achieved, thereby shaking up the
ecosystem services structure [25].
The cultural values model, born out of the shortcomings that the ecosystem services
model revealed, in particular with regard to landscape analysis, explicitly recognizes the
impact that cannot be measured monetarily [26]. The great theoretical contribution is the
acknowledgement that values can be either “surface” values, based on the practices, forms,
and relationships of the present, or “embedded” ones, based on these very aspects but
originating in previous phases. The past, hence, becomes embodied in the present values,
and it is through ethnographic fieldwork that one can attempt to understand, and then
measure, them [27].
Any attempt to protect specific elements in a landscape needs to comprehend this
relation between the surface and embedded values, as well as the various cultural values
Sustainability 2022, 14, 282
4 of 9
that local communities bestow on the various forms, relations, and practices of said landscape. By drawing a polygon around it, and encasing it, you extricate it from the landscape,
thus, removing it from the relations that give it meaning and underpin the surface and
embedded values. It can become a display case, totally removed from the local community,
at best, and seen as an alien inference and obstacle for development, at worst [28].
The issues discussed above demonstrate the problems associated with more traditional
forms of conservation. Cultural heritage needs to be part of a sustainable development
strategy, not an exception, not an exclusion, but a motor of said development. In order to
achieve that, it is important to understand how it can relate with social innovation.
4. Social Innovation . . . With a Trowel?
The Faro Convention [17] conceives the management of cultural heritage within the
notion of ‘Heritage Communities’. These are where various stakeholders could negotiate their differences and establish common strategies, which is a process often fraught
with imbalances and power relations (see Figure 2) and a corresponding sense of lack of
empowerment, which is quite the opposite of the desirable outcome.
Figure 2. Conflicts of interest among stakeholders.
These problems can be offset either through top–down structuring and public consultation or else by establishing an alliance between archaeologists and local communities.
This is best summarized in Figure 3, where the ideal process for implementing a cultural
landscape reveals the need to start with a firm alliance—symbolized here as a marriage
between the archaeologist and the local community, which then decides an academic
and a management strategy, which is constantly shared with and participated in by the
community. The result is a benefit for both said community, as well as society in general.
By initially stressing the need to establish an alliance between the expert and the local
population, the initial mistrust is replaced with a strong bond that facilitates knowledge
transfer, as has been pointed out by knowledge sociologists [29]. Figure 3 also reveals that,
in the said process, the participation aspect of participation action research is also covered,
and the action part is the implementation of the expert-driven strategy. The archaeologist
is ideally positioned to carry this out due to the on-the-ground nature of his work, and the
Sustainability 2022, 14, 282
5 of 9
fact that it is surveying fieldwork that usually constitutes the first stage of local interaction
with experts.
The nature of that first contact is key in determining the future relations. Distance and
behaving as though no explanations were afforded, undermines the possible collaboration
or mutual understanding that fosters an alliance. In a way, the archaeologist is the mediator
between local communities and their cultural heritage, and this is a role that needs to be
carried out. It is the archaeologist who has to deal with as well as shape the relation with
planners, policy makers, and other stakeholders. Very much a superhero role, which only
the archaeologist can do [10]. The specialist is laden with responsibilities for which they
are, at best, only partially trained [12]. Moreover, little is to be won and much to be lost, if
things go awry.
Figure 3. Ideal process for the implementation of a cultural landscape (based on [30]).
Public policy theory uses the concept of “boundary work” to understand the intersection between science and society, within a sociology of knowledge perspective [31]. It has
earned much attention in The Netherlands, where the work of Robert Hoppe has revealed
that it is inefficient for scientists to follow only scientific priorities, because research needs
to have a social impact, which is why there is funding for it at all [32]. Unlike a significant
portion of public archaeology, boundary work does not really question the scientific endeavors of the specialist but rather strives to answer the following questions: “What for?”
and “How can it impact society more efficiently?”. Action research locates science within
society; not just as a mere process but rather as a system of innovation. Science does not
advance on its own but as a social process that bears fruit that feed back into society [33].
Experimental social innovation has been defined by George Fairweather as follows:
...a new social subsystem whose methods include innovating models as alternative solutions to social problems, experimentally evaluating them, and disseminating the information to those who can make the appropriate changes. ([34] p. vi)
Social innovation steps beyond a linear perspective of innovation, which is exclusively
found in private initiative, as stated by the Aho Report, which already acknowledged that
an exclusively econometric perspective of social innovation left out very important types
of innovation, e.g., technological, organizational, and service-related [35]. This dovetails
neatly with the synchronous development of the notion of cultural heritage as an engine
for social development [36]. Belfiore considers that the notion of assessing cultural heritage
Sustainability 2022, 14, 282
6 of 9
by measuring impact, rather than being rejected because of its econometric bias, should be
embraced and changed so that it can reflect the true value [22]. Measuring the quality of life,
or cultural and social benefits, cannot be limited to “number of resources per inhabitant”, it
goes far beyond that [37].
Being able to analyze the socioeconomic impact of cultural heritage in the landscape
poses numerous challenges for the reasons seen above [23]. Most of the time, both policy
makers and managers seek to facilitate local development through the promotion of tourism,
as a sort of secret recipe for turning heritage into profit. This solution, however, has
its problems.
5. Souvenirs Are Not Trinkets, They Are Heritage Values
The relation between archaeology and tourism is based on two basic principles [38]:
•
•
The transfer of archaeological knowledge takes the form of cultural resources that the
tourism sector capitalizes on.
The archaeologist can help influence the shape of tourism in order to increase the
benefits for the local community and ward off abuse—again reinforcing the ideal
alliance referred to in the previous section.
Tourism is a significant stimulant of the local economy, favoring the creation or
expansion of local businesses as long as they produce services and products that are
synergetic with the cultural resources available. For instance, when a tourist visits a quaint
fishing village, he is likely to impact not only souvenir shops, restaurants, bars, and hotels
but also the consumption of fishing products, thereby, also positively affecting the local
fishing industry. This is an example of a fair benefit that finds a more balanced distribution
of profits by affecting much of the local economy and not just those businesses directly
related with tourism.
Social innovation facilitates the creation and expansion of second-order service businesses that can be profitable due to the arrival of tourism [39]. In turn, it is also vital that
these benefits affect a greater swath of the local economy. This is significant because, often,
many of the values associated with a cultural landscape derive from land use, and often,
tourism benefits hardly trickle over to those who curate the land [40].
In the case of urban heritage, much has been discussed regarding the possible gentrification effect of tourism. The enormous scope of challenges and strategies has ranged from
modest successes, such as Bordeaux [41], to nightmarish scenarios that emerge when mass
tourism runs rampant [42].
This is particularly challenging in rural communities and cultural landscapes, since
many of the values associated with them are generated by local perception and farming
activities that have created an indelible mark on the landscape [43]. The lack of economic
incentive for local land use can result in the rewilding of a landscape and local abandonment,
which results in the loss of those cultural values altogether [28].
Part of the problem stems from the lack of knowledge transfer of any type on behalf of
archaeologists or cultural heritage managers. De-centering cultural heritage from the site
or the object and re-assessing the relation with the landscape provides ample opportunity
of the integration of the intangible heritage with the tangible. Traditions, food, and daily
activities become the stuff of culture and are integrated into the tourism experience, much
in the way of the fishing village example cited above. People eat fish because it is a fishing
village, because of the traditions and activities associated with the sea, which then transfers
directly into the culinary experience.
It is rare to find a rural landscape that does not have characteristic foodstuffs—local
fish, particular legumes, seasonal vegetables, particularly breeds of cattle, honey, etc.
Moreover, food is an excellent carrier of cultural values, as well as a source of nourishment
for visitors. Turning the meal into a cultural experience benefits not only the restaurateurs
but also the producers, who are the ones that curate the landscape. In a globalized market,
local productions are often not competitive, begging the need for ways of adding extra
value. Eco-friendly production, the maintenance of local breeds, and an association with
Sustainability 2022, 14, 282
7 of 9
local ways of preparing food all constitute an invaluable intangible heritage, which can,
and should, be part of the experience and allow producers to turn a profit [44]. This sort
of relation has been explored further in wine-producing countries, where the association
between the territory and the foodie experience is strong [45–47].
An additional way in which farmers can benefit from tourism is by bringing back
the original idea of rural tourism—integrated rural tourism [48]—whereby tourists live
and work in a farm as a way of escaping the urban life and returning to a culturally and
spiritually significant activity [49–53].
6. Conclusions
Cultural heritage research has extraordinary potential for stimulating social innovation,
combining both economic development and sustainability. In order to fulfill this potential,
however, it is important that heritage is conceived and managed as the knowledge output of
archaeology within an action-research paradigm. Far from being scientifically self-serving,
experts need to establish a strategy to maximize the impact and durability of cultural
heritage, in order to benefit and empower local communities. This needs to be integrated
within a broader sustainable development strategy that stresses entrepreneurship and social
innovation associated with the cultural landscape. In this sense, measures to maintain and
protect local traditional land use are practical strategies for the preservation of cultural
values. These latter stages, rather than being alien to the original scientific activity of
the archaeologist, need to be the final stages of the landscape strategy devised from the
outcome of the project. In other words, once the archaeologist sets their eye in a landscape,
they begin to create the future.
Funding: This research and the APC were funded by the Spanish Science and Innovation Ministry
project “Economías locales, economía imperial: El occidente de la Península Ibérica (Siglos II A.C.- II
D.C.) (LOKI)”, grant number PID2019-104297GB-I00.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: Not applicable.
Acknowledgments: I am grateful for the support and guidance by Inés Sastre and Almudena Orejas
(both CSIC) and Maria Cruz Cardete (UCM). I would also like to appreciate the support of the project
“Registros ambiguos: comunidades locales y poblamiento indígena en los metalla publica del noroeste
hispano (INDIGENAE)”, grant number PID2020-114248GA-I00 of the Spanish Science and Innovation
Ministry, directed by Brais Currás (CSIC).
Conflicts of Interest: The author declares no conflict of interest.
References
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Brydon-Miller, M.; Maguire, P. Participatory action research: Contributions to the development of practitioner inquiry in
education. Educ. Action Res. 2009, 17, 79–93. [CrossRef]
Chevalier, J.M.; Buckles, D.J. Participatory Action Research: Theory and Methods for Engaged Inquiry; Routledge: Abingdon-onThames, UK, 2013; p. 469.
Chambers, R. From PRA to PLA and Pluralism: Practice and Theory; Institute of Development Studies-IDS: Brighton, UK, 2007.
Schadla-Hall, T. Editorial: Public archaeology. Eur. J. Archaeol. 1999, 2, 147–158. [CrossRef]
Merriman, N. Public Archaeology; Merriman, N., Ed.; Routledge: London, UK, 2004.
Wylie, A. The integrity of narratives: Deliberative practice, pluralism, and multivocality. In Evaluating Multiple Narratives: Beyond
Nationalist, Colonialist, Imperialist Archaeologies; Habu, J., Fawcett, C., Matsunaga, J.M., Eds.; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2008;
pp. 201–212.
Atalay, S.; Clauss, L.R.; McGuire, R.H.; Welch, J.R. Transforming archaeology. In Transforming Archaeology: Activist Practices and
Prospects; Atalay, S., Clauss, L.R., McGuire, R.H., Welch, J.R., Eds.; Left Coast Press: Walnut Creek, CA, USA, 2014; pp. 7–28.
Atalay, S.; Clauss, L.R.; McGuire, R.H.; Welch, J.R. Transforming Archaeology: Activist Practices and Prospects; Atalay, S., Clauss, L.R.,
McGuire, R.H., Welch, J.R., Eds.; Left Coast Press: Walnut Creek, CA, USA, 2014; p. 266.
Gould, P.G.; Burtenshaw, P. Archaeology and economic development. Public Archaeol. 2014, 13, 3–9. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2022, 14, 282
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
8 of 9
Henson, D. Does archaeology matter? In Community Archaeology. Themes, Methods and Practices; Moshenska, G., Dhanjal, S., Eds.;
Oxbow Books: Oxford, UK, 2011; pp. 120–127.
Barreiro, D. La aureola perdida (Propuesta para una arqueología aplicada). ArqueoWeb 2006, 8, 301–306.
Chambers, E.J. Epilogue. Archaeology, heritage, and public endeavor. In Places in Mind: Public Archaeology as Applied Anthropology
(Critical Perspectives in Identity, Memory, and the Built Environment); Shackel, P.A., Chambers, E.J., Eds.; Routledge: New York, NY,
USA, 2004; pp. 193–208.
McDavid, C. From “traditional” archaeology to public archaeology to community action. The Levi Jordan Plantation Project.
In Places in Mind: Public Archaeology as Applied Anthropology (Critical Perspectives in Identity, Memory, and the Built Environment);
Shackel, P.A., Chambers, E.J., Eds.; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2004; pp. 35–56.
Smith, L. Heritage management as postprocessual archaeology? Antiquity 1994, 68, 300–309. [CrossRef]
Pereira Roders, A.; van Oers, R. Editorial: Bridging cultural heritage and sustainable development. J. Cult. Herit. Manag. Sustain.
Dev. 2011, 1, 5–14. [CrossRef]
Council of Europe. The European Landscape Convention; Council of Europe: Faro, Portuga, 2000; Volume 176.
Council of Europe. Council of Europe Framework Convention on the Value of Cultural Heritage for Society; Council of Europe: Faro,
Portugal, 2005; Volume 199.
Pérez Bustamante, L.; Parra Ponce, C. Paisajes culturales: El parque patrimonial como instrumento de revalorización y revitalización del territorio. Theoria 2004, 13, 9–24.
Sánchez-Palencia Ramos, F.J.; Ruiz del Árbol Moro, M. Los paisajes como patrimonio cultural: Geoarqueología, arqueología del
paisaje y parques culturales. In Geoarqueología y Patrimonio en la Península Ibérica y el Entorno Mediterráneo; Santonja Gómez, M.,
Pérez González, A., Machado, M.J., Eds.; ADEMA: Soria, Spain, 2005; pp. 55–62.
King, T.F. Cultural heritage preservation and the legal system with specific reference to landscapes. In Landscapes Under Pressure.
Theory and Practice of Cultural Heritage Research and Preservation; Lozny, L.R., Ed.; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2006; pp. 243–254.
Lozny, L.R. Place, historical ecology and cultural landscape: New directions for applied archaeology. In Landscapes Under Pressure.
Theory and Practice of Cultural Heritage Research and Preservation; Lozny, L.R., Ed.; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2006; pp. 15–25.
Belfiore, E. ‘Impact’, ‘value’ and ‘bad economics’: Making sense of the problem of value in the arts and humanities. Arts Humanit.
High. Educ. 2015, 14, 95–110. [CrossRef]
Reher, G.S. What is value? Impact assessment of cultural heritage. J. Cult. Herit. Manag. Sustain. Dev. 2020, 10, 429–436. [CrossRef]
Nocca, F. The role of cultural heritage in sustainable development: Multidimensional indicators as decision-making tool.
Sustainability 2017, 9, 1882. [CrossRef]
Petti, L.; Trillo, C.; Makore, B.N. Cultural heritage and sustainable development targets: A possible harmonisation? Insights from
the European perspective. Sustainability 2020, 12, 926. [CrossRef]
Stephenson, J. The cultural values model: An integrated approach to values in landscapes. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2008, 84, 127–139.
[CrossRef]
Bieling, C.; Plieninger, T.; Pirker, H.; Vogl, C.R. Linkages between landscapes and human well-being: An empirical exploration
with short interviews. Ecol. Econ. 2014, 105, 19–30. [CrossRef]
Reher, G. El turismo en el patrimonio arqueológico: Entre la “vitrinización” y la oportunidad perdida. Rev. Arqueol. Am. 2020, 38,
41–60. [CrossRef]
Alonso González, P. Between certainty and trust: Boundary-work and the construction of archaeological epistemic authority. Cult.
Sociol. 2016, 10, 483–501. [CrossRef]
Orejas, A.; Reher, G.S. Historic landscapes, research and valorisation (a Spanish perspective). In Proceedings of the CHeriScape
Conference II: Landscape as Heritage in Science, Amersfoort, The Netherlands, 5–6 November 2014; p. 12.
Gieryn, T.F. Boundary work and the demarcation of science from nonscience: Strains and interests in professional ideologies of
scientists. Am. Sociol. Rev. 1983, 48, 781–795. [CrossRef]
Hoppe, R. Rethinking the science-policy nexus: From knowledge utilization and science technology studies to types of boundary
arrangements. Poiesis Prax. 2005, 3, 199–215. [CrossRef]
Mansilla Castaño, A.M. El análisis del discurso arqueológico como metodología: Una primera aproximación. ArqueoWeb 1999,
1, 19.
Fairweather, G.W. Methods for Experimental Social Innovation; John Wiley and Sons: New York, NY, USA, 1967; p. 250.
Aho, E.; Cornu, J.; Gheorghiou, L.; Subirá, A. Creating an Innovative Europe. Report of the Independent Expert Group on R&D and
Innovation Appointed Following the Hampton Court Summit and Chaired by Mr. Esko Aho; European Commission: Luxembourg, 2006.
Barreiro, D.; Parga Dans, E. El valor económico del patrimonio cultural: Estrategias y medidas posibles para estimular la
innovación social y los emprendimientos. In Proceedings of the Seminario Internacional “El Patrimonio Cultural: Un Aporte al
Desarrollo Endógeno”, Universidad Andina Simón Bolívar, Quito, Ecuador, 6–7 November 2013; p. 24.
Phillips, R.; Budruk, M. Introduction. In Quality-of-Life Community Indicators for Parks, Recreation and Tourism Management; Budruk,
M., Phillips, R., Eds.; Social Indicators Research Series; Springer: London, UK, 2011; pp. 1–10.
Slick, K. Archaeology and the tourism train. In Public Benefits of Archaeology; Little, B.J., Ed.; University of Florida: Gainesville, FL,
USA, 2002; pp. 219–227.
Manrique, R.; Viaggi, D.; Raggi, M. A Bayesian network highlighting the linkages between landscape structure and the local
economy: The case of agritourism in lowland areas of Northern Italy. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 2015, 58, 2137–2158. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2022, 14, 282
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
9 of 9
Zavalloni, M.; Raggi, M.; Targetti, S.; Viaggi, D. Agricultural policies and the emergence of voluntary landscape enhancement
efforts: An exploratory analysis of rural tourism using an agent-based model. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 2015, 58, 2159–2175.
[CrossRef]
Appendino, F. Balancing heritage conservation and sustainable development—The case of Bordeaux. IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci.
Eng. 2017, 245, 062002. [CrossRef]
Mikulić, J.; Vizek, M.; Stojčić, N.; Payne, J.E.; Časni, A.Č.; Barbić, T. The effect of tourism activity on housing affordability. Ann.
Tour. Res. 2021, 90, 103264. [CrossRef]
Reher, G.S. Turismo sostenible en paisajes culturales: Frenando el abandono. In Nuevas Visiones en Educación y Empresa para una
Nueva Sociedad; Ubierna, F., Ed.; Fragua: Madrid, Spain, 2019; pp. 367–385.
Pugliese, P. Organic farming and sustainable rural development: A multifaceted and promising convergence. Sociol. Rural. 2001,
41, 112–130. [CrossRef]
Tempesta, T.; Giancristofaro, R.A.; Corain, L.; Salmaso, L.; Tomasi, D.; Boatto, V. The importance of landscape in wine quality
perception: An integrated approach using choice-based conjoint analysis and combination-based permutation tests. Food Qual.
Prefer. 2010, 21, 827–836. [CrossRef]
Tassinari, P.; Torreggiani, D.; Benni, S.; Dall’Ara, E. Landscape quality in farmyard design: An approach for Italian wine farms.
Landsc. Res. 2013, 38, 729–749. [CrossRef]
Nikolov, D.; Borisov, P.; Radev, T. Integrated landscape analysis: Consumer’s preferences approach for defining the competitive
landscape composition. A case of wine tourizm in Pazardjik district, Bulgaria. Bulg. J. Agric. Sci. 2014, 20, 761–766.
Saxena, G.; Clark, G.; Oliver, T.; Ilbery, B. Conceptualizing integrated rural tourism. Tour. Geogr. 2007, 9, 347–370. [CrossRef]
Balestrieri, G. Il Turismo Rurales Nello Sviluppo Territoriale Integrato Della Toscana; IRPET (Istituto Regionales Programmazione
Economica Toscana): Regione Toscana, Italy, 2005.
Belletti, G. Ruralità e turismo. Ariregionieuropa 2010, 6, 20.
Cawley, M.; Gillmor, D.A. Integrated rural tourism: Concepts and practice. Ann. Tour. Res. 2008, 35, 316–337. [CrossRef]
Panyik, E.; Costa, C.; Rátz, T. Implementing integrated rural tourism: An event-based approach. Tour. Manag. 2011, 32, 1352–1363.
[CrossRef]
Cawley, M.; Marsat, J.-B.; Gillmor, D.A. Promoting integrated rural tourism: Comparative perspectives on institutional networking
in France and Ireland. Tour. Geogr. 2007, 9, 405–420. [CrossRef]