Abstract
This study maps the nexus between sustainability and cultural heritage using CiteSpace. Urban heritage dominates, with rising focus on geoheritage and biocultural heritage. Italy and China lead in cross-disciplinary contributions. Sustainable tourism, conservation, and policy prevail, enhanced by technology and community participation. Cultural sustainability anchors discourse, advancing Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 11. Future priorities: technological empowerment, interdisciplinary collaboration, and community co-governance unlocking heritage’s sustainable potential.
Similar content being viewed by others
Introduction
The term “sustainability” originated in environmental science, primarily focusing on the conservation of natural resources. Since the 1960s, the relationship between sustainability and cultural heritage has evolved through distinct developmental phases, each marked by new concepts and methodologies. Cantar et al. analyzed documents compiled by UNESCO and ICOMOS, proposing that the period from 1999 to 2011 constituted the first phase in which sustainability was explicitly integrated into the concept of cultural heritage. During this time, sustainability emphasized the sociocultural contributions of heritage. The years 2011 to 2014 saw a proliferation of regional and international conferences addressing the “heritage-sustainability” nexus, which led to the internalization of sustainability in heritage management practices. In 2015, the adoption of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development formally recognized culture as a driver for achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), thereby shaping heritage policies1. Over the past two decades, sustainability has been consistently applied and refined in the conservation of cultural heritage. As stated in the Policy for the Integration of a Sustainable Development Perspective into the Processes of the World Heritage Convention, safeguarding cultural and natural heritage with Outstanding Universal Value must reinforce three dimensions of sustainable development: environmental sustainability, inclusive social development, and inclusive economic growth, while also promoting peace and security.
Although the connection between cultural heritage and sustainability has been acknowledged since the 1960s, the explicit integration of sustainability concepts into heritage conservation is a relatively recent development. Over the past two decades, various approaches have emerged to operationalize the universal ideal of sustainability in practice. Theoretically, research has explored cultural heritage conservation2,3 and management4,5,6 through the lens of macro-level sustainable development goals, analyzing their contributions to broader sustainability agendas. Other scholars have concentrated on specific dimensions of sustainability, such as the role of social sustainability in heritage preservation7,8, the environmental sustainability of traditional architecture9,10 and its energy performance optimization11,12, the economic sustainability of heritage conservation13,14,15,16, and cultural sustainability studies from both local17,18 and urban perspectives19,20. At the micro level, there is an increased emphasis on specific implementation processes, including the sustainability of protection and restoration techniques21,22, as well as the integration of cultural heritage into sustainable design frameworks and renovation initiatives9,23,24,25. Culture serves as a vital resource for the attainment of sustainable development and management26. As the tangible expression of culture, cultural heritage plays a crucial role in promoting sustainable development. With the evolving understanding of cultural heritage, individuals are increasingly recognizing it not merely as an object to be preserved, but also as a resource and a potential contributor to resilience27. To reconcile the demands of cultural heritage protection with the maintenance of traditional values and contemporary development, it is essential to acknowledge and enhance the inherent potential of heritage to contribute to various dimensions of sustainable development. This research conducts a systematic examination of the types, methodological approaches, and intrinsic values associated with research on cultural heritage sustainability, with the objective of addressing the following inquiries:
Q1: Which types of heritage hold significant potential for promoting sustainability? Furthermore, what efforts have been undertaken by different countries in this regard?
Q2: What methods can be implemented to enhance sustainability within heritage frameworks? Additionally, what roles have different academic disciplines played in promoting this practice?
Q3: How can sustainability be evaluated and integrated with sustainable development goals throughout the entire process?
Methods
Research tools
This investigation utilized CiteSpace (version 6.3.R1) software to construct a knowledge graph related to research on the sustainability of cultural heritage. CiteSpace, a scientific literature visualization and analysis tool developed by Dr. Chaomei Chen and his team, encompasses several core functionalities, including collaborative network analysis, keyword co-occurrence analysis, cluster analysis, and keyword detection28. By generating knowledge graphs, it effectively visualizes research hotspots and emerging trends within the field. This study aims to identify noun terms associated with resource attributes, methodological characteristics, and dimensions of sustainability through keyword co-occurrence networks. Additionally, it employs national cooperation networks to elucidate the geographical distribution patterns of sustainability research across various types of heritage. Furthermore, interdisciplinary collaboration patterns are examined through category co-occurrence analysis. The tool’s integrated burst detection module facilitates the dynamic capture of the temporal evolution of research hotspots. Cluster maps, Timeline View, and Timezone View visually represent the field’s hotspots and stage characteristics, thereby providing empirical support and visual evidence for understanding the intricate knowledge structure of cultural heritage sustainability research.
Literature search and analysis process
To delineate the three dimensions of sustainability research, a structured workflow for literature retrieval and analysis has been developed (Fig. 1).
The four-step process includes: Step 1 Preliminary Search; Step 2 Terminology Mining; Step 3 Targeted Retrieval, and Step 4 Visualization Analysis.
Preliminary Literature Data Search. The research data were sourced from the Web of Science Core Collection, utilizing the following keyword combinations within the topic area: “cultural heritage” AND “sustainability,” spanning the time frame from 2001 to 2024. The literature types were restricted to Articles and Reviews. After eliminating duplicates, withdrawn items, and literature of low relevance, a total of 2295 articles were obtained and exported as Full Records and Cited References.
Terminology Mining. The previously mentioned data was imported into CiteSpace, where a co-occurrence analysis was performed on the Keyword field to generate a list of keywords and their associated indicators, including Frequency (Freq), Burst, Degree, and Centrality. Freq represents the frequency of node occurrence, with higher frequencies indicating a stronger foundation. Burst signifies the degree of sudden attention, which is useful for identifying emerging trends, pivotal moments, or significant breakthroughs in research. Degree assesses the direct influence of a node, with higher degrees reflecting broader connections to other nodes. Centrality identifies nodes that link disparate clusters and facilitate the flow of knowledge, potentially serving as key hubs across various domains. Noun terms with resource attributes, methodological features, and sustainability dimensions were extracted from the keyword list and combined with key indicators to derive Top Terms for each dimension, which served as criteria for targeted retrieval.
Targeted retrieval. The research data was sourced once again from the Web of Science Core Collection, utilizing the keyword combinations “cultural heritage” AND “sustainability,” and the inclusion of “Top Terms” in the keyword area. The time frame was maintained from 2001 to 2024, with the literature types limited to Articles and Reviews. Duplicates and withdrawn literature were eliminated, and Full Records and Cited References were exported to obtain more precise data samples across various dimensions for analysis.
Visualization and analysis. Utilizing CiteSpace’s co-occurrence and clustering networks, we measured the keywords, countries, and categories from the secondary search results, generating node indicators and visual graphs. Further analysis was conducted based on the specific content of the relevant literature.
Results
Resource dimension
Cultural heritage, encompassing both tangible and intangible elements, is a vital resource that requires protection and careful management27,29,30. It can serve as both a catalyst for achieving sustainable development goals and a significant factor in this process6,31,32.
In the second phase of the analysis, noun terms associated with resource attributes were extracted from the keyword list presented in Table 1. The notable frequency of the term “urban” (Freq = 114) and its related heritage categories, such as “urban heritage,” “historical city,” and “historical urban landscape,” underscores the centrality of urban space in the discourse on cultural heritage sustainability. This focus aligns closely with the practical imperatives of historical urban renewal and the enhancement of human well-being amid global urbanization33,34,35. The substantial occurrence of “architectural heritage” (Freq = 70) and “historic buildings” (Freq = 43) further indicates that architectural heritage remains a prominent area of scholarly inquiry. Notably, “architectural heritage” (Degree = 46, Centrality = 0.07) exhibits strong connectivity and mediating effects within the network, highlighting its critical role as a foundational concept in interdisciplinary discussions. Conversely, while “intangible cultural heritage” (Freq = 76) is frequently mentioned, its centrality is recorded as zero, suggesting that the integration of sustainable research theories pertaining to intangible cultural heritage may be inadequate, potentially hindered by methodological constraints or challenges in technical application. The emergence of “geoheritage” as a significant trending topic, with a sudden value of 3.05 (2022–2024), indicates that research in geological heritage has become a burgeoning area of academic interest. The concept of “agricultural landscape,” along with related terms such as “agricultural heritage,” demonstrates high-frequency correlations but a low overall occurrence (Total Freq = 38), suggesting extensive interconnections with other nodes, albeit with a relative deficiency in foundational research. Although “vernacular architecture” (Freq = 15) is cited less frequently, it possesses a higher centrality, indicating its role in linking diverse clusters, facilitating knowledge exchange, and potentially serving as a key interdisciplinary hub. The topic of digital heritage has recently emerged, focusing on sustainable methods for heritage protection, particularly through the digitization process, and is no longer extensively discussed within the resource dimension.
From the list of cultural heritage types, eight categories with sustainable potential have been identified: intangible cultural heritage, urban heritage, architectural heritage, industrial heritage, rural heritage, agricultural landscapes, biocultural heritage, and geoheritage. A secondary literature review based on these heritage types reveals that urban heritage receives the highest level of scholarly attention, while geoheritage and biocultural heritage remain in the exploratory phase. Research on sustainability across the other heritage types appears to be relatively balanced (Fig. 2).
Data on the publication volume of sustainability research across eight categories of heritage indicates that urban heritage is the most extensively studied area. In contrast, geological heritage and biocultural heritage show a significantly lower number of publications. The research output related to the sustainability of other heritage types appears to be more evenly distributed.
The construction of a keyword co-occurrence network and clustering graph (Fig. 3) reveals that various types of heritage have developed distinct research focuses while sharing common sustainability demands, which are significantly influenced by the inherent characteristics of each heritage type. The thematic hotspot of “tourism” is prevalent across the clustering networks of urban heritage (Fig. 3a, Cluster 0), rural heritage (Fig. 3d, Clusters 0/4/5), intangible cultural heritage (Fig. 3f, Cluster 3), agricultural landscapes (Fig. 3e, Cluster 4), and geological heritage (Fig. 3g, Clusters 1/5/7). This theme plays a crucial role in the sustainability discourse surrounding rural and geological heritage. Research on “adaptive reuse” predominantly focuses on urban heritage (Fig. 3a, Cluster 4), architectural heritage (Fig. 3b, Cluster 1), and industrial heritage (Fig. 3c, Cluster 0), revealing significant knowledge correlations. Sustainability studies emphasize the synergy of “cultural technology function,” which not only preserves the historical and cultural value of heritage but also ensures the sustainability of refunctionalized heritage, necessitating the development of appropriate adaptive strategies36,37,38. The theme of climate change response is prominently featured in research on industrial heritage (Fig. 3c, Cluster 4), intangible cultural heritage (Fig. 3f, Cluster 2), and agricultural landscapes (Fig. 3e, Cluster 1), although the nature of their association with climate change varies. In industrial heritage research, climate change is often framed as a challenge to heritage conservation39,40. Conversely, traditional knowledge systems within intangible cultural heritage provide numerous examples of sustainable adaptation and resilience strategies in the context of resource scarcity and climate change41,42. Additionally, the protection of agricultural landscapes is crucial for maintaining biodiversity and enhancing adaptive capacity to climate change43,44.
Multi-panel highlights important themes related to sustainability research across eight categories of heritage: a urban heritage, b architectural heritage, c industrial heritage, d rural heritage, e agricultural landscapes, f intangible heritage, g geoheritage, h biocultural heritage. Cluster labels were extracted using the Log-Likelihood Ratio (LLR) algorithm.
It is important to note that different types of heritage exhibit distinct preferences for sustainability dimensions. Architectural heritage emphasizes social sustainability (Fig. 3b, Cluster 0), while agricultural and geological heritage prioritize environmental sustainability, focusing on ecological aspects (Fig. 3e, Cluster 7) and geological diversity (Fig. 3g, Cluster 6). Intangible cultural heritage is primarily concerned with cultural sustainability dimensions (Fig. 3f, Cluster 5). Furthermore, urban heritage, architectural heritage, and industrial heritage demonstrate significant spatial coupling characteristics. The urban renewal associated with industrial heritage (Fig. 3d, Cluster 2) and the green economy within architectural heritage (Fig. 3b, Cluster 6) both respond profoundly to the challenges of urban spatial sustainability20,45. These challenges are intricately linked to the impacts of global urbanization on cultural heritage stock46 and its relationship with urban space47 over recent decades. Research on agricultural and rural heritage collectively addresses the Rural Regional System; however, with the acceleration of urbanization and the transformation of urban–rural relations, agricultural heritage may emerge as a critical issue in the context of sustainable urban development48,49,50,51.
We extract country node information from the co-occurrence network of various types of heritage, retaining the top five countries with significant contribution values in at least three heritage categories while excluding those with low contributions across all types. Ultimately, we identify twelve countries that make substantial contributions in multiple fields. The radar chart of country contributions (Fig. 4) highlights Italy and China as the predominant contributors, strongly correlated with their extensive inventories of heritage resources. Both nations possess the highest number of UNESCO World Heritage Sites globally, with nine of the twelve high-contributing countries ranked among the top ten holders of World Heritage Sites. Italy demonstrates remarkable engagement across various research domains, particularly in the sustainability of architectural and rural heritage. Its advanced network connectivity and interdisciplinary prominence position it as a vital center for cross-domain studies. In contrast, China exerts significant and comprehensive influence, leading in various frequency metrics, with its international collaborations and network centrality primarily focused on urban and rural heritage sectors. However, there is an urgent need for China to enhance its interdisciplinary and global cooperation in the research of intangible cultural heritage and industrial heritage. Other notable contributors include the United States, Germany, and Spain. The United States possesses the most extensive collaborative networks in the field of industrial heritage and exhibits considerable cross-sectoral integration capabilities in biocultural heritage research. Germany demonstrates strong intermediation skills that connect diverse research communities in architectural heritage and agricultural landscapes; however, it must strengthen its long-term impact and foundational research outputs in architectural heritage. Spain has established a solid research base in geoheritage but suffers from limited centrality, indicating a need for expanded international partnerships. Developing nations such as India and Turkey show comparatively lower contributions overall and face pressing challenges in enhancing their international collaboration and academic influence. Importantly, these underperforming countries represent critical targets for future cooperative initiatives.
The radar chart illustrates the contributions of various countries in the resource dimension: a urban heritage, b architectural heritage, c industrial heritage, d rural heritage, e agricultural landscapes, f intangible heritage, g geoheritage, h biocultural heritage, represented through Freq, Degree, and Centrality metrics, all data have been normalized.
Method dimension
The World Heritage Committee declared heritage to be “a tool for advancing sustainable development across societies” in 200252. Sustainable approaches facilitate a high degree of compatibility between heritage and sustainability, offering culture-based solutions.
Noun terms with methodological features were extracted from the keyword lists in Step 2 (Table 2) and classified into eight paradigmatic categories based on their methodological frameworks: conservation & protection & restoration, policy & management, sustainable tourism, education & community engagement, adaptive reuse, energy efficiency, technological innovation, and heritage-based design (which includes heritage-led reconstruction and regeneration projects53,54). An analysis of node metrics reveals distinct implementation patterns.
Core Traditional Methods. The representative methods include conservation, protection, restoration, policy, and management. These methods demonstrate high network centrality and stability, and the related research is well-established and highly interdependent, serving as a cross-disciplinary bridge. For instance, “conservation” has a degree of 89 and a centrality of 0.16, while “management” has a degree of 83 and a centrality of 0.1, both significantly higher than other noun terms, yet exhibiting low suddenness (Burst = 0). Core traditional methods must be enhanced by technology, such as digital protection or interdisciplinary collaboration, to overcome existing bottlenecks55,56,57.
High-Potential Methods. The prominent methodologies include sustainable tourism and energy efficiency. Recent scholarly activity has seen a significant increase in the short term, with the term “sustainable tourism” exhibiting a burst value of 5.08, while “energy” and “energy efficiency” show burst values of 3.04 and 3.10, respectively. However, the network connectivity associated with energy efficiency is relatively weak, as indicated by a degree of 29 and a centrality measure of 0.01. To fully leverage its potential, it is essential that energy efficiency be integrated with relevant policy instruments58,59,60.
Technology-Driven Methods. The representative innovative technologies include Geographic Information Systems (GIS), 3D modeling, Building Information Modeling (BIM), artificial intelligence (AI), virtual and augmented reality, remote sensing, and big data analytics. These technology-driven methods benefit from a latecomer advantage. With the exception of GIS, the other technologies have primarily emerged after 2020 and currently exhibit relatively weak influence (Degree ≤ 22, Centrality ≈ 0). Presently, the application scenarios predominantly focus on protection and restoration61, heritage monitoring62,63, data management and visualization64,65, and the optimization of tourist experiences66,67.
Secondary literature retrieval based on sustainable method reveals distinct patterns in publication output (Fig. 5). Research on sustainable tourism predominates, underscoring its status as a vital economic factor for the sustainability of cultural heritage, which is consistent with resource-oriented findings. Traditional methodologies, including conservation, protection, and restoration, continue to play a fundamental role in sustainability research by emphasizing the importance of physical preservation. The substantial volume of publications in the domains of policy and management underscores the critical significance of institutional design within multi-level governance frameworks. In contrast, the relatively lower publication rates in areas such as energy efficiency and technological innovation may be attributed to the high costs associated with technology implementation or a deficiency in interdisciplinary collaboration.
Data on the publication volume of eight sustainable methods indicates that research on sustainable tourism predominates, followed with conservation & protection & restoration and policy & management.
Temporal analysis, as demonstrated through keyword timeline mapping (Fig. 6), reveals a developing methodological framework that incorporates technological advancements and community engagement into traditional conservation and management practices. Sustainability-oriented conservation, preservation, and restoration increasingly depend on precision technologies such as 3D documentation68,69, preventive conservation70, and non-destructive monitoring71. Related studies have also re-evaluated traditional conservation methods (Fig. 6a, Cluster 8)72,73,74,75,76 and have focused on the resilience of heritage (Fig. 6a, Cluster 4)77 and biodiversity (Fig. 6a, Clusters 5/6)78,79. Policy and management emphasizes a systematic approach, while traditional top-down management plans (Fig. 6b, Cluster 0) and urban policies (Fig. 6b, Cluster 6) simultaneously focus on the participation of multiple stakeholders80. Research in the fields of sustainable tourism, adaptive reuse, and energy efficiency increasingly relies on technological innovations and quantitative analytical tools. For instance, GIS81, BIM66,82, and information and communication technologies83 offer essential technical support, while energy-saving and low-carbon design principles offer professional guidance84,85,86. Additionally, tourism impact assessments87,88, heritage impact assessments89, and lifecycle assessment21,90 yield valuable insights. When employing these approaches, it is crucial to maintain a balance among economic, cultural, and environmental considerations, as this balance plays a pivotal role in the decision-making process91,92. The domain of education & community engagement demonstrates a heightened focus on local contexts (Fig. 6d, Cluster 1). The burst of “management” (Fig. 6d, Cluster 3) and “policy” (Fig. 6d, Cluster 5) suggests that education & community engagement have gradually been internalized into the top-down management frameworks93,94,95.
The timeline mapping depicts the topic clustering and evolution over time in different methods: a conservation & protection & restoration, b policy & management, c sustainable tourism, d education & community engagement, e adaptive reuse, f energy efficiency, g technological innovation, h heritage-based design; red nodes denote burst keywords. Cluster labels were extracted using the Log-Likelihood Ratio (LLR) algorithm
Temporally, methodological priorities have shifted from conventional domains to technology-driven approaches across three distinct phases:
Phase I (2001–2015): Traditional methods, including conservation & protection & restoration and policy & management, have established a foundation for research. However, there has been a lack of significant growth, and early technological innovations have not yet reached a substantial scale in related research.
Phase II (2012–2021): Sustainable tourism and energy efficiency have emerged as prominent topics influenced by global agendas. Community participation and the circular economy (key models in the adaptive reuse) are beginning to gain traction, although their prevalence remains relatively low.
Phase III (2018–2024): Technology and social innovation are advancing concurrently, with digital technologies such as AI and machine learning, alongside social tools including community participation, education, and collaborative management, developing in harmony.
The synergy and unique contributions of various disciplines are fundamental elements driving the advancement of sustainable research in cultural heritage. By analyzing the frequency, degree, and centrality indicators across eight research methods, we can further elucidate the disciplinary distribution and functional differentiation characteristics of various fields in the study of cultural heritage sustainability (Fig. 7).
The radar chart shows Freq, Degree, and Centrality metrics for 14 disciplines across eight methods: a conservation & protection & restoration, b policy & management, c sustainable tourism, d education & community engagement, e adaptive reuse, f energy efficiency, g technological innovation, h heritage-based design. The data in the figure have been normalized.
Environmental and Earth Sciences play a fundamental role across all methods. The data indicates that the frequency normalization value is 1 in all eight methods, signifying that this discipline occupies a central position in various fields of cultural heritage sustainability research. Notably, in the areas of education & community engagement, as well as the conservation & protection & restoration methods, the centrality value also reaches 1, underscoring its capacity to function as a cross-disciplinary hub. This finding confirms the irreplaceability of environmental science in balancing ecological protection with cultural heritage management. Its dual attributes—technical capabilities, such as environmental monitoring, and social functions, such as community education—position it as a vital bridge connecting the natural sciences with the humanities and social sciences.
The phenomenon of domain-specific specialization is clearly observable, particularly in technology-driven methodologies such as technological innovation and energy efficiency, which are significantly informed by the fields of Materials Science and Multidisciplinary Engineering. In the context of technological innovation, Materials Science exhibits a centrality score of 1.0, underscoring its essential contribution to the advancement of novel materials. Meanwhile, Multidisciplinary Engineering, with a centrality score of 0.795 in energy efficiency, facilitates the optimization of energy systems through interdisciplinary collaboration. In contrast, socially driven approaches, including sustainable tourism and education & community engagement, are predominantly influenced by the disciplines of Social Sciences & Education and Business & Management Sciences. The frequency values of 0.085 and 0.645 in sustainable tourism indicate the significant role of social participation mechanisms and business models in the development of cultural heritage tourism.
The ability to integrate interdisciplinary approaches significantly enhances the effectiveness of various methodologies. For example, the fields of Humanities and Interdisciplinary Studies have a centrality score of 0.627 within the domain of Policy and Management, highlighting their essential role in combining historical, ethical, and policy analyses to improve conservation strategies. Their frequency score of 0.225 in sustainable tourism further emphasizes the importance of interpreting cultural values in promoting tourism sustainability. Similarly, the disciplines of Urban Planning and the Built Environment achieve a frequency and degree score of 1.0 in Adaptive Reuse, demonstrating their expertise in spatial planning and the integration of heritage revitalization within urban development projects.
Disciplinary gaps highlight inherent systemic limitations: the fields of Computer Science and Information Technology demonstrate localized relevance (Freq = 0.231, Centrality = 0.66), primarily within the domain of Technology Innovation. This reflects a fragmented integration of digital tools within sustainability methodologies. Furthermore, the low performance metrics observed in Biological and Agricultural Sciences across various categories indicate a significant opportunity for the convergence of ecology and heritage research.
Sustainability dimensions
The 2015 Policy for Integrating a Sustainable Development Perspective into the Processes of the World Heritage Convention emphasizes the critical role of heritage in promoting sustainability across four dimensions: environmental sustainability, inclusive social development, inclusive economic development, and the promotion of peace and security. Heritage and its associated initiatives significantly contribute to development. The relationship between heritage and people should encompass not only traditional historical, scientific, and cultural values but also values related to sustainability. This understanding is vital for a comprehensive perspective on cultural heritage.
Sustainability-related noun terms were extracted from the keyword lists in Step 2, encompassing four dimensions of sustainability and assessment (Table 3). Cultural sustainability (Freq = 80, Year = 2004) dominates research dominates the reflecting longstanding reflecting a focus. The research on environmental sustainability (Freq = 34, Year = 2007) and social sustainability (Freq = 35, Year = 2017) ranks second in terms of prevalence; however, the latter is relatively new. Sustainability indicators (Freq = 6, Year = 2022) emerge as the most recent Frequency least frequent term, suggesting an incipient research frontier. Environmental sustainability (Degree = 32, Centrality = 0.02) and social sustainability (Degree = 30, Centrality = 0.01) exhibit significant connectivity within the network, serving as critical nodes for network analysis. However, the overall centrality remains relatively low (Centrality ≤ 0.02), indicating a pronounced dispersion of research efforts and a lack of highly centralized core themes. The Burst metric for all keywords is recorded at 0, signifying the absence of any sudden fluctuations in research activity over time. This reflects a stable trend in the popularity of research topics, with no notable periods of rapid change.
The retrieval of literature on the various dimensions of sustainability predominantly emphasizes cultural sustainability, social sustainability, environmental sustainability, economic sustainability, and sustainability assessment. An analysis of research output (Fig. 8), reveals a predominant focus on cultural sustainability, with comparatively less emphasis on the other dimensions and on sustainability assessment.
Data on the publication volume across four dimensions of sustainability and sustainability assessment indicates that research on cultural sustainability predominates.
Additionally, a timeline chart of relevant literature keywords is presented in Fig. 9. Cultural sustainability is identified as the fundamental value of heritage, functioning as a multidimensional interactive nexus through conceptual inclusivity—encompassing both material and intangible heritage, traditional practices, and cultural identity—and functional integration, which fosters social cohesion, supports economic revitalization, and informs environmental governance96. Notable topics include sustainable tourism (Fig. 9a, Clusters 1/5), cultural ecosystem services (Fig. 9a, Clusters 2), and adaptive reuse (Fig. 9a, Clusters 6). The burst of keywords such as “environmental sustainability” and “technology” suggests that issues related to resources and the environment, as well as digitization, are emerging as significant drivers of the dimensions of cultural sustainability97,98. Culture serves as a mechanism for promoting economic, social, and ecological sustainability99. Consequently, investigations into cultural sustainability demonstrate significant paradigm integration, particularly through the interdisciplinary examination of “cultural society” (Fig. 9b, Cluster 5) and the cyclical relationship of the “cultural economy” (Fig. 9d, Cluster 4). This integration facilitates a comprehensive synthesis of knowledge across multiple dimensions. Social sustainability underscores the crucial role of heritage conservation in enhancing social capital and shaping local identity (Fig. 9b, Clusters 1). It forges connections between policy and community levels through protective and governance mechanisms (Fig. 9b, Clusters 2/4) and fosters participation via social media (Fig. 9b, Clusters 3). This process transforms the intrinsic value of heritage into a collective sense of belonging and identity, thereby establishing a framework for research on the sustainability of cultural heritage. Environmental sustainability demonstrates a significant degree of systematic interrelation, as evidenced by its frequent presence across all clusters, highlighting the interplay between heritage conservation and ecological systems100. Research in this area encompasses cultural ecosystem services (Fig. 9c, Clusters 0), environmental impact assessments (Fig. 9c, Clusters 5), the environmental benefits of adaptive reuse (Fig. 9c, Clusters 4), and the synergy between social and environmental factors (Fig. 9c, Clusters 8). Economic sustainability aims to generate lasting benefits through the utilization of heritage resources14,16. Research efforts focus on understanding the economic incentives associated with heritage tourism (Fig. 9d, Clusters 0), sustainable livelihoods (Fig. 9c, Clusters 1), the “cultural economic” cycle linked to adaptive reuse (Fig. 9d, Clusters 4), and interdisciplinary studies related to environmental sustainability (Fig. 9d, Clusters 6).
The timeline mapping depicts the topic clustering and evolution over time in different sustainability dimensions: a cultural sustainability, b social sustainability, c environmental sustainability, d economic sustainability. Cluster labels were extracted using the Log-Likelihood Ratio (LLR) algorithm.
Sustainability assessment serves as a crucial link between various tools, methodologies, and objectives. The co-occurrence networks of “indicator” keywords (Fig. 10a) illustrate two distinct phases of assessment. The first phase, known as pre-intervention evaluation, involves assessing the inherent sustainability value of heritage based on its attribute characteristics101,102,103,104, which aligns with traditional interpretations of value. The second phase, referred to as post-intervention evaluation, focuses on evaluating the effectiveness of sustainability strategies, including conservation and restoration21,103,105, management practices4, tourism initiatives106,107,108, design considerations109, and adaptive reuse110. Current research in sustainability assessment predominantly emphasizes the latter phase, with significant themes emerging such as sustainable tourism (Fig. 10b, Cluster 1), life-cycle assessment (Fig. 9b, Cluster 2), adaptive reuse evaluation (Fig. 9b, Cluster 3), and risk assessment (Fig. 9b, Cluster 4). In contrast, the assessment of intrinsic sustainability value remains underdeveloped (Fig. 10b).
a Timezone View of the keyword “indicator”; b Timeline View for sustainability assessment. The red node represent burst keyword, cluster labels have been optimized using the LLR algorithm.
In 2015, the United Nations adopted the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, which established 17 SDGs. Notably, SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities) specifically addresses the conservation of natural and cultural heritage. Although there are limited studies that explicitly analyze the role of heritage in achieving the SDGs, existing research implicitly highlights the contributions of cultural heritage across various dimensions of sustainability.
The analysis presented in the Web of Science SDG publication heatmap (Fig. 11) indicates that sustainability research primarily focuses on SDG 11, followed by SDG 13, while also establishing intricate connections to other goals. Cultural sustainability contributes to SDG 11 through the adaptive reuse of historic structures111, the transmission of traditional craftsmanship112, and the reinforcement of cultural identity113, all of which collectively enhance urban resilience. Traditional ecological knowledge, which encompasses strategies such as natural ventilation design114, the use of localized materials115, and vernacular architectural approaches116, provides low-carbon solutions relevant to SDG 13. Additionally, the digitization of heritage, exemplified by virtual museums117 and 3D reconstructions118, fosters technological innovation in accordance with SDG 9. Traditional land-use practices119 are also closely associated with SDG 15 (Life on Land). Social sustainability significantly bolsters SDG 11 by promoting social cohesion and inclusivity120. Mechanisms for the social recognition of traditional ecological practices (SDG 15)121, the encouragement of cultural tourism to stimulate social entrepreneurship122, and the role of craft innovation in advancing sustainable consumption (SDG 12)123 further enhance social sustainability. Environmental sustainability employs established energy-efficient construction techniques and performance improvements to support SDGs 7 and 1311,12. Historic urban areas are pivotal in achieving SDG 11 through the implementation of circular economy practices124. Moreover, Indigenous knowledge systems provide critical insights for biodiversity conservation, thereby contributing to SDGs 14 and 1579,125, and informing climate adaptation strategies in alignment with SDG 13126,127. Economic sustainability is significantly driven by heritage tourism, which serves as a catalyst for SDG 11 by facilitating job creation and activating supply chains14,128. The integration of tourism with traditional livelihoods129,130 aligns with the economic principles outlined in SDG 12.
The left Point Stick chart illustrates the volume of publications related to the 17 SDGs, while the right Heatmap displays normalized publication counts corresponding to specific SDGs. It is important to note that the data represented in the heatmap has been normalized.
Discussion
This research undertakes a systematic review of the evolution of interdisciplinary studies related to cultural heritage and sustainability over the past two decades. The analysis reveals three primary findings across the dimensions of resources, methods, and sustainability:
Sustainability research predominantly addresses urban, rural, architectural, intangible, agricultural, and industrial heritage, while fields such as geoheritage and biocultural heritage are emerging areas. Prominent themes that span these categories include sustainable tourism, adaptive reuse, and strategies for mitigating climate change. However, the emphasis on sustainability varies among different types of heritage: architectural heritage often prioritizes social sustainability, agricultural and geoheritage focus on environmental aspects, and intangible heritage is chiefly concerned with the preservation of cultural continuity. Italy and China are identified as leading contributors to this domain, owing to their extensive heritage inventories. Conversely, developing nations such as India and Turkey, despite lower output levels, present significant potential for future research collaborations and initiatives.
Traditional conservation methodologies continue to provide a foundational framework; however, they are undergoing substantial transformation due to technological advancements. Research priorities are increasingly directed towards sustainable tourism and energy efficiency, while technological innovations—such as GIS, AI, and BIM—necessitate deeper integration with policy frameworks and social innovations. A discernible trend towards disciplinary specialization is evident: Environmental and Earth Sciences underpin all methodologies; Materials Science and Multidisciplinary Engineering are crucial for developing technological solutions; and the Social Sciences and Education contribute to socially oriented approaches. Future research should aim to enhance the systemic incorporation of Computer Science and Information Technology while fostering interdisciplinary collaboration to optimize heritage conservation practices.
Cultural sustainability is characterized as a complex, multidimensional interconnection, while environmental sustainability reveals significant systemic interrelations. In contrast, social sustainability provides practical frameworks for action, whereas economic sustainability often lacks adequate development. Existing assessment frameworks exhibit methodological biases that favor external sustainability improvements derived from technological advancements, rather than sufficiently evaluating intrinsic values. This structural limitation hinders the measurable integration of traditional knowledge with contemporary innovations. Despite the significant role of cultural heritage in contributing to SDG 11, its interaction with other goals remains notably constrained. Therefore, there is an urgent need for the development of cross-sectoral policies to address these shortcomings.
This study has several limitations. 1) The reliance on the Web of Science database may lead to the exclusion of non-English publications, potentially skewing national and regional analyses. 2) The cluster labeling process, which utilizes the LLR algorithm, may introduce interpretative biases; the incorporation of natural language processing (NLP) techniques in text analysis could enhance objectivity. 3) The node-based analytical approach employed by CiteSpace is insufficient for comprehensively capturing the policy and technological drivers; thus, qualitative methodologies are essential for elucidating causal pathways.
Research on the sustainability of cultural heritage must transition from a traditional framework to one that emphasizes “value activation, policy innovation, technological empowerment, and community co-governance” to fully harness the potential of cultural heritage as a resource for sustainable development. Key areas of focus should include: investigating the often-overlooked contributions of heritage to underrepresented Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs); creating big data platforms for heritage and enhancing the application of artificial intelligence and blockchain technology in monitoring, assessment, and participatory governance; developing multidimensional metrics that effectively capture intrinsic values and the impacts of various interventions; and establishing a “Heritage-Sustainability” framework that repositions cultural heritage as a central element in global sustainability initiatives.
Data availability
No datasets were generated or analyzed during the current study.
References
Cantar N. M., Endere M. L., Zulaica M. L. La “arqueología” de la sustentabilidad en la concepción del patrimonio cultural. Rev. Estud. Soc. 71–86. https://doi.org/10.7440/res75.2021.07 (2021).
Hoskara, S., Lombardi, A. & Doganer, S. ole of cultural heritage conservation for reaching the sustainable development goals (SGDs): an interdisciplinary approach. J. Fac. Eng. Archit. Gaz. 36, 1963–1976 (2021).
Nocca, F. The role of cultural heritage in sustainable development: multidimensional indicators as decision-making tool. Sustainability 9, 1882 (2017).
Guzmán, P. C., Roders, A. R. P. & Colenbrander, B. J. F. Measuring links between cultural heritage management and sustainable urban development: an overview of global monitoring tools. Cities 60, 192–201 (2017).
Keitumetse, S. O. Sustainable development and cultural heritage management in Botswana: towards sustainable communities. Sustain. Dev. 19, 49–59 (2011).
Keitumetse, S. Cultural resources as sustainability enablers: towards a Community-Based Cultural Heritage Resources Management (COBACHREM) model. Sustainability 6, 70–85 (2014).
Dahmani, N. ailiK. K. The importance of social sustainability for conserving cultural heritage in Southern Algeria: a case study of the M’Zab Valley. Int. J. Conserv. Sci. 15, 577–586 (2024).
Yung, E. H. K., Chan, E. H. W. & Xu, Y. Sustainable development and the rehabilitation of a historic urban district-social sustainability in the case of Tianzifang in Shanghai. Sustain. Dev. 22, 95–112 (2014).
Soflaei, F., Shokouhian, M. & Zhu, W. Y. Socio-environmental sustainability in traditional courtyard houses of Iran and China. Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 69, 1147–1169 (2017).
Salameh M., Touqan B. From heritage to sustainability: the future of the past in the hot arid climate of the UAE. Buildings. 13. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings13020418 (2023).
Magrini, A. & Franco, G. The energy performance improvement of historic buildings and their environmental sustainability assessment. J. Cult. Herit. 21, 834–841 (2016).
Annibaldi, V. et al. An integrated sustainable and profitable approach of energy efficiency in heritage buildings. J. Clean. Prod. 251, 119516 (2020).
Kee, T. & Chau, K. W. Economic sustainability of heritage conservation in Hong Kong: the impact of heritage buildings on adjacent property prices. Sustain. Dev. 28, 308–319 (2020).
Chong, K. Y. & Balasingam, A. S. Tourism sustainability: economic benefits and strategies for preservation and conservation of heritage sitesin Southeast Asia. Tour. Rev. 74, 268–279 (2018).
Dalmas, L. et al. Economic evaluation of urban heritage: an inclusive approach under a sustainability perspective. J. Cult. Herit. 16, 681–687 (2015).
Galluccio, C. & Giambona, F. Cultural heritage and economic development: measuring sustainability over time. Socio-Econ. Plan. Sci. 95, 101998 (2024).
Ghirardello, L. et al. Cultural sustainability from the local perspective: the example of transhumance in South Tyrol. Sustainability 14, 9052 (2022).
Järvelä, M. Dimensions of cultural sustainability—local adaptation, adaptive capacity and social resilience. Front. Political Sci. 5, 1285602 (2023).
Ge, Y., Lu, C. & Gao, H. Constructing an indicator system for cultural sustainability in chinese cities under the objective of urban renewal and capability measurement. Sustainability 15, 13571 (2023).
Niu, S. F. et al. Sustainability issues in the industrial heritage adaptive reuse: rethinking culture-led urban regeneration through Chinese case studies. J. Hous. Built Environ. 33, 501–518 (2018).
Blundo, D. S. et al. Improving sustainable cultural heritage restoration work through life cycle assessment based model. J. Cult. Herit. 32, 221–231 (2018).
Lekakis, S., Shakya, S. & Kostakis, V. Bringing the community back: a case study of the post-earthquake heritage restoration in Kathmandu Valley. Sustainability 10, 2798 (2018).
Sinou, M. et al. Holistic strategies based on heritage, environmental, sensory analysis and mapping for sustainable coastal design. Sustainability 15, 9953 (2023).
Dogan, H. A. Improvement of the cultural heritage perception potential model by the usage of eye-tracking technology. J. Cult. Herit. Manag. Sustain. Dev. 12, 321–344 (2022).
Ibrahim, H. S. S. et al. Classification of heritage residential building stock and defining sustainable retrofitting scenarios in Khedivial Cairo. Sustainability 13, 880 (2021).
UNESCO. Hangzhou Declaration: placing culture at the heart of sustainable development policies. Accessed 2025-05-12. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/search/N-EXPLORE-b4dadef6-54cc-4417-bc22-2c93a54dbe9d.
Ruiz, M., Del Pozo, P. B. & Patiño, G. L. Industrial heritage in the context of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and territorial resilience: from theory to practice. An. Geogr. Univ. Complu. 40, 323–344 (2020).
Chen, T. et al. The methodology function of CiteSpace mapping knowledge domains. Stud. Sci. Sci. 33, 242–253 (2015).
Moreno, L. Sustainable city storytelling: cultural heritage as a resource for a greener and fairer urban development. J. Cult Herit. Manag. Sustain. Dev. 10, 399–412 (2020).
Lillevold, K. & Haarstad, H. The deep city: cultural heritage as a resource for sustainable local transformation. Local Environ. 24, 329–341 (2019).
Hosagrahar J. Culture: at the heart of Sustainable Development Goals. Accessed 4 May 2025. https://courier.unesco.org/zh/articles/wenhuakechixufazhanmubiaodehexin (2025).
Chung, H. & Lee, J. Community cultural resources as sustainable development enablers: a case study on Bukjeong Village in Korea compared with Naoshima Island in Japan. Sustainability 11, 1401 (2019).
Battis-Schinker, E. et al. Towards quality of life indicators for historic urban landscapes—insight into a German-Polish research project. Environ. Sustain. Ind. 10, 100094 (2021).
Tweed, C. & Sutherland, M. Built cultural heritage and sustainable urban development. Landsc. Urban Plan. 83, 62–69 (2007).
Rostami, R. et al. Sustainable cities and the contribution of historical urban green spaces: a case study of historical persian gardens. Sustainability 7, 13290–13316 (2015).
Havinga, L., Colenbrander, B. & Schellen, H. Heritage significance and the identification of attributes to preserve in a sustainable refurbishment. J. Cult. Herit. 43, 282–293 (2020).
Wang, S. et al. How to achieve a balance between functional improvement and heritage conservation? A case study on the renewal of old Beijing city. Sustain. Cities Soc. 98, 104790 (2023).
Vafaie, F., Remøy, H. & Gruis, V. Adaptive reuse of heritage buildings; a systematic literature review of success factors. Habitat Int. 142, 102926 (2023).
Pournara, A. & Sakellariadou, F. Development of a protocol for a sustainable blue economy in the coastal zone: case study and preliminary results in a coastal industrial area in the Eastern Mediterranean. Sustainability 14, 10323 (2022).
Sun, L. & Fan, X. Research hotspots and future trends in canal-related industrial buildings. Sustainability 16, 5208 (2024).
Morel, H. et al. Water heritage and the importance of local knowledge in climate action. Hist. Archaeol. 57, 589–605 (2023).
Santoro, A. Why traditional rural landscapes are still important to our future. Landsc. Ecol. 39, 135 (2024).
Tansuchat, R. & Plaiphum, S. Assessing food and livelihood security in sea salt community: a GIAHS study in Ban Laem, Phetchaburi, Thailand. Sustainability 15, 15229 (2023).
Bardsley, D. K., Palazzo, E. & Pütz, M. Regional path dependence and climate change adaptation: a case study from the McLaren Vale, South Australia. J. Rural Stud. 63, 24–33 (2018).
Guo, P. et al. Quantifying the core driving force for the sustainable redevelopment of industrial heritage: implications for urban renewal. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 28, 48097–48111 (2021).
Udeaja, C. et al. Urban heritage conservation and rapid urbanization: insights from Surat, India. Sustainability 12, 2172 (2020).
Xie, Y. et al. The Spatial relationship and evolution of world cultural heritage sites and neighbouring towns. Remote Sens. 14, 4724 (2022).
Jiang, Y., Timpe, A. & Lohrberg, F. Identifying urban agriculture as heritage: traditional urban grape gardens in the ancient city of Xuanhua, China. J. Urban Hist. 49, 1199–1218 (2023).
Zhao, F. et al. Is land expropriation to keep agricultural use an effective strategy for the conservation of an urban agricultural heritage system? Evidence from China. Land 12, 363 (2023).
Liu, S. et al. The transformation of rural areas located in China’s agricultural heritage systems under the evolution of urban–rural relationships. Sustainability 15, 16408 (2023).
Langemeyer, J. et al. Urban agriculture—a necessary pathway towards urban resilience and global sustainability?. Landsc. Urban Plan. 210, 104055 (2021).
Landorf, C. A framework for sustainable heritage management: a study of UK industrial heritage sites. Int. J. Herit. Stud. 15, 494–510 (2009).
Dogruyol, K., Aziz, Z. & Arayici, Y. Eye of sustainable planning: a conceptual heritage-led urban regeneration planning framework. Sustainability 10, 1343 (2018).
Burnham, B. A blended finance framework for heritage-led urban regeneration. Land 11, 1154 (2022).
Ciski, M., Rząsa, K. & Ogryzek, M. Use of GIS tools in sustainable heritage management—the importance of data generalization in spatial modeling. Sustainability 11, 5616 (2019).
Yan, W. & Liu, S. Built equality and sustainable urban cultural space: a case study of Quanzhou, China. Buildings 13, 2337 (2023).
Mamat, K., Du, P. & Ding, J. Ecological function regionalization of cultural heritage sites in Turpan, China, based on GIS. Arab J. Geosci. 10, 90 (2017).
Mazzarella, L. Energy retrofit of historic and existing buildings. The legislative and regulatory point of view. Energ. Build. 95, 23–31 (2015).
Hagelqvist, S., Legnér, M. & Femenías, P. Energy efficiency and socio-cultural values in public policy in the city of Stockholm. Hist. Environ.Policy Pract. 15, 540–563 (2024).
Jahed, N. et al. Policy framework for energy retrofitting of built heritage: a critical comparison of UK and Turkey. Atmosphere 11, 674 (2020).
Aboulnaga, M. et al. Climate change and cultural heritage: a global mapping of the UNESCO thematic indicators in conjunction with advanced technologies for cultural sustainability. Sustainability 16, 4650 (2024).
Chen, G. et al. The sustainable development of urban cultural heritage gardens based on tourists’ perception: a case study of Tokyo’s cultural heritage gardens. Sustainability 12, 6315 (2020).
Xiao, D. et al. An urbanization monitoring dataset for world cultural heritage in the Belt and Road region. Big Earth Data 6, 127–140 (2022).
Yimaz, H. M. et al. Importance of digital close-range photogrammetry in documentation of cultural heritage. J. Cult. Herit. 8, 428–433 (2007).
Plieninger, T. et al. Assessing, mapping, and quantifying cultural ecosystem services at community level. Land Use Policy 33, 118–129 (2013).
Liu, Z., Zhang, M. & Osmani, M. Building Information Modelling (BIM) driven sustainable cultural heritage tourism. Buildings 13, 1925 (2023).
Wang, B., Dai, L. & Liao, B. System architecture design of a multimedia platform to increase awareness of cultural heritage: a case study of sustainable cultural heritage. Sustainability 15, 2504 (2023).
Dong, Q., Zhang, Q. & Zhu, L. 3D scanning, modeling, and printing of Chinese classical garden rockeries: Zhanyuan’s South Rockery. Herit. Sci. 8, 61 (2020).
Palčák, M. et al. Utilization of 3D digital technologies in the documentation of cultural heritage: a case study of the Kunerad Mansion (Slovakia). Appl. Sci.12, 4376 (2022).
Li, Y. et al. A review of the tools and techniques used in the digital preservation of architectural heritage within disaster cycles. Herit. Sci. 11, 199 (2023).
Moropoulou, A. et al. Multispectral applications of infrared thermography in the diagnosis and protection of built cultural heritage. Appl. Sci. 8, 284 (2018).
Shehata, A. M. Current trends in urban heritage conservation: medieval historic Arab city centers. Sustainability 14, 607 (2022).
Keramitsoglou, K. M. et al. Biodiversity as an outstanding universal value for integrated management of natural and cultural heritage. Sustainability 15, 8540 (2023).
Onecha, B., Dotor, A. & Marmolejo-Duarte, C. Beyond cultural and historic values, sustainability as a new kind of value for historic buildings. Sustainability 13, 8248 (2021).
Pollock-Ellwand, N. Common ground and shared frontiers in heritage conservation and sustainable development: partnerships, policies and perspectives. Int. J. Sust. Dev. World. 18, 236–242 (2011).
Pinheiro, C. et al. Access to sustainability in conservation-restoration practices. Sustainability 16, 7675 (2024).
Harbiankova, A., Scherbina, E. & Budzevich, M. Exploring the significance of heritage preservation in enhancing the settlement system resilience. Sustainability 15, 15251 (2023).
Fa, J. E. & Luiselli, L. Weaving the middle spaces between indigenous and scientific knowledge for biodiversity conservation and ecology. Afr. J. Ecol. 63, e70030 (2025).
Cullen Unsworth, L. C. et al. A research process for integrating indigenous and scientific knowledge in cultural landscapes: principles and determinants of success in the Wet Tropics World Heritage Area, Australia. Geogr. J. 178, 351–365 (2012).
Ercan, M. A. Searching for a balance between community needs and conservation policies in historic neighbourhoods of Istanbul. Eur. Plan. Stud. 18, 833–859 (2010).
Cetin, M. et al. A study on the determination of the natural park’s sustainable tourism potential. Environ. Monit. Assess. 190, 167 (2018).
Bruno N., Roncella R. HBIM for conservation: a new proposal for information modeling. Remote Sens. 11. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs11151751 (2019).
Liang, X., Lu, Y. & Martin, J. A review of the role of social media for the cultural heritage sustainability. Sustainability 13, 1055 (2021).
Fufa, S. M., Flyen, C. & Flyen, A. How can existing buildings with historic values contribute to achieving emission reduction ambitions?. Appl. Sci.11, 5978 (2021).
Aste, N. et al. Sustainable church heating: the Basilica di Collemaggio case-study. Energ. Build. 116, 218–231 (2016).
Mileto, C. et al. A sustainable approach for the refurbishment process of vernacular heritage: the Sesga House case study (Valencia, Spain). Sustainability 13, 9800 (2021).
García-Hernández, M., De la Calle-Vaquero, M. & Yubero, C. Cultural heritage and urban tourism: historic city centres under pressure. Sustainability 9, 1346 (2017).
Bertocchi, D. & Visentin, F. The overwhelmed city: physical and social over-capacities of global tourism in Venice. Sustainability 11, 6937 (2019).
Ashrafi, B., Kloos, M. & Neugebauer, C. Heritage impact assessment, beyond an assessment tool: a comparative analysis of urban development impact on visual integrity in four UNESCO world heritage properties. J. Cult. Herit. 47, 199–207 (2021).
Opher, T. et al. Life cycle GHG assessment of a building restoration: case study of a heritage industrial building in Toronto, Canada. J. Clean Prod. 279, 123819 (2021).
Ferretti, V., Bottero, M. & Mondini, G. Decision making and cultural heritage: an application of the Multi-Attribute Value Theory for the reuse of historical buildings. J. Cult. Herit. 15, 644–655 (2014).
Bottero, M., D Alpaos, C. & Oppio, A. Ranking of adaptive reuse strategies for abandoned industrial heritage in vulnerable contexts: a multiple criteria decision aiding approach. Sustainability 11, 785 (2019).
Shen, J. et al. Experience of community resilience in rural areas around heritage sites in Quanzhou under transition to a knowledge economy. Land 11, 2155 (2022).
Aziz, M. A. et al. Perceptions and revitalization of local ecological knowledge in four schools in Yasin Valley, North Pakistan. Mt. Res. Dev. 42, R1–R9 (2022).
Abdul Aziz, N. A. et al. Community participation in the importance of living heritage conservation and its relationships with the community-based education model towards creating a sustainable community in Melaka UNESCO World Heritage Site. Sustainability 15, 1935 (2023).
Sabatini, F. Culture as fourth pillar of sustainable development: perspectives for integration, paradigms of action. Eur. J. Sustain. Dev. 8, 31–40 (2019).
Haf, S. & Parkhill, K. The Muillean Gaoithe and the Melin Wynt: cultural sustainability and community owned wind energy schemes in Gaelic and Welsh speaking communities in the United Kingdom. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 29, 103–112 (2017).
Li, C. et al. Brand revitalization of heritage enterprises for cultural sustainability in the digital era: a case study in China. Sustainability 11, 1769 (2019).
Soini, K. & Birkeland, I. Exploring the scientific discourse on cultural sustainability. Geoforum 51, 213–223 (2014).
de Madariaga, C. J. Dry stone constructions—intangible cultural heritage and sustainable environment. J. Cult. Herit. Manag. Sustain. Dev. 11, 614–626 (2021).
Giacomasso M. V., Cantar N. M. Preliminary evaluation of the sociocultural sustainability of the heritage of San Luis from the community perspective. Periplo Sustentable. 185–200. https://doi.org/10.36677/elperiplo.v0i46.19780 (2023).
Lee, H. & Park, E. Developing a landscape sustainability assessment model using an analytic hierarchy process in Korea. Sustainability 12, 301 (2020).
Xia, S., Liu, B. & Wang, H. Construction of a sustainability-based building attribute conservation assessment model in historic areas. Buildings 12, 1346 (2022).
Molina Maturano, J. et al. An indicator-based sustainability assessment method for indigenous communities: a case study from Mexico. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 24, 3293–3333 (2022).
Wright, A. M. Assessing the stability and sustainability of rock art sites: insight from Southwestern Arizona. J. Archaeol. Method Theory25, 911–952 (2018).
Spencer, D. M. & Sargeant, E. L. The use of indicators to measure the sustainability of tourism at cultural heritage sites: a critical review. Tour. Recreat. Res. 49, 563–576 (2024).
Weng, L. et al. Sustainability assessment of cultural heritage tourism: case study of Pingyao Ancient City in China. Sustainability 11, 1392 (2019).
Lozano-Oyola, M. et al. Sustainable tourism indicators as planning tools in cultural destinations. Ecol. Indic. 18, 659–675 (2012).
Qtaishat, Y., Emmitt, S. & Adeyeye, K. Exploring the socio-cultural sustainability of old and new housing: two cases from Jordan. Sustain. Cities Soc. 61, 102250 (2020).
Lundgren, R. Social life cycle assessment of adaptive reuse. Build. Cities4, 334–351 (2023).
Farjami, E. & Türker, ÖO. The extraction of prerequisite criteria for environmentally certified adaptive reuse of heritage buildings. Sustainability 13, 3536 (2021).
Härkönen, E., Huhmarniemi, M. & Jokela, T. Crafting sustainability: handcraft in contemporary art and cultural sustainability in the Finnish Lapland. Sustainability 10, 1907 (2018).
Chan, S. et al. Legacy of culture heritage building revitalization: place attachment and culture identity. Front. Psychol. 14, 1314223 (2023).
Chohan, A. H. et al. Evaluating windcatchers in UAE heritage architecture: a pathway to zero-energy cooling solutions. Ain Shams Eng. J. 15, 102936 (2024).
Šekularac, N. et al. The use of natural stone as an authentic building material for the restoration of historic buildings in order to test sustainable refurbishment: case study. Sustainability 11, 4009 (2019).
Sirror, H. Lessons learned from the past: tracing sustainable strategies in the architecture of Al-Ula heritage village. Sustainability 16, 5463 (2024).
Esposito, P. & Ricci, P. Cultural organizations, digital Corporate Social Responsibility and stakeholder engagement in virtual museums: a multiple case study. How digitization is influencing the attitude toward CSR. Corp. Soc. Resp. Environ. Manag. 28, 953–964 (2021).
Moscatelli, M. Preserving tradition through evolution: critical review of 3D printing for Saudi Arabia’s cultural identity. Buildings 14, 697 (2024).
Calvo-Iglesias, M. S., Crecente-Maseda, R. & Fra-Paleo, U. Exploring farmer’s knowledge as a source of information on past and present cultural landscapes. Landsc. Urban Plan. 78, 334–343 (2006).
Li, H. et al. How heritage promotes social cohesion: an urban survey from Nara city, Japan. Cities 149, 104985 (2024).
Das, B. R., Bhuyan, M. J. & Deka, N. Exploring cultural ecologies of the Karbi Tribe in Assam, India, through traditional ecological knowledge and skills (TEKS). Asian Ethn. 26, 486–509 (2025).
Li, X. et al. From cultural tourism to social entrepreneurship: role of social value creation for environmental sustainability. Front. Psychol. 13, 925768 (2022).
Brown, S. & Vacca, F. Cultural sustainability in fashion: reflections on craft and sustainable development models. Sustain. Sci. Pract. Policy 18, 590–600 (2022).
Foster, G. & Saleh, R. The adaptive reuse of cultural heritage in European circular city plans: a systematic review. Sustainability 13, 2889 (2021).
Sen, U. K. & Bhakat, R. K. Biocultural approaches to sustainability: role of indigenous knowledge systems in biodiversity conservation of West Bengal, India. Time Mind 15, 237–253 (2022).
Datta, R., Singha, R. & Hurlbert, M. Indigenous land-based perspectives on environmental sustainability: learning from the Khasis Indigenous Community in Bangladesh. Sustainability 16, 3678 (2024).
Lin, Y. et al. Situating indigenous resilience: climate change and Tayal’s “Millet Ark” action in Taiwan. Sustainability 12, 10676 (2020).
Castanho, R. A., Santos, C. & Couto, G. Creative tourism in islands and regional sustainable development: what can we learn from the pilot projects implemented in the Azores territory?. Land 12, 498 (2023).
Sun, N. et al. Research on sustainable design of consumers’ influence factors of Huaihe Willow Weaving based on AHP. Sustainability 15, 11115 (2023).
Rongna, A. & Sun, J. Integration and sustainability of tourism and traditional livelihood: a rhythmanalysis. J. Sustain. Tour. 28, 455–474 (2020).
Acknowledgements
The authors thank colleagues who helped with this study.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
Conceptualization, X.N.; software, X.N.; writing—original draft preparation, X.N.; writing—review and editing, X.B.; image processing, X.B.; Manuscript modification, X.N. and X.W. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Corresponding authors
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Niu, X., Wang, X. & Bi, X. Mapping the nexus of sustainability and cultural heritage: a systematic review and empirical analysis. npj Herit. Sci. 13, 471 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1038/s40494-025-02006-0
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Version of record:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s40494-025-02006-0
