Next Article in Journal
Rooted in Sustainability: Developing an Integrated Assessment Framework for Horticulture—The Example of Potted Plants
Previous Article in Journal
Utilizing Marble Waste for Soil Acidity Correction in Colombian Caribbean Agriculture: A Sustainability Assessment
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 16
Issue 22
10.3390/su162210065
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

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

Design and Test of a Multi-Media Web Platform Prototype Based on People’s Preferences to Increase Cultural Heritage Awareness

by
Benshuo Wang
1,2,*,
Gamze Dane
2,
Bauke de Vries
3 and
Theo Arentze
2
1
School of Geography and Planning, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou 510006, China
2
Real Estate and Urban Development Unit in the Built Environment Department, Eindhoven University of Technology, 5612 AZ Eindhoven, The Netherlands
3
Information Systems in the Built Environment Group, Eindhoven University of Technology, 5612 AZ Eindhoven, The Netherlands
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2024, 16(22), 10065; https://doi.org/10.3390/su162210065
Submission received: 28 October 2024 / Revised: 15 November 2024 / Accepted: 15 November 2024 / Published: 19 November 2024
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Cultural heritage significantly influences the transmission of history from the past to the present and future. The core of protecting cultural heritage is inheritance, making sure the heritages can be sustainable forever. Various ICT methods facilitate the dissemination and preservation of cultural heritage information. However, traditional ICT platforms often focus on official authority perspectives, neglecting users’ preferences for retrieving cultural heritage information. To address this, a hypothetical media platform was developed to collect people’s preferences for cultural heritage content and media types through a questionnaire, leading to the creation of a new multi-media platform. For demonstration purposes, Strijp-S, an industrial cultural heritage site in Eindhoven, the Netherlands, was used as a case study. A questionnaire was administered to test the prototype’s effectiveness and compare it with a comprehensive search engine like Google. Independent and paired-samples t-tests were conducted to analyze the results, demonstrating that the dedicated multi-media platform prototype was more effective than Google in raising awareness of Strijp-S. These findings indicate that a platform designed based on users’ preferences can enhance public awareness of cultural heritage. This approach can assist policymakers in developing platforms to promote local cultural heritage effectively.

1. Introduction

Cultural heritage (CH) is the legacy of tangible and intangible characteristics of a group or culture that are passed down from previous generations, preserved in the present, and given for the benefit of future generations, according to the UNESCO World Heritage Center [1] definition. Regarding “urban heritage,” it encompasses not only the intangible components like practices and beliefs but also the concrete ones like churches, temples, and other institutional buildings [2].
Experiencing cultural heritage enables individuals to learn about geographical information and activities that genuinely reflect the stories and people from both the past and present [3]. In this context, digital technologies, multi-media, and the internet play crucial roles in enriching cultural heritage experiences. These technologies allow cultural heritage sites to be explored even before a physical visit and increase people’s interest and awareness of cultural heritage by offering relevant information.
Over the past century, public access to information about cultural heritage was quite limited [4,5,6]. People primarily learned about cultural heritage through indirect ways, such as oral stories. Additionally, some heritage sites, like the Terra-Cotta Warriors and the Mogao Caves in China, are physically difficult to access, which further reduced visibility and information availability. This scarcity of information often led to an incomplete understanding of these sites and their values, especially for those unable to visit them in person, which can cause less interest in visiting cultural heritage [7,8,9,10,11]. In this context, Information Communication Technology (ICT) plays a crucial role in broadening public accessibility to cultural heritage information [12]. Today, websites are a primary medium for disseminating cultural heritage information, particularly for tourism [13,14,15,16,17,18]. However, ICT goes beyond merely providing information about isolated heritage objects. It allows users to view these objects within a broader context, enhancing their understanding and interest of the history and significance of cultural heritage, thus increasing their awareness [19,20,21]. Therefore, the availability of specialized digital services to access and comprehend both the tangible and intangible aspects of cultural heritage is essential before and during visits. Various technologies have been employed to achieve this, including community radio, community video, smartphone applications, multi-media web platforms, online serious games, and social media platforms [22,23,24,25,26].
In recent years, cultural institutions have increasingly utilized ICT platforms to enhance visitors’ experiences with cultural heritage, addressing the need for information before, during, and after visits [27,28,29]. When designed to meet users’ needs, ICT platforms can provide up-to-date information about heritage sites, aiding citizens and decision-makers in planning activities to mitigate threats to cultural heritage, whether these threats are long-term or short-term [30]. Researches have explored the relationship between cultural heritage and ICT design, particularly in terms of raising public awareness of cultural heritage [31,32,33,34]. Additionally, studies have shown that cultural heritage serves as a valuable subject in ICT platforms for various purposes. For instance, these platforms can educate students about history and the importance of preserving cultural heritage [21,35]. Moreover, specific ICT applications, such as AR/VR used in museums, can entertain and inspire children and visitors while supporting their learning during recreational activities [27,36,37,38,39,40,41,42].
Some ICT platforms for cultural heritage employ single media, such as Mobile Vaani (MV) [24], which uses voice media to provide cultural heritage information to the public. Additionally, certain museum web or mobile platforms focus on restoring cultural heritage objects through 3D models, like the Cenobium system [43]. While these single-media ICT platforms allow users to concentrate on cultural heritage content with minimal effort, their lack of detail prevents a comprehensive understanding of all characteristics of a cultural heritage site. To gain more information, users often need to turn to other platforms for additional media [12]. Furthermore, developers of these ICT platforms often select single or multi-media intuitively, without considering potential users’ content and media preferences during the development phase, leading to unattractive and unsustainable platforms [44]. For instance, the creators of “Cultural Gate” discussed the platform’s information and functions before designing the system [45]. Despite being cultural heritage experts, they based their decisions on assumptions rather than user preference data. As a result, while the platform offered broad and professional content beneficial to experts, it lacked integration of visitors’ needs [45]. Research on user-centered ICT platforms indicates that interactive platforms, which enable users to enrich their experiences and interest and share stories, create a stronger sense of ownership of both the platform and its content [46]. However, current ICT platforms for cultural heritage do not facilitate user interactions that allow sharing of personal stories or experiences with other users [47,48].
Given these reasons, dedicated ICT platforms for cultural heritage increasingly incorporate multi-media information and additional functionalities to offer users an engaging and enriching experience of cultural heritage sites, both before and during their visits. However, there is still limited research on whether these dedicated multi-media ICT platforms significantly enhance users’ knowledge and awareness of cultural heritage compared to existing resources like internet search engines, such as Google. Additionally, there is a lack of studies identifying which media formats are most effective in attracting people to acquire information about cultural heritage. Moreover, testing of existing dedicated multi-media ICT platforms is often conducted with small user groups or not tested at all, making it difficult to assess their effectiveness in achieving their goals (e.g., increasing awareness, knowledge, and interest) and their applicability to other contexts.
Therefore, this research aims to design a new multi-media platform and test whether this new multi-media platform could increase people’s awareness of cultural heritage. The first sub-objective is to design the multi-media platform based on the results of users’ preferences (Wang et al., 2021) [49]. The second sub-objective is to test whether the platform could increase people’s awareness of cultural heritage. Last, we compare the dedicated multi-media platform with Google to test its effectiveness in increasing the awareness of cultural heritage.
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. Section 2 describes Strijp-S, the industrial cultural heritage used as a case in this study, the interface of the dedicated platform, and the questionnaire design. Section 3 presents the results of the platform testing. Section 4 explains the discussion of the results. Finally, the conclusions are given in Section 5.

2. Materials and Methods

This section describes the Strijp-S industrial cultural heritage site, the development of the multi-media platform prototype, the survey structure, and the data collection process.

2.1. Case Area: Strijp-S, Eindhoven

Strijp-S is a neighborhood and former industrial park located in the Strijp district of Eindhoven, the Netherlands. Originally, the industrial buildings were part of the Philips electronics company campus, with the name Strijp-S following Philips’ naming convention for its industrial parks. In 1916, Anton Philips established the first glass factory in Strijp-S to produce light bulbs. During the 1990s, Philips gradually moved its operations away from Eindhoven, leading to discussions in 2000 about repurposing Strijp-S. Today, the renovated industrial buildings are home to thousands of new residents and small high-tech companies, utilizing the repurposed spaces after Philips’ departure. Consequently, Strijp-S is progressively evolving into a new central hub for Eindhoven [50,51,52,53].
Strijp-S is a known industrial cultural heritage in the Netherlands, often highlighted as a model for urban redevelopment. The site holds significant cultural and historical value that resonates with both locals and visitors. Moreover, as a recently redeveloped area, it has well-documented data about buildings and their history. However, the area does not have any dedicated digital platform where such data can be represented to a wide audience of visitors and locals.

2.2. The Multi-Media Platform Prototype

2.2.1. Platform Structure

Building on the seven conclusions about user expectations from a multi-media web platform as discussed by Mulrenin [54] and presented in Wang et al. [49], an extensive survey was conducted, including a stated choice experiment, to understand and measure user preferences for a hypothetical multi-media web platform aimed at increasing cultural heritage awareness. This previous study explored the most suitable media for presenting (1) tangible cultural heritage, such as special buildings, public spaces, and landscapes, and (2) intangible cultural heritage, including events, persons, and lifestyles. The results revealed that users preferred to begin their exploration with a 2D map and favored using multiple vivid media formats, such as text, photos, videos, and 2D maps, to acquire information. Additionally, users expressed a preference for advanced technologies, like virtual reality and 3D models, to display tangible cultural heritage on multi-media platforms. Features such as a “timeline” for comparing different periods and an “upload experience” function for sharing personal experiences were also highly preferred. Based on these insights, a prototype for a multi-media platform specific to the Strijp-S area was developed to test its effectiveness in enhancing user awareness and interest compared to other tools like internet search engines.
The multi-media platform utilized in this study employs a 2D map as the initial media for exploring and accessing information on the cultural heritage of Strijp-S. This map displays all tangible cultural heritage buildings, public spaces, and landscapes as points of interest (POIs). Given the map-based nature of the platform, intangible cultural heritage is linked to the relevant tangible heritage sites. Consequently, each POI includes architectural information as well as details about associated persons, events, and local lifestyles. For instance, if users wish to learn about an event, they need to locate the related artifact on the map. Additionally, users can enter keywords in the search bar to find specific information of interest. The platform also allows users to upload their own travel experiences to share and inspire others.
The platform uses a map-based metaphor to introduce the content delivery process for different kinds of content: text, photo, video, VR, and 3D model. All the information is from related websites and books, and they are stored in a MySQL database.

2.2.2. Multi-Media Web Platform Interface

The multi-media platform for Strijp-S (accessed on 1 June 2021; https://strijp-chaware.tue.nl/index.php) uses a 2D map of the area as the entry point, providing users with access to a variety of information sources [55]. Upon entering, users can gain a basic understanding of the area’s layout. The navigation bar on the left allows users to select specific Tangible Cultural Heritage objects—such as Buildings, Public Spaces, and Landscapes—to learn more about them (see Figure 1). When they choose a category, such as Buildings, the related pins representing the points of interests (POIs) will show on the 2D map (see Figure 1). The users can select the POIs of their choice. For each POI, a variety of media (i.e., text, photo, 3D model, 360 panorama virtual reality (VR)) is used to inform the users about the history of the tangible cultural heritage and associated intangible cultural heritage elements with that POI, such as events, significant historical people, historical customs, and lifestyles. For a detailed description of the platform, refer to [56].

2.3. Survey

A survey was conducted to assess the effectiveness of the dedicated prototype in enhancing awareness and knowledge of cultural heritage. The survey results reveal whether respondents’ awareness, knowledge, and interests significantly increase after using the multi-media platform and if there are notable differences in these metrics compared to users of the Google search engine. This comparison provides evidence supporting the value of a dedicated multi-media system for cultural heritage.
To determine whether a dedicated multi-media platform is needed and if it significantly enhances user awareness, knowledge, and interest, we conducted a survey with 450 respondents. This survey utilized a prototype multi-media platform developed for Strijp-S, an industrial Philips factory campus in Eindhoven, the Netherlands, as a case study [57]. The prototype was based on findings from an earlier study [49]. The survey included two sample groups: a control group using the Google search engine and an experimental group using the developed platform prototype. Both groups were tasked with gathering information on the cultural heritage of the Strijp-S area, with a minimum of 10 min allocated for this process. The survey measured participants’ knowledge and interest in Strijp-S’s cultural heritage before and after using the respective platforms, as well as how much each platform contributed to their awareness and knowledge. By analyzing the impact of the multi-media platform on user knowledge and interest, this study aims to provide insights into the development of dedicated multi-media platforms for cultural heritage sites. Additionally, the results reveal users’ preferred media types for acquiring information on both tangible and intangible cultural heritage.

Data Collection

In June 2021, we conducted a survey among citizens of the Netherlands using the Limesurvey system, an online survey platform. Respondents were recruited through PanelClix, a company with a paid national panel in the Netherlands. The survey targeted a sample representative of the Dutch population in terms of age, gender, and occupation. A total of 696 individuals answered the survey, and 450 respondents completed it. Participants were randomly assigned to either the multi-media platform prototype or the Google search engine. To facilitate a more detailed analysis of the multi-media platform’s effectiveness, this group was intentionally oversampled. Consequently, 302 respondents used the multi-media platform, while 148 used the Google search engine.
The questionnaire was divided into four sections. The first section collected respondents’ personal information, including gender, age, education level, income level, previous visits to Strijp-S, and residency in Eindhoven. The second section assessed their current knowledge and interest in Strijp-S, such as their awareness of significant historical people, events, and heritage buildings, including both tangible and intangible cultural heritage. Then, participants were randomly assigned to use either the multi-media platform or Google for at least 10 min to explore heritage-related content about Strijp-S. Following this, they answered the same set of questions from the second section regarding their knowledge and interest in Strijp-S. Additionally, they were asked if the platform they used (either the multi-media platform or Google) had increased their interest, knowledge, and awareness of Strijp-S. All questions used a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5). At the end of the survey, respondents had the opportunity to provide comments on the survey and the multi-media platform prototype (if applicable).

3. Results

3.1. Sample Characteristics

The distribution of respondents across various socio-demographic variables for both groups is presented in Table 1. To determine if there were any significant differences in the distribution between the multi-media platform group and the Google group for each variable, a Chi-square test was conducted. As indicated in Table 1, none of the socio-demographic variables showed a statistically significant difference between the two groups at a 5% significance level. For example, the p-value of gender characteristic shows 0.893, which is larger than the alpha level of 0.05. This means the gender has no significant differences in both groups. This implies that the two groups are comparable.
To evaluate the effectiveness of the prototype in enhancing cultural heritage awareness, a paired-samples t-test was conducted to analyze the statistical significance of differences before and after its use. Additionally, to compare the effectiveness of the dedicated prototype with a general-purpose search engine (Google), an independent samples t-test was employed to determine if there was a significant difference between the group using Google and the group using the multi-media platform.
In both the independent t-test and paired samples t-test, no outliers were detected, as determined by boxplot inspection. Given the sufficiently large sample sizes in each group, we can assume that the sampling distribution approximates a normal distribution. Levene’s Test for Equality of Variances indicated that equal variances between the groups could not be assumed for any of the tests. Therefore, separate variances and the Welch–Satterthwaite corrections were applied. The results are presented in Table 2 and Table 3.
The results in Table 2 indicate a statistically significant increase in respondents’ awareness before and after using the dedicated prototype for each statement, except for “I care about cultural heritage buildings or public places at Strijp-S”. This exception could be attributed to the fact that points of interest (POIs) on the map serve merely as entrances to detailed information, which may not directly attract respondents; users must click on these POIs to access further details. Comparing the mean scores for each statement, it is evident that respondents’ knowledge of and interest in Strijp-S improved after using the multi-media platform prototype.
The results in Table 3 reveal a statistically significant difference in respondents’ awareness between those using the dedicated prototype and those using Google for most of the variables. Notably, the statement “The platform has increased my awareness of cultural heritage of Strijp-S” shows a substantial difference in the effectiveness of the two platforms in enhancing cultural heritage awareness. When comparing the mean scores of the two groups, the multi-media platform prototype group demonstrates a higher mean score than the Google group.
The survey also included questions about the respondents’ knowledge of Strijp-S. They were asked which items (architectures, famous persons, historical and current events) related to Strijp-S they knew before and after using either the multi-media platform or Google. Using the paired-samples t-test, we compared the average number of heritage items respondents knew before and after using each platform. Additionally, we calculated the increase in the average number of heritage items known after using each platform. The results for the multi-media platform and Google are presented in Table 4, Table 5 and Table 6. The findings indicate that both platforms increased respondents’ knowledge of Strijp-S, as evidenced by p-values below 0.05. Table 6 shows a significant difference in the average increase between the two groups, with the multi-media platform group showing a higher average increase than the Google group. Therefore, this suggests that the dedicated multi-media platform prototype is more effective than Google for providing information on a specific case area.
Moreover, the survey also includes users’ preferences to different media types. For the rank sequence based on the number of media types, only the first choice of media type was included in Table 7 and Table 8. For both tangible and intangible cultural heritage, people prefer to use traditional media, especially text, to collect information and knowledge, and photo is the second preferred media. The reasons may be that photo and text are the two most conspicuous and popular media to attract people. As for video and other media, people have to open and drag the progress bar to the right place, and they do not have the patience to wait for it.

3.2. Comments on the Multi-Media Platform Prototype

There was also an optional comment question about the multi-media platform prototype. These answers are informative for understanding any complementary factors that have an influence on perceived usefulness of the multi-media platform prototype to increase awareness of cultural heritage. Most of the comments were positive, also supporting the idea that the dedicated prototype was useful for increasing awareness of cultural heritage of Strijp-S. Some example comments were the following: “I found it is very interesting that with a few clicks you can search and read the history of Strijp-S”, “A lot of details, you know what to expect, you can choose what you want to visit”, “The platform is very clear and complete as far as I can say”, “It is very interesting to find out more about this place! Before I had a rough idea of what it was about, now I feel my visit will make more sense”, “It makes me inquisitive, I want to see this. It is a wonderful place to be there. When I saw the pictures, I think that when I have the time, I’ll go there”, and “I think someone who is interested in architecture can get off well with this site, especially in this corona time you can still see everything up close even though you are physically not there”.
However, some users presented disadvantages about the functions and layout of the multi-media platform. Examples of comments are the following: “3D wouldn’t load”, “The only thing I could see were maps of Eindhoven, very boring”, “The platform is not usable on mobile”, “The layout of the information about a specific building/public space could be better organized”, “I couldn’t use the platform at all. At first I saw a map with options to click on. So I clicked on it and got to see text, but not the whole text. I could click on a photo, so I clicked. But then I couldn’t go back to the previous page. So, it’s not a usable platform”, and “I’m sorry but the experience on mobile device is horrible. I was not able to see or read anything”. Another comment was that “Multi Media platform can be more interactive. Texts support the information flow, but on some area’s the information flow is a huge bundle of text”.
Overall, users were satisfied with having access to a multi-media platform for a heritage area that was designed considering potential users’ needs and requirements and the content that was presented to them. However, these responses illustrate that the platform prototype used could still be improved technically.

4. Discussion

Through comparing the multi-media platform and the Google search engine, an obvious conclusion is that the multi-media platform has a better effectiveness in increasing users’ awareness of cultural heritage. People who use the multi-media platform can gain more knowledge and information of cultural heritage and have a better feeling to it. Because the dedicated multi-media platform was created based on users’ preferences and organized with the cultural heritage content and media types in a more reasonable way, it can increase users’ awareness of cultural heritage effectivenessly. The results indicate that the creator of the platform should consider users’ preferences, no matter contents of cultural heritage or media types.
Through the questionnaire, we can see that most of the users still prefer traditional media types as the first choice to acquire information and knowledge of the cultural heritage, such as maps and text. This is because these media are common in the daily life, and people are familiar with them. As for the advanced technology, such as the virtual reality, they can help users gain a better visual sense and immerse them into the virtual environment to help them receive the whole image of the cultural heritage. The results explain that the multiple media can help users to gain the knowledge of cultural heritage comprehensively. The more they know about one cultural heritage, the stronger sense of cultural heritage they can obtain.
Compared to the Google search engine, the multi-media platform aimed at a specific cultural heritage gained a better score in increasing awareness of cultural heritage. All of the media types, the contents, and the layout were handpicked and designed. This pattern and process of designing one platform can enlighten policymakers to create their own cultural heritage platform based on their local cultural heritage characteristics, not just borrow a preexisting one.

5. Conclusions

This research explored the effectiveness of a dedicated multi-media platform prototype in increasing awareness of cultural heritage using Strijp-S, an industrial heritage site, as a case study. The study aimed to assess whether the multi-media platform was more effective than a general-purpose search engine like Google. A survey was conducted to compare the two platforms through an experimental setup. The results showed that the multi-media platform significantly enhanced users’ awareness of Strijp-S more than Google. Users gained more knowledge about both tangible and intangible aspects, such as historical events and architectural stories, after using the multi-media platform. The platform not only provided more comprehensive information but also encouraged users to seek additional interesting details, improving their overall experience of cultural heritage. Despite this, users still initially preferred traditional media for gathering information about cultural heritage. The feature allowing users to upload their own experiences fostered a sense of belonging and deeper immersion into the heritage content. User feedback further supported the notion that a multi-media platform like the one developed can effectively help users explore and learn about Strijp-S, sparking their interest in visiting the site. This platform demonstrates the potential for local governments to enhance public awareness of cultural heritage and suggests that they could create multi-media platforms tailored to public preferences.
During the design and development process, several limitations were encountered. While the multi-media platform incorporates a variety of media, it could be further enhanced with new features such as VR models compatible with Head-Mounted Displays and Augmented Reality [58]. Currently, most of the content for Strijp-S includes only exterior photos and models of the cultural heritage buildings due to the available information. Expanding the platform to include more visual details about the interiors of these buildings would be beneficial. Additionally, the platform is currently available only for (laptop) computers; developing a smartphone app would increase its accessibility, especially for on-site use during visits. User feedback also highlighted that the layout of the multi-media platform was perceived as boring, and there were occasional issues with displaying 3D models. Moreover, the “uploading own experience” feature, which allows users to contribute information, poses a risk of false information being added to the database. Implementing a filtering mechanism to screen and approve uploaded content would help ensure the accuracy and reliability of the information shared with the public.
The multi-media platform created for this study is successful in protecting the industrial heritage of Strijp-S and can assist the Eindhoven government in disseminating knowledge on its history and attracting more tourists and local citizens to the site. Since cultural attraction seekers prefer to have pre-visit information, especially through websites [58], such a multi-media platform can enhance the experience of visitors. This pattern of protecting cultural heritage contributes to the sustainability of the area and sets a good example for other cities. The results suggest that the government and official authorities should use people’s preferences to broadcast their own urban cultural heritage. The government should start with a basis of traditional media, such as text, and expand to as many other advanced media types as possible, such as 3D models. The results also suggest that the government should pay attention to both tangible and intangible cultural heritage.

Author Contributions

Formal analysis, B.W.; Investigation, B.W.; Writing—original draft, B.W.; Writing—review & editing, G.D., B.d.V. and T.A.; Supervision, G.D., B.d.V. and T.A. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The APC was funded by “Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities”, grant number “24qnpy022”.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the Ethics Committee of Eindhoven University of Technology (protocol code ERB2020BE37 and 27 October 2020) for studies involving humans.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. UNESCO World Heritage Center. Basic Texts of the 1972 World Heritage Convention; UNESCO: Paris, France, 2005; pp. 1–234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Steinberg, F. Conservation and rehabilitation of urban heritage in developing countries. Habitat. Int. 1996, 20, 463–475. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Lussetyowati, T. Preservation and Conservation through Cultural Heritage Tourism. Case Study: Musi Riverside Palembang. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2015, 184, 401–406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Frey, B.S.; Briviba, A. A policy proposal to deal with excessive cultural tourism. Eur. Plan. Stud. 2021, 29, 601–618. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Ashworth, G. Preservation, Conservation and Heritage: Approaches to the Past in the Present through the Built Environment. Asian Anthropol. 2011, 10, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Kaddu, S. Collaboration in Digitising Cultural Heritage as a strategy to sustain access and sharing of cultural heritage information in Uganda. Libr. Theory Res. 2015, 1–14. [Google Scholar]
  7. Ricart, S.; Ribas, A.; Pavón, D.; Gabarda-Mallorquí, A.; Roset, D. Promoting historical irrigation canals as natural and cultural heritage in mass-tourism destinations. J. Cult. Herit. Manag. Sustain. Dev. 2019, 9, 520–536. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Cassel, S.H.; Pashkevich, A. World Heritage and tourism innovation: Institutional frameworks and local adaptation. Eur. Plan. Stud. 2014, 22, 1625–1640. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Dragoni, M.; Tonelli, S.; Moretti, G. A knowledge management architecture for digital cultural heritage. J. Comput. Cult. Herit. 2017, 10, 15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Liu, Y.-D. Cultural events and cultural tourism development: Lessons from the European Capitals of Culture. Eur. Plan. Stud. 2014, 22, 498–514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Monod, E.; Klein, H.K.; Missikoff, O.; Isari, D. Cultural heritage systems evaluation and design: The virtual heritage center of the city of Rome. In Proceedings of the Connecting the Americas. 12th Americas Conference on Information Systems, AMCIS 2006, Acapulco, México, 4–6 August 2006; pp. 1351–1360. [Google Scholar]
  12. Ott, M.; Pozzi, F. Towards a new era for cultural heritage education: Discussing the role of ICT. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2011, 27, 1365–1371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Barrientos, F.; Martin, J.; De Luca, C.; Tondelli, S.; Gómez-García-Bermejo, J.; Casanova, E.Z. Computational methods and rural cultural & natural heritage: A review. J. Cult. Herit. 2021, 49, 250–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Bethapudi, A. The role of ICT in tourism industry. J. Appl. Econ. Bus. 2013, 1, 67–79. [Google Scholar]
  15. Cunha, C.R.; Carvalho, A.; Afonso, L.; Silva, D.; Fernandes, P.O.; Pires, L.C.; Costa, C.; Correia, R.; Ramalhosa, E.; Correia, A.I.; et al. Boosting cultural heritage in rural communities through an ICT platform: The Viv@vó Project. IBIMA Bus. Rev. 2019, 2019, 608133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Foni, A.E.; Papagiannakis, G.; Magnenat-Thalmann, N. A taxonomy of visualization strategies for cultural heritage applications. J. Comput. Cult. Herit. 2010, 3, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Ginzarly, M.; Teller, J. Online communities and their contribution to local heritage knowledge. J. Cult. Herit. Manag. Sustain. Dev. 2020, 11, 361–380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Thekkum Kara, G.K. Developing a sustainable cultural heritage information system. Libr. Hi Tech. News 2021, 38, 17–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Di Giulio, R.; Boeri, A.; Longo, D.; Gianfrate, V.; Boulanger, S.O.M.; Mariotti, C. ICTs for Accessing, Understanding and Safeguarding Cultural Heritage: The Experience of INCEPTION and ROCK H2020 Projects. Int. J. Archit. Herit. 2021, 15, 825–843. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Gupta, D.K.; Sharma, V. Enriching and enhancing digital cultural heritage through crowd contribution. J. Cult. Herit. Manag. Sustain. Dev. 2017, 7, 14–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Ott, M.; Pozzi, F. ICT and cultural heritage education: Which added value? In Emerging Technologies and Information Systems for the Knowledge Society, Proceedings of the First World Summit on the Knowledge Society, WSKS 2008, Athens, Greece, 24–26 September 2008; Lecture Notes in Computer Science; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2008; Volume 5288 LNAI, pp. 131–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Dusi, N.; Ferretti, I.; Furini, M. A transmedia storytelling system to transform recorded film memories into visual history. Entertain. Comput. 2017, 21, 65–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Lazzeretti, L.; Oliva, S.; Innocenti, N.; Capone, F. Rethinking culture and creativity in the digital transformation. Eur. Plan. Stud. 2022, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Moitra, A.; Das, V.; Team, G.V.; Kumar, A.; Seth, A. Design lessons from creating a mobile-based community media platform in rural India. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Information and Communication Technologies and Development, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA, 3–6 June 2016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Pecchioli, L.; Carrozzino, M.; Mohamed, F.; Bergamasco, M.; Kolbe, T.H. ISEE: Information access through the navigation of a 3D interactive environment. J. Cult. Herit. 2011, 12, 287–294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Pyae, A. Understanding the role of culture and cultural attributes in digital game localization. Entertain. Comput. 2018, 26, 105–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Maietti, F.; Di Giulio, R.; Medici, M.; Ferrari, F.; Piaia, E.; Brunoro, S. Accessing and Understanding Heritage Buildings through ICT. The INCEPTION Methodology Applied to the Istituto degli Innocenti. Int. J. Archit. Herit. 2021, 15, 921–930. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Rubegni, E.; Di Blas, N.; Paolini, P.; Sabiescu, A. A format to design narrative multimedia applications for cultural heritage communication. In Proceedings of the 201 ACM Symposium on Applied Computing, Sierre, Switzerland, 22–26 March 2010; pp. 1238–1239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Varriale, L.; Volpe, T.; Noviello, V. Enhancing cultural heritage at the time of the COVID-19 outbreak: An overview of the ICT strategies adopted by museums in the Campania Region of Italy. In Tourism Destination Management in a Post-Pandemic Context; Emerald Publishing: Bingley, UK, 2021; pp. 201–218. [Google Scholar]
  30. Moßgraber, J.; Lortal, G.; Calabrò, F.; Corsi, M. An ICT Platform to support Decision Makers with Cultural Heritage Protection against Climate Events. EGU Gen. Assem. Conf. Abstr. 2020, 20, 700395. [Google Scholar]
  31. Bødker, S.; Kristensen, J.F.; Nielsen, C.; Sperschneider, W. Technology for boundaries. In Proceedings of the 2003 International ACM SIGGROUP Conference on Supporting Group Work, Sandibel Island, FL, USA, 9–12 November 2003; pp. 311–320. [Google Scholar]
  32. Halabi, A.; Sabiescu, A.; David, S.; Vannini, S.; Nemer, D. From exploration to design: Aligning intentionality in community informatics projects. J. Community Inform. 2015, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Kamppuri, M.; Bednarik, R.; Tukiainen, M. The expanding focus of HCI: Case culture. In Proceedings of the 4th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction: Changing Roles, Oslo, Norway, 14–18 October 2006; pp. 405–408. [Google Scholar]
  34. Leidner, D.E.; Kayworth, T. A review of culture in information systems research: Toward a theory of information technology culture conflict. MIS Q. 2006, 30, 357–399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Haus, G. Cultural heritage and ICT: State of the art and perspectives. Digit. J. Digit. Cult. 2016, 1, 9–20. [Google Scholar]
  36. Ch’ng, E. Experiential archaeology: Is virtual time travel possible? J. Cult. Herit. 2009, 10, 458–470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Champion, E. Entertaining the similarities and distinctions between serious games and virtual heritage projects. Entertain. Comput. 2016, 14, 67–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Chung, N.; Han, H.; Joun, Y. Tourists’ intention to visit a destination: The role of augmented reality (AR) application for a heritage site. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2015, 50, 588–599. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Lucifora, C.; Schembri, M.; Poggi, F.; Grasso, G.M.; Gangemi, A. Virtual reality supports perspective taking in cultural heritage interpretation. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2023, 148, 107911. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Machidon, O.M.; Duguleana, M.; Carrozzino, M. Virtual humans in cultural heritage ICT applications: A review. J. Cult. Herit. 2018, 33, 249–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. YiFei, L.; Othman, M.K. Investigating the behavioural intentions of museum visitors towards VR: A systematic literature review. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2024, 155, 108167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Graziano, T.; Privitera, D. Cultural heritage, tourist attractiveness and augmented reality: Insights from Italy. J. Herit. Tour. 2020, 15, 666–679. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Shehade, M.; Stylianou-Lambert, T. Emerging Technologies and the Digital Transformation of Museums and Heritage Sites. In Proceedings of the First International Conference, RISE IMET 2021, Nicosia, Cyprus, 2–4 June 2021; ISBN 9783030836467. [Google Scholar]
  44. Wang, B.; Dane, G.Z.; De Vries, B. Increasing awareness for urban cultural heritage based on 3D narrative system. Remote Sens. Spat. Inf. Sci. 2018, 42, 215–221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Koukopoulos, Z.; Koukopoulos, D.; Jung, J.J. A trustworthy multimedia participatory platform for cultural heritage management in smart city environments. Multimed. Tools Appl. 2017, 76, 25943–25981. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Roose, M.; Nylén, T.; Tolvanen, H.; Vesakoski, O. User-Centred Design of Multidisciplinary Spatial Data Platforms for Human-History Research. ISPRS Int. J. Geo-Inf. 2021, 10, 467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Rivero Moreno, L.D. Sustainable city storytelling: Cultural heritage as a resource for a greener and fairer urban development. J. Cult. Herit. Manag. Sustain. Dev. 2020, 10, 399–412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Mugobi, T.; Mlozi, S. The impact of external factors on ICT usage practices at UNESCO World Heritage Sites. J. Tour. Herit. Serv. Mark. 2021, 7, 3–12. [Google Scholar]
  49. Wang, B.; Dane, G.Z.; de Vries, B. Preferences for a multimedia web platform to increase awareness of cultural heritage: A stated choice experiment. J. Herit. Manag. 2021, 6, 188–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Arts, H.P.T.; Groot, J.K.H.; van Haeff, S.; Luttikhuis, M.; de Wit, E. DirectView: Management Support System for the Strijp-S planning; Technische Universiteit Eindhoven, Stan Ackermans Instituut: Eindhoven, The Netherlands, 2005; ISBN 9044405608. [Google Scholar]
  51. Dane, G.; Borgers, A.; Tilma, F. Lifestyles, new uses, and the redevelopment of industrial heritage sites: A case study of Strijp-S, Eindhoven. In Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on Urban Planning and Regional Development in the Information Society GeoMultimedia, Karlsruhe, Germany, 2–4 April 2019; pp. 483–492. [Google Scholar]
  52. de Zwart, B. De heruitvinding van Strijp S. In Transformatie Strijp S. Herinnering Verbeelding Toekomst; Doevendans, C.H., Veldpaus, L., Eds.; Technische Universiteit Eindhoven: Eindhoven, The Netherlands, 2007; pp. 44–49. [Google Scholar]
  53. Luttikhuis, M. Inbedding Strijp S: Een Brug. Slaan Tussen Strijp S En. Haar Omgeving. 2006. Available online: https://www.tue.nl/en/department-of-the-built-environment/education/designers-programs-pdeng/post-msc-architectural-design-management-systems-adms/program/information-for-industry/publicationsprojects/final-reports-in-company-assignment-sai-adms (accessed on 27 October 2024).
  54. Mulrenin, A.M. DigiCULT: Unlocking the Value of Europe’s Cultural Heritage Sector. In Digital Applications for Cultural and Heritage Institutions; Routledge: Oxfordshire, UK, 2017; pp. 45–54. [Google Scholar]
  55. Marconcini, S. ICT as a tool to foster inclusion: Interactive maps to access cultural heritage sites. IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2018, 364, 012040. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. 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 2023, 15, 2504. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Wang, B.; Dane, G.; Arentze, T. A structural equation model to analyze the use of a new multi media platform for increasing awareness of cultural heritage. Front. Archit. Res. 2023, 12, 509–522. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Karayazi, S.S.; Dane, G.; Arentze, T. Visitors’ heritage location choices in Amsterdam in times of mass tourism: A latent class analysis. J. Herit. Tour. 2024, 19, 497–518. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 16 10065 g001
Figure 1. Cultural heritage objects retrieved from a database.
Figure 1. Cultural heritage objects retrieved from a database.
Sustainability 16 10065 g001
Table 1. Sample characteristics of two groups.
Table 1. Sample characteristics of two groups.
Socio-DemographicsNumbers in MMP Group (%)Numbers in Google Groupp-Value of Chi-Square
GenderMale151 (50.0%)73 (49.3%)0.893
Female151 (50.0%)75 (50.7%)
AgeYoung people (below 34)73 (24.2%)45 (30.4%)0.061
Middle age (34–49)77 (25.5%)46 (31.1%)
Elder (50+)152 (50.3%)57 (38.5%)
Education levelLow education37 (12.3%)18 (12.7%)0.087
Middle education129 (42.7%)48 (32.4%)
High education136 (45.0%)82 (54.9%)
IncomeLow income56 (18.5%)27 (18.2%)0.670
Middle income129 (42.7%)69 (46.6%)
High income87 (28.8%)35 (23.6%)
Not to say30 (10.0%)17 (11.6%)
Have you visited Strijp-S before?Yes71 (23.5%)44 (29.7%)0.155
No231 (76.5%)104 (70.3%)
Do you live in Eindhoven now?Yes13 (4.3%)7 (4.7%)0.837
No289 (95.7%)141 (95.3%)
Table 2. Paired-samples t-test before and after using multi-media platform (N = 302).
Table 2. Paired-samples t-test before and after using multi-media platform (N = 302).
Statementsp-ValueGroupMean
I would like to visit specific buildings at Strijp-S0.002Before2.960
After3.109
I would like to visit Strijp-S district when I have an opportunity0.016Before3.096
After3.199
I care about cultural heritage buildings or public places at Strijp-S0.688Before3.113
After3.133
I’m interested in buildings at Strijp-S0.010Before3.083
After3.262
I’m interested in public space at Strijp-S<0.001Before2.772
After3.149
I’m interested in landscape at Strijp-S<0.001Before2.914
After3.156
I’m interested in persons who are related to Strijp-S<0.001Before2.589
After2.947
I’m interested in historical and current events of Strijp-S<0.001Before2.861
After3.109
I’m interested in local lifestyle related to Strijp-S0.001Before2.566
After2.821
I would like to live in one of the cultural heritage buildings at Strijp-S<0.001Before1.894
After2.209
I am interested in cultural heritage redevelopment of Strijp-S<0.001Before2.768
After2.990
I would like to join discussions about the future cultural heritage redevelopment of Strijp-S<0.001Before1.911
After2.109
I would like to join at least one of the events at Strijp-S0.022Before2.719
After2.821
Table 3. Independent t-test after using Google (N = 148) and multi-media platform (N = 302).
Table 3. Independent t-test after using Google (N = 148) and multi-media platform (N = 302).
Statementsp-ValueGroupMean
The platform can help to gain tangible cultural heritage information<0.001Google2.345
Multi-Media Platform3.583
The platform can help to gain intangible cultural heritage information<0.001Google2.500
Multi-Media Platform3.500
The platform can help to gain interested cultural heritage information<0.001Google2.3445
Multi-Media Platform3.619
I would like to visit specific buildings at Strijp-S0.096Google2.926
Multi-Media Platform3.109
I would like to visit Strijp-S district when I have an opportunity0.007Google2.905
Multi-Media Platform3.199
I care about cultural heritage buildings or places at Strijp-S0.008Google2.939
Multi-Media Platform3.133
I’m interested in buildings at Strijp-S<0.001Google2.635
Multi-Media Platform3.262
I’m interested in public space at Strijp-S0.05Google2.899
Multi-Media Platform3.149
I’m interested in landscape at Strijp-S0.254Google3.014
Multi-Media Platform3.156
I’m interested in persons who are related to Strijp-S0.001Google2.947
Multi-Media Platform3.358
I’m interested in historical and current events of Strijp-S0.698Google3.109
Multi-Media Platform3.162
I’m interested in local lifestyle related to Strijp-S<0.001Google2.821
Multi-Media Platform3.399
I would like to live in one of the cultural heritage buildings at Strijp-S<0.001Google2.209
Multi-Media Platform3.777
I am interested in cultural heritage redevelopment of Strijp-S0.474Google2.990
Multi-Media Platform3.068
I would like to join discussions about the future cultural heritage redevelopment of Strijp-S<0.001Google2.109
Multi-Media Platform3.926
I would like to join at least one of the events at Strijp-S0.05Google2.821
Multi-Media Platform3.061
The Platform has increased my awareness of cultural heritage of Strijp-S<0.001Google2.250
Multi-Media Platform3.672
Table 4. The average number of tangible and intangible heritage items known to respondents (multi-media platform prototype, N = 302).
Table 4. The average number of tangible and intangible heritage items known to respondents (multi-media platform prototype, N = 302).
QuestionsGroupMean Scorep-Value of
t-Test
The number of architectural buildings/public-space/heritage-landscape at Strijp-S known to respondentsBefore1.864<0.001
After2.905
The number of historical persons who had a significant influence related to Strijp-S known to respondentsBefore1.291<0.001
After1.371
The number of events that are significant for the history of Strijp-S known to respondentsBefore1.581<0.001
After2.432
Table 5. The average number tangible and intangible heritage items known to respondents before and after using Google search engine (Google, N = 148).
Table 5. The average number tangible and intangible heritage items known to respondents before and after using Google search engine (Google, N = 148).
QuestionsGroupMean Scorep-Value of
t-Test
The number of architectural buildings/public-space/heritage-landscape at Strijp-S known to respondentsBefore1.600<0.001
After2.338
The number of historical persons who had a significant influence related to Strijp-S known to respondentsBefore1.304<0.001
After1.517
The number of events that are significant for the history of Strijp-S known to respondentsBefore1.937<0.001
After2.268
Table 6. The difference of the average number of tangible and intangible heritage items known to respondents before and after between the multi-media platform and Google groups.
Table 6. The difference of the average number of tangible and intangible heritage items known to respondents before and after between the multi-media platform and Google groups.
QuestionsGroupAverage Difference in NumbersIndependent
t-Test
The number of architectural buildings/public-space/heritage-landscape at Strijp-S known to respondentsMulti-Media Platform1.0410.018
Google0.738
The number of historical persons who had a significant influence related to Strijp-S known to respondentsMulti-Media Platform0.08<0.001
Google0.213
The number of events that are significant for the history of Strijp-S known to respondentsMulti-Media Platform0.851<0.001
Table 7. Media rank for tangible cultural heritage.
Table 7. Media rank for tangible cultural heritage.
Media typeMedia Questions
Which media has helped you the most to find information about the public space at Strijp-SWhich media has helped you the most to find information about the buildings at Strijp-SWhich media has helped you the most to find information about the landscape at Strijp-S
Map313
Text122
Photo221
3D model545
Video454
Panorama VR666
Table 8. Media rank for intangible cultural heritage.
Table 8. Media rank for intangible cultural heritage.
Media typeMedia Questions
Which media has helped you the most to find information about significant events at Strijp-SWhich media has helped you the most to find information about significant persons at Strijp-SWhich media has helped you the most to find information about local lifestyle at Strijp-S
Text111
Photo222
Video333
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Wang, B.; Dane, G.; de Vries, B.; Arentze, T. Design and Test of a Multi-Media Web Platform Prototype Based on People’s Preferences to Increase Cultural Heritage Awareness. Sustainability 2024, 16, 10065. https://doi.org/10.3390/su162210065

AMA Style

Wang B, Dane G, de Vries B, Arentze T. Design and Test of a Multi-Media Web Platform Prototype Based on People’s Preferences to Increase Cultural Heritage Awareness. Sustainability. 2024; 16(22):10065. https://doi.org/10.3390/su162210065

Chicago/Turabian Style

Wang, Benshuo, Gamze Dane, Bauke de Vries, and Theo Arentze. 2024. "Design and Test of a Multi-Media Web Platform Prototype Based on People’s Preferences to Increase Cultural Heritage Awareness" Sustainability 16, no. 22: 10065. https://doi.org/10.3390/su162210065

APA Style

Wang, B., Dane, G., de Vries, B., & Arentze, T. (2024). Design and Test of a Multi-Media Web Platform Prototype Based on People’s Preferences to Increase Cultural Heritage Awareness. Sustainability, 16(22), 10065. https://doi.org/10.3390/su162210065

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

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop