Next Article in Journal
Research Status and Prospects of Sweet Potato Harvesters’ Conveying and Separation Mechanisms
Previous Article in Journal
Green Innovation in Business: A Comprehensive Bibliometric Analysis of Trends, Contributors, and Future Directions
 
 
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 24
10.3390/su162410955
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:
Review

A Review of Studies on the Mechanisms of Cultural Heritage Influencing Subjective Well-Being

by
Shaohua Kong
1,
Hanzun Li
2,* and
Ziyi Yu
2
1
Cultural Economics Research Institute, Central University of Finance and Economics, Beijing 100081, China
2
School of Economics and Management, Tibet University, Lhasa 850032, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2024, 16(24), 10955; https://doi.org/10.3390/su162410955
Submission received: 19 September 2024 / Revised: 14 November 2024 / Accepted: 9 December 2024 / Published: 13 December 2024
(This article belongs to the Section Health, Well-Being and Sustainability)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
In 2022, UNESCO advocated for a systemic anchoring of culture in public policies, as an enabler and driver of emotional well-being and environmental sustainability. In recent years, economists have gradually shifted the measurement of well-being from “income” to “quality of life”, which has led to an increasing interest in subjective well-being (SWB) sustainability-related topics in academic research. The purpose of this study is to investigate the mechanisms by which cultural heritage and its derivative activities sustainably affect subjective well-being. To achieve this goal, we maximised relevant literature through conceptual segmentation and combination and conducted a literature review to identify mechanisms validated in previous studies. This study suggests that the richness of cultural heritage may impact subjective well-being and that the extent of this impact is influenced by two factors: the availability of cultural heritage-derived activities and the perception of cultural heritage. Considering the complexity and uniqueness of different cultural heritage perception channels, this paper provides a separate discussion and comparative analysis of different cultural heritage perception channels. This study provides valuable insights, the main idea being that cultural heritage and its derived activities have an impact on the enhancement of human well-being, and, therefore, the sustainable preservation of cultural heritage is important for the sustainable enhancement of human well-being; moreover, it provides suggestions for specific empirical studies to be conducted in the future.

1. Introduction

How to achieve human happiness is an important aim of economics research. In 1759, Adam Smith stated in The Theory of Moral Sentiments that the value of government’s existence lies in increasing the happiness of its citizens’ lives [1]. In 1871, William Stanley Jevons stated that ‘economics is a study of pleasure and pain calculations [2]. Early economists had already used the measurement of happiness as an important criterion for judging the value of goods and the effectiveness of government management. Between the 1960s and the end of the twentieth century, economists gradually shifted their measure of well-being from ‘income’ to ‘quality of life’, calling for policies that ‘go beyond gross domestic product (GDP)’ or even ‘de-growth’ [3]. In 1967, Wanner Wilson summarised the research on subjective well-being, ushering in an era of scientific study of subjective well-being [4].
The mechanisms by which culture and its carriers influence happiness need to be urgently explored. Theoretically, happiness is greatly influenced by ideological and other cultural factors [5]. The mechanism of culture’s influence on happiness is relatively complex because of its intangibility and the diversity of its carriers and commodities; therefore, the theoretical system and development of related research are very complicated and confusing. In practice, the culture and tourism industry is an important happiness-related industry, and cultural heritage is the foundation of the culture and tourism industry. In response to the question ‘How do cultural heritage and its derivative activities affect subjective well-being’, this study summarises the research and theories on the relationship between cultural heritage and its derivative activities and subjective well-being, compiles the influencing factors and bridges of cultural heritage on subjective well-being, introduces the current status of research and research gaps of each influencing bridge, and provides references to the selection of topics and variables for subsequent studies.

2. Theoretical Background

2.1. Defining Well-Being and Cultural Heritage

2.1.1. Well-Being

Well-being includes subjective and objective well-being, and subjective well-being is often expressed in the following terms: subjective well-being, perceived well-being, and experience well-being. Subjective well-being is a broad term used to measure happiness, life satisfaction, and quality of life. M Schlossarek considers subjective well-being to be ‘how individuals feel about their own well-being’ [6]. This paper follows Ed Diener’s paraphrase of Veenhoven’s definition of subjective well-being, namely, as the degree to which individuals judge their overall quality of life [6]. Subjective well-being consists of three dimensions: positive emotions, unpleasant emotions, and life satisfaction. Although there is a tendency for these three dimensions to change together, all three are independent of each other and sometimes change inconsistently [7]. Some psychologists support the paradigm of eudaemonia or evaluate well-being. This group of scholars sees happiness as a lifestyle of consistently striving for a good life. From this perspective, positive experiences are not important to happiness, but only when they involve carrying out a worthwhile way.

2.1.2. Cultural Heritage

According to Zhou’s interpretation, cultural resources can be defined from three perspectives: cultural anthropology, cultural economy, and cultural labour production. According to the definition of cultural labour production, cultural resources consist of all kinds of material or spiritual resources that people use to engage in cultural production or cultural activities [8]. According to Susan, cultural heritage is a type of cultural resource that is transformed into various forms of cultural heritage when tangible or intangible remains resulting from biological activities are revisited, reassessed, reused, and reconstructed [9]. Lim offers a simpler definition: ‘Cultural heritage is a manifestation of the customs acquired by a community and circulated from generation to generation’ [10]. Cultural heritage has existed in different forms of expression from the beginning to the present, such as monuments (1800), cultural property (1954), and cultural heritage (1969).
Cultural property emphasises the possession of property, and its initial use in international law dates back to the 1954 Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, as well as the 1970 Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export, and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property, which similarly uses the term. Prior to this, scholars used earlier terms that are now being discarded, such as ‘monuments’, ‘objects’, ‘antiquities’, and ‘sites’ [11].
During the same period, the term cultural heritage began to be widely used, and cultural heritage, with its emphasis on the process of inheritance, was used in a large number of international conventions, such as the UNESCO Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage, starting with the use of the term cultural heritage in the European Convention on the Protection of the Archeological Heritage in 1969 [12]. As far as the forms of cultural heritage are concerned, the classification of intangible cultural heritage and tangible cultural heritage has been widely disseminated and has become an essential part of analysing cultural heritage. In addition, the United Nations breaks down cultural heritage into categories such as architectural heritage, artistic and archaeological heritage, oral traditions, historic cities, languages, cultural landscapes, festivals and events, natural sanctuaries, consciousness and beliefs, underwater cultural heritage, music and song, museums, performing arts, movable cultural heritage, traditional medicine, handicrafts, literature, documentary and digital heritage, culinary traditions, cinematic heritage, and traditional sports and games.

2.2. Theories Related to Culture and Subjective Well-Being

Different scholars explain well-being from different theoretical perspectives, including genetic theory, personality trait theory, personality–environment interaction theory, comparison theory, goal theory, adaptation and coping theory, needs theory, cultural theory, and other theories [13,14,15,16,17,18,19]. Theories related to culture and well-being can be divided into two major branches, one of which views culture as an intangible cultural environment and studies its impact on well-being, while the other views culture as a product that can satisfy cultural needs and studies the impact of culture on well-being through the theory of need satisfaction. Cultural theory is an area that has gained widespread attention in recent years, arguing that the cultural environment in which people live affects the subjective well-being of its inhabitants and its view of culture as an environment that influences subjective well-being. Summarising Cantor and Sanderson, Diener argues that the accomplishment of goals is most conducive to well-being when they are valued by the culture to which the individual belongs. Culture influences the goals that people choose, which, in turn, influences SWB [14]. Ayse Y. Evrensel found that in countries with a majority of Christians, economic freedom has a positive impact on happiness, while, for countries with a majority of Muslims and Buddhists, the impact is negative [20]. Laura Ficarra confirms that ‘Organizational culture was found to be statistically significant on employee happiness’ [21]. Demand theory suggests that factors such as cultural consumption and cultural experience brought about by cultural products or services satisfy people’s absolute needs, which, in turn, increases their subjective well-being. According to Li Xuejun, cultural activities can make it possible for individuals to obtain psychological satisfaction and thus happiness through aesthetic values [22]. Wheatley, D. et al. provided an explanation at the psychological level, confirming that participation in cultural activities contributes to the enhancement of the subjective well-being of the inhabitants, while he considered that this enhancement is realised by five channels [23]. The study follows up with an evaluation and compilation of the literature based on these two theories.

2.3. Study of the Mechanism by Which Cultural Heritage Affects the Subjective Well-Being

Existing studies have both positive and negative arguments for whether cultural heritage contributes to well-being.
Most studies agree that cultural heritage contributes to well-being. Ian Holder argues that sites and monuments are increasingly recognised for their contribution to the well-being of society [24]. According to Yuko Xia, cultural heritage has led to an improvement in the quality of life of the residents, thus increasing their sense of well-being and satisfaction [25].
According to the theory of needs, well-being is influenced by the perception of cultural heritage, which determines the population’s willingness to demand culture, and the availability of cultural heritage, which determines the population’s ability to satisfy their cultural needs. As for the perception of cultural heritage accessibility, Graham Gee focuses on the well-being of Australia’s Aboriginal people, arguing that cultural loss exacerbates mental health problems such as racism and depression [26]. Victoria Ateca-Amestoy conducted a study on the relationship between distance to cultural heritage and subjective well-being and found that the closer one lives to cultural heritage, the higher the subjective well-being of the residents, and that participating in heritage volunteering activities and visiting cultural heritage significantly increased life satisfaction [27]. As for the perception of cultural heritage, Faye Sayer argues that ‘heritage can influence personal and community well-being, offering individuals opportunities to participate in collective action’ [28]. Timothy Darvill argues that heritage enhances resident well-being by influencing the idea of travel, structured relationships between people and places, and human interactions [29].
There are a number of studies whose findings refute the contribution of cultural heritage to well-being. Lieke Koldijk analysed the data with residents of Groningen, the Netherlands, and found that ‘cultural heritage appreciation, cultural heritage awareness, and living in a pre-war neighbourhood, are not significantly related to happiness’ [30]. Di Wu studied the relationship between heritage sites and well-being using Chinese data and concluded that ‘tourists’ perceived authenticity can increase the place dependence and place identity dimensions of place attachment, which, in turn, increases satisfaction, but does not directly increase SWB. He concluded that cultural heritage can increase satisfaction and indirectly affect SWB by increasing place attachment [31]. The article explains that the reason why the empirical results of the two differ from other studies may be due to the different cultural environments in different regions.
The relationship between cultural heritage and subjective well-being is unclear, and some studies have confused the concept of cultural heritage-derived activities with that of cultural heritage, further confusing the conclusions. The article argues that unutilised cultural heritage has a very limited impact on subjective well-being but that utilised cultural heritage is likely to have a significant positive effect on subjective well-being as cultural heritage-derived activities enhance perceptions of cultural heritage and its accessibility. Therefore, the article provides a further exploration of the relationship between cultural heritage-derived activities and subjective well-being.

3. Materials and Methods

This study explores the problem using the literature review method, which promotes the advancement of knowledge by analysing prior work on the research topic as a key aspect of scholarship. This study aims to explore the works’ findings related to cultural heritage and subjective well-being and to provide preliminary conclusions about the relationship between cultural heritage and subjective well-being.
Initially, this paper searched the Web of Science database, but only two articles included “happiness Cultural heritage” or “subjective well-being Cultural heritage” in the title. The number of relevant articles is far from supporting the research. Therefore, in this study, considering the number of published studies, we expanded the literature database for this paper by taking any known sources as far as possible, including the Web of Science database, Google Scholar, and paper books. Through concept segmentation, the search keywords were also been expanded from ‘happiness Cultural heritage, subjective well-being Cultural heritage’ to a combination of subjective well-being-related concepts, namely, ‘subjective well-being, happiness, positive emotions, pleasant emotions, unpleasant emotions, negative emotions, life satisfaction’, and cultural heritage-related concepts: ‘cultural heritage, cultural property, cultural activity, architectural heritage, artistic and archaeological heritage, oral traditions, historic cities, languages, cultural landscapes, festivals and events, natural sanctuaries, consciousness and beliefs, underwater cultural heritage, music and song, museums, performing arts, movable cultural heritage, traditional medicine, handicrafts, literature, documentary and digital heritage, culinary traditions, cinematic heritage, and traditional sports and games’, thus obtaining the research database. The database explored in this paper contains a total of 83 articles, of which 75 are journal articles, 4 are book chapters, 3 are collections of papers, and 1 is a dissertation.

4. Results

4.1. The Relationship Between Cultural Heritage-Derived Activities and Subjective Well-Being

The elements of the influence of cultural heritage-derived activities on subjective well-being are shown in Table 1. Overall, the direction of the influence of cultural heritage-derived activities on subjective well-being is uncertain, and existing studies have shown that subjective well-being is closely related to the elements of quality of life, health, subjective emotions, and interpersonal relationships.
Cultural heritage-derived activities (i.e., forms of utilise, development, and innovative cultural heritage) serve as a bridge between cultural heritage and the lives of residents, facilitating their perception and experience of cultural heritage. According to Ryu, Ho-cheol, cultural heritage-derived activities include cultural tourism, cultural education, cultural interaction, and cultural merchandise, etc. [80]. Cultural heritage-derived activities influence subjective well-being through five key elements: (1) Quality of life. Cultural heritage-derived activities can satisfy the material needs of residents and improve their quality of life to enhance their subjective well-being. (2) Health. Cultural heritage-derived activities can satisfy the spiritual needs of residents and promote their mental health to enhance their subjective well-being. (3) Subjective emotions. Cultural heritage-derived activities can provide residents with a means of relaxation to increase their positive emotions and decrease their negative emotions. (4) Interpersonal relations. Cultural heritage-derived activities can build bridges of communication between people to improve subjective well-being. (5) Place attachment. Cultural heritage-derived activities can provide an element for residents to perceive the history and culture of the place where they live, enhance their perception of the place and sense of identity, and increase their subjective well-being.
Many scholars always take cultural heritage-derived activities as a whole and explore their relationship with subjective well-being. Eleftherios Giovanis analysed household data from Germany and the UK and found that participation in cultural activities contributes to SWB but does not explore the elements of influence [67]. Daniel Wheatley argues that cultural products can positively influence happiness [48]. Sergio Cocozza studied a sample of residents from the Naples metropolitan area in Italy and concluded that cultural activities contribute to the subjective well-being of residents. The mechanism of action is that residents are able to relax through cultural activities, which leads to improved health, and that there is a pathway in the brain that links health and happiness, which allows happiness to be influenced by health [46]. Wheatley, D. et al. explained the intrinsic mechanisms by which cultural heritage promotes the physical and mental well-being of its inhabitants on a psychological level, and they confirmed that participation in cultural heritage-related activities increases SWB, which is thought to be realised by five elements: detachment (relaxation, autonomy, mastery, meaning and affiliation), autonomy, mastery, meaning, and affiliation [23].
However, there are also scholars who believe that cultural activities have little role to play in well-being. The results of Agnieszka Nowak-Olejnik’s survey of 315 households in the city of Prince George, show that cultural activities have a very small effect on well-being compared to other domains (less than 10%). Among cultural activities, the effect of singing alone on subjective well-being was even significant and negative (β = 0.18) [43]. Exploring the impact of cultural activities on subjective well-being as represented by life satisfaction, Jennifer L. Brown argues that some heritage activities involve outdoor activities that may be combined with physical activity to improve mental health and indirectly increase life satisfaction. However, empirical results from a UK sample suggest that social interaction significantly affects residents’ well-being, whereas cultural resources such as theatre and museums are not significantly related to well-being [47].
In terms of cultural heritage interaction, a derivative form includes activities such as traditional game experiences, traditional sports experiences, and visits to museums. Antonio Rapacciolo examined the well-being of people over the age of 60 in Italy and found that cultural activities were associated with higher levels of well-being, a relationship that was particularly significant among women [39]. Jokić Biljana’s research, based on Romanian data, suggests that socialising with family and cultural participation are important factors in promoting happier residents [36]. Income status in the study of Jokić Biljana can be seen as a proxy variable for quality of life. MacKenzie D. Trupp focused on the impact of online cultural activities on subjective well-being, and her findings suggest that increases in subjective well-being are associated with aesthetic evaluations and emotional experiences [37]. According to Hei Wan Mak’s summary, cultural participation is associated with improved well-being, reduced loneliness, and increased socialisation. Focusing on the relationship between poverty and the role of cultural participation, he found that, in more deprived areas, cultural participation was more conducive to enhancing the subjective well-being of residents [38].
In terms of cultural tourism, a derivative form that includes activities such as festival tourism and humanistic landscape tourism, numerous scholars have focused on its impact on local residents. Medet Yolal, on the other hand, explores the effect of the Golden Boll Film Festival on residents’ subjective well-being using a sample of residents of Adana, Turkey, and argues that quality of life issues such as traffic congestion caused by the subjects related to the cultural event reduce residents’ subjective well-being [32]. Steiner’s study analysed whether hosting a European Capital of Culture would have an impact on the SWB of local residents, i.e., the relationship between cultural heritage activities and well-being in life, and found that cultural heritage activities have a negative impact on the SWB of residents. The reasons for this may lie in high levels of public expenditure, transportation disruptions, overcrowding, or rising house prices [33]. Jan Packer focuses on music festivals and argues that subjective well-being is related to identity, self-acceptance, and positive relationships with others [34]. Jibin Yu argues that real life and self-alienation predict well-being in culture and tourism [35].
In terms of cultural goods, a derivative form includes activities such as the purchase of creative design products, traditional music experience, and the experience of cultural services. Enzo Grossi argues that regular participation in the arts and experiencing culture can contribute to subjective well-being [41]. Ida Ercsey argues that the emotional and social value of cultural services amongst cultural activities contributes to higher perceptions of family and friendships amongst young users, which, in turn, contributes to a higher sense of well-being [42]. Costa and Estêvão argue that positive design aims to promote well-being, and that, in this culture, technology can be a way to improve subjective well-being [81].
Since cultural heritage contains a very large number of categories, and the nature of different categories is not exactly the same (e.g., the nature of museums is very different from that of traditional music), and because a large number of studies have focused on a small category of cultural heritage, in order to systematically explore the relationship between cultural heritage and subjective well-being, the article proceeds to explore the relationship between various types of cultural heritage-derived activities and subjective well-being.

4.2. The Relationship Between Intangible Cultural Heritage-Derived Activities and Subjective Well-Being

In terms of the relationship between intangible cultural heritage-derived interactive activities and subjective well-being, sports and gaming cultural heritage have a similar impact on subjective well-being as general sports and games. Aaron Rillo Alber (2021) argue that games and sports trigger emotions. Emotions such as frustration occasionally occur when competition is lost [58]. Paul Downward (2011), Ian Wellard (2012), Haifang Huang (2012), Kevin Filo (2016) and others have argued that games and sports promote subjective well-being through the channels of positive emotions, relationships, accomplishment, meaning, and health [56,57,59,62]. These studies are of great relevance to the study of the mechanisms of the effects of traditional games and traditional sports on well-being.
In terms of the relationship between intangible cultural heritage-derived good activities and subjective well-being. The most significant spin-off activity of intangible cultural heritage goods is traditional music, which is usually not studied separately but as a part of music. A. Steven Evans (2006), Mary L. (2011), Eleftherios Giovanis (2021), and others have demonstrated that activities such as singing, attending classical music, and describing stories may benefit health and well-being [63,66,67]. Some scholars have devoted themselves to using music to improve subjective well-being and thereby increase the effectiveness of treatment, leading to the coining of terms such as “Music therapy” and “Active Music Engagement”. Puig (2006), Claire M. Ghetti (2011), Zoe E. Papinczak (2015), and other music therapy researchers believe that music therapy affects SWB in four ways: relationship building, mood alteration, cognitive change, and emotional immersion [64,65,82]. The article argues that the general functions of music are the same as traditional music, and, therefore, these studies are highly relevant to the study of the mechanisms by which traditional music influences subjective well-being.
In terms of the relationship between intangible cultural heritage-derived tourism activities and subjective well-being. Intangible cultural heritage tourism is a comprehensive experience of a series of cultural activities, and festival activities are the most representative. Using data from Thailand and the Philippines, Young-joo Ahn explored the relationship between social capital and happiness and found that participation in festivals mediates the relationship between social capital and happiness, i.e., festivals provide a channel for SWB [55]. Danni Zheng explored the culture of the Kaiping Watchtower in China as an example, arguing that cultural heritage tourism may trigger positive affective emotions such as happiness among local residents. At the same time, cultural heritage tourism may also lead to negative psychological emotions such as jealousy [50]. Xiaoli Yi et al. explored the example of West Lake and Lijiang, China, and concluded that the presence of authenticity for cultural heritage tourists significantly enhances positive gratification [51]. M. Victoria Sanagustín-Fons, through a study of the cultural tourism routes of the European Grail Route, argued that M. Victoria Sanagustín-Fons, through her study of the cultural tourism routes of the European Grail Route, argues that cultural tourism promotes the SWB of tourists because they make meaningful excursions and deep social contacts while on vacation [52].
In terms of the relationship between intangible cultural heritage-derived education activities and subjective well-being. Qihang Qiu et al. confirmed that an increase in the perception of aesthetic and historical values triggers positive emotions such as subjective well-being [68]. Akiko Suzuki uses the example of Christmas in Germany, arguing that Christmas teaches civilians what a good family should look like. Celebrating Christmas at home brings families together and reaffirms their bonds. Happy families are formed through education at Christmas each year, enhancing the subjective well-being of residents [69].
The elements of the influence of intangible cultural heritage-derived activities on subjective well-being are shown in Table 1. Overall, the direction of the influence of intangible cultural heritage-derived activities on subjective well-being is uncertain. Moreover, research on intangible cultural heritage-derived activities has focused on subjective emotions and interpersonal elements, with less research on quality of life, health, and local attachment elements.

4.3. The Relationship Between Tangible Cultural Heritage-Derived Activities and Subjective Well-Being

In terms of the relationship between tangible cultural heritage-derived interactive activities and subjective well-being. Research related to tangible cultural heritage-derived interactive activities has focused mainly on the museum sector.
Helen J. Chatterjee argues that museums can provide positive social experiences, opportunities to learn and gain skills, calming experiences, creative inspiration, and lead to a decrease in residents’ anxiety, an increase in positive emotions, and an increase in self-esteem and identity [75]. Erica E Ander focused on the role of the introduction of museum objects on health and resident well-being in a hospital setting and found that museum objects provide emotional stimulation and distraction for patients, promoting their well-being in the hospital environment [76]. Beel, who focused on Portsoy, on the north coast of Scotland, suggested that the conversion of boats into museums by locals focuses tourists’ attention on Portsoy’s intangible cultural heritage, thus promoting the restoration of old buildings and boosting the pride of locals, which, in turn, contributes to their well-being. He also focuses on the village of Comainn Eachdraidh, where he believes that the cultural activities of the museum have brought people closer together, thus enhancing the well-being of the inhabitants [77]. Manuel H. Belver similarly focuses on the role of museums in the well-being of disadvantaged groups, arguing that museums provide a “mediator” in the relationship between disadvantaged groups and society, and in this way enhance the well-being of disadvantaged groups [78].
In terms of the relationship between tangible cultural heritage-derived tourism activities and subjective well-being, Enzo Grossi conducted an experiment with 100 people and showed that, after visiting the Sanctuary Dome in Vicoforte, Italy, subjects’ SWB ratings rose by 40%, confirming the positive impact of architectural heritage on subjective well-being [74]. Sektani and Hawar Himdad J. provided a relatively systematic overview of the relationship between architectural heritage and subjective well-being, which, according to them, affects subjective well-being through six channels: emotional ties, social relationships, aesthetic experiences, access to knowledge, and accessibility to physical state and culture. In terms of social relationships, it adopts Najafi’s view that social relationships are central to the enhancement of subjective well-being, and that built heritage stimulates emotional ties and increases social interactions, which, in turn, enhances the subjective well-being of residents. In terms of social relationships, it adopts Najafi’s view that social relationships are central to enhancing subjective well-being and that architectural heritage stimulates emotional bonds and increases social interactions, which, in turn, enhances residents’ subjective well-being. In terms of aesthetic experience, it adopts Mouratidis’ view that beauty has a restorative effect on subjective well-being [70]. Jennifer Sherry explores the relationship between heritage tourism and well-being using the example of the Sacred Valley in Nepal, arguing that sacred sites reconfigure residents’ understanding of well-being, and suggesting that landscapes are highly correlated with regional attachments and a sense of community [71].
In terms of the relationship between tangible cultural heritage-derived education activities and subjective well-being, Nora Fagerholm explored the influence of landscape on subjective well-being and found that both natural and cultural landscapes contribute to residents’ well-being and that the extent to which they influence subjective well-being is related to the knowledge that residents possess; moreover, Nora Fagerholm also mentioned the important role of human interaction in this regard [79]. Sektani argues that cultural buildings can influence the SWB of residents through their use as an educational resource [70].
The elements of the influence of tangible cultural heritage-derived activities on subjective well-being are shown in Table 1. Overall, activities derived from tangible cultural heritage have a positive impact on subjective well-being. Moreover, research on activities derived from tangible cultural heritage is very focused, with most studies focusing on subjective emotions and interpersonal relationship elements, and fewer studies on quality of life, health, and local attachment elements.

5. Discussion

This article proposes a theoretical framework based on the existing literature on the relationship between cultural heritage and subjective well-being as shown in Figure 1. The impact of cultural heritage on subjective well-being can be explained by two theories: the demand theory and the cultural theory. Under the needs theory, the abundance of cultural heritage affects the subjective well-being of the residents, which requires on the one hand the existence of relevant needs of the residents, and on the other hand, the cultural heritage can satisfy the relevant needs of the residents. The former aspect is influenced by the inhabitants’ perception of cultural heritage, and the latter part is influenced by the accessibility of the heritage. However, through unutilised cultural heritage, it is difficult to influence either the residents’ perception of cultural heritage or the accessibility of heritage, and it has little direct impact on subjective well-being. Therefore, cultural heritage influences residents’ heritage perception and heritage accessibility, and, thus, their sense of well-being, through the activity of cultural heritage-derived activities.
In terms of heritage accessibility, the commercial development of cultural heritage is an important factor in making cultural heritage-derived activities experienced by the general population. In terms of heritage perception, derived activities can affect quality of life, health, subjective emotions, interpersonal relationships, and place attachment, which affects heritage perception and influences subjective well-being. This is shown in Figure 2. Some studies also mentioned the indirect influence mechanism of cultural heritage, i.e., cultural heritage influences the environment and thus affects subjective well-being, and this part of the relevant studies is in line with the cultural theory of influencing subjective well-being. However, current research related to cultural theory focuses on the mechanism of cross-cultural influence on well-being, while no research has explored the specific mechanism by which the cultural environment, an important factor in itself, influences subjective well-being.
The correspondence between the forms of cultural heritage-derived activities and the elements of influence was further explored, and the results were obtained as shown in Table 2. As far as the derivative forms of cultural heritage are concerned, research related to tangible cultural heritage mostly focuses on heritage tourism and interactive forms of heritage, while cultural heritage-related research on the derivative forms of heritage education is relatively scarce. In terms of the elements of heritage influence, the existing literature has mostly focused on the impact of cultural heritage-derived activities on subjective well-being through the interpersonal relationship and subjective emotion elements, followed by research on the health and quality of life elements, with fewer studies on the place attachment element.

6. Conclusions & Outlook

6.1. Conclusions

Taken together, cultural heritage affects residents’ quality of life, health, interpersonal interactions, and place attachment through cultural heritage-derived activities, which affects their perception of cultural heritage and cultural heritage accessibility, and thus, their well-being. The abundance of cultural heritage does not necessarily have a positive effect on well-being. Cultural heritage abundance in most cases has a positive effect on subjective well-being through cultural heritage-derived activities, but it may also have a negative effect on subjective well-being through the quality-of-life element of heritage tourism, the health element of heritage education, and the subjective emotional element of heritage activities.

6.2. Research Outlook

At present, there are more studies on the relationship between traditional music, museums, architectural heritage, and subjective well-being; however, there are quite a few studies on other forms of cultural heritage, such as underwater cultural heritage, handicrafts, traditional medicine, and other aspects of the impact on subjective well-being are almost non-existent, and the relevant areas need to be explored in future research. Moreover, even though there is a large body of literature on the relationship between traditional music, museums, and architectural heritage and their relationship with subjective well-being, these works of literature seldom provide a strict definition of subjective well-being and usually mix the four concepts of subjective well-being, happiness, life satisfaction, and positive emotions. Moreover, in terms of intangible cultural heritage, researchers have studied traditional games, music, sports, and festivals as a whole by not distinguishing them from modern games, music, sports, and festivals. Future research can start with the refinement and standardisation of concepts to explore the relationship between cultural heritage and subjective well-being.
In terms of bridges of influence, the article summarises five major bridges of influence on relationships: quality of life, health, subjective emotions, interpersonal relationships, and place attachment. Much of the current research focuses on a single bridge for a single derived activity and does not utilise the related bridges for other types of derived activities. The health bridge of heritage tourism, the local attachment bridge of heritage interaction, the local attachment bridge of heritage goods, and the local attachment bridge of heritage education have not yet been studied by scholars, and future research could dig deeper into this area.
In summary, most of the current research on cultural heritage affecting subjective well-being focuses on specific bridges and lacks a comprehensive research and theoretical system. The article systematically organises the articles in each specific field of cultural heritage to obtain the theory and path of cultural heritage affecting subjective well-being, which provides an analytical system that can be used as a reference for future related research.

Author Contributions

S.K. proposed a topic and ideas for the minireview. Z.Y. and H.L. collected the relevant papers and sorted out the models and algorithms used in the study. Z.Y. participated in the whole discussion and gave professional advice. S.K. and H.L. assisted in polishing the manuscript. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The authors declare financial support was received for the research, authorship, and publication of this article. This work was funded by the China National Social Science Foundation (Number: 21EH218).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Ethical review and approval were waived for this study due to this study was a review study and did not involve the use of experiments with original samples.

Informed Consent Statement

Patient consent was waived due to this study was a review study and did not involve the use of experiments with original samples.

Data Availability Statement

No new data were created or analyzed in this study. Data sharing is not applicable to this article.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank T. Wang and Z. Ruan for their invaluable comments on an earlier draft of this paper.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

References

  1. Smith, A. The Theory of Moral Sentiments; Gutenberg: London, UK, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  2. Jevons, W.S. The Theory of Political Economy; Macmillan: New York, NY, USA, 1879. [Google Scholar]
  3. Martínez-Alier, J.; Pascual, U.; Vivien, F.-D.; Zaccai, E. Sustainable de-growth: Mapping the context, criticisms and future prospects of an emergent paradigm. Ecol. Econ. 2010, 69, 1741–1747. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Graham, C. Happiness and health: Lessons—And questions—For public policy. Health Aff. 2008, 27, 72–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Ahmad, S. The Promise of Happiness Communication Culture & Critique; Duke University Press: Durham, NC, USA, 2010; Volume 4, pp. 419–421. [Google Scholar]
  6. Diener, E. Assessing subjective well-being: Progress and opportunities. Soc. Indic. Res. 1994, 31, 103–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Diener, E. Subjective well-being. Psychol. Bull. 1984, 95, 542. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Zhou, J.; Xia, Z.; Lao, Y. Does cultural resource endowment backfire? Evidence from China’s cultural resource curse. Front. Psychol. 2023, 14, 1110379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Keitumetse, S. Cultural resources as sustainability enablers: Towards a Community-Based Cultural Heritage Resources Management (COBACHREM) model. Sustainability 2014, 6, 70–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Lim, C.K.; Tan, K.L.; Farid, A.M. Conservation of culture heritage tourism: A case study in Langkawi Kubang Badak Remnant Charcoal Kilns. Sustainability 2023, 15, 6554. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Frigo, M. Cultural property v. cultural heritage: A “battle of concepts” in international law? Int. Rev. Red Cross 2004, 86, 367–378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Dromgoole, S. 2001 UNESCO convention on the protection of the underwater cultural heritage. Int. J. Mar. Coast. Law 2003, 18, 59–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Tellegen, A.; Lykken, D.T.; Bouchard TJJr Wilcox, K.J.; Segal, N.L.; Rich, S. Personality similarity in twin reared apart and together. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 1988, 54, 1031–1039. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Diener, E.; Eunkook, M.S.; Richard, E.; Smith, H.L. Subjective Well-Being: Three Decades of Progress. Psychol. Bull. 1999, 125, 276–294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Kwan, V.S.; Bond, M.H.; Singelis, T.M. Pancultural explanations for life satisfaction: Adding relationship harmony to self-esteem. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 1997, 73, 1038–1051. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Kollamparambil, U. Happiness, happiness inequality and income dynamics in South Africa. J. Happiness Stud. 2000, 21, 201–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Chen, Y.; Fu, D.; Ye, X. Income comparison and happiness: The role of fair income distribution. Aust. Econ. Pap. 2021, 60, 41–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Van Campen, C.; Iedema, J. Are persons with physical disabilities who participate in society healthier and happier? Structural equation modelling of objective participation and subjective well-being. Qual. Life Res. 2007, 16, 635–645. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Dursun, B.; Cesur, R. Transforming lives: The impact of compulsory schooling on hope and happiness. J. Popul. Econ. 2016, 29, 911–956. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Evrensel, A.Y. Happiness, economic freedom and culture. Appl. Econ. Lett. 2015, 22, 683–687. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Ficarra, L.; Rubino, M.J.; Morote, E.-S. Does Organizational Culture Affect Employee Happiness? J. Leadersh. Instr. 2020, 19, 38–47. [Google Scholar]
  22. Lee, H.; Heo, S. Arts and cultural activities and happiness: Evidence from Korea. Appl. Res. Qual. Life 2021, 16, 1637–1651. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Wheatley, D.; Bickerton, C. Measuring changes in subjective well-being from engagement in the arts, culture and sport. J. Cult. Econ. 2019, 43, 421–442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Hodder, I. Cultural heritage rights: From ownership and descent to justice and well-being. Anthropol. Q. 2010, 83, 861–882. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Xia, Y. Impact of green space on residents’ wellbeing: A case study of the Grand Canal (Hangzhou section). Front. Public Health 2023, 11, 1146892. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Calma, T.; Dudgeon, P.; Bray, A. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander social and emotional wellbeing and mental health. Aust. Psychol. 2017, 52, 255–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Ateca-Amestoy, V.; Villarroya, A.; Wiesand, A.J. Heritage engagement and subjective well-being in the European Union. Sustainability 2021, 13, 9623. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Sayer, F. A Mechanism for Measuring the Impact of Heritage Practice on Well-Being. In The Oxford Handbook of Public Heritage Theory and Practice; Oxford Academic: Oxford, UK, 2018; p. 387. [Google Scholar]
  29. Darvill, T.; Heaslip, V.; Barrass, K. Heritage and well-being: Therapeutic places, past and present. In Routledge Handbook of Well-Being; Routledge: London, UK, 2018; pp. 112–123. [Google Scholar]
  30. Koldijk, L. Cultural Heritage Proximity and Its Effect on Subjective Well-Being: A Case Study in Groningen, The Netherlands. Ph.D. Thesis, Rijksuniversiteit Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  31. Wu, D.; Shen, C.; Wang, E.; Hou, Y.; Yang, J. Impact of the perceived authenticity of heritage sites on subjective well-being: A study of the mediating role of place attachment and satisfaction. Sustainability 2019, 11, 6148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Yolal, M.; Gursoy, D.; Uysal, M.; Karacaoğlu, S. Impacts of festivals and events on residents’ well-being. Ann. Tour. Res. 2016, 61, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Steiner, L.; Frey, B.; Hotz, S. European capitals of culture and life satisfaction. Urban Stud. 2015, 52, 374–394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Packer, J.; Ballantyne, J. The impact of music festival attendance on young people’s psychological and social well-being. Psychol. Music. 2011, 39, 164–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Yu, J.; Li, H.; Xiao, H. Are authentic tourists happier? Examining structural relationships amongst perceived cultural distance, existential authenticity, and wellbeing. Int. J. Tour. Res. 2020, 22, 144–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Jokić, B.; Purić, D. Does cultural participation make us happier? Favorite leisure activities and happiness in a representative sample of the Serbian population. Kultura 2020, 169, 377–393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Trupp, M.D.; Bignardi, G.; Chana, K.; Specker, E.; Pelowski, M. Can a brief interaction with online, digital art improve wellbeing? A comparative study of the impact of online art and culture presentations on mood, state-anxiety, subjective wellbeing, and loneliness. Front. Psychol. 2022, 13, 782033. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Mak, H.W.; Coulter, R.; Fancourt, D. Associations between community cultural engagement and life satisfaction, mental distress and mental health functioning using data from the UK Household Longitudinal Study (UKHLS): Are associations moderated by area deprivation? BMJ Open 2021, 11, e045512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Rapacciuolo, A.; Perrone Filardi, P.; Cuomo, R.; Mauriello, V.; Quarto, M.; Kisslinger, A.; Savarese, G.; Illario, M.; Tramontano, D. The Impact of Social and Cultural Engagement and Dieting on Well-Being and Resilience in a Group of Residents in the Metropolitan Area of Naples. J. Aging Res. 2016, 2016, 4768420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Bertacchini, E.; Bolognesi, V.; Venturini, A. The Happy Cultural Omnivore? Exploring the Relationship between Cultural Consumption Patterns and Subjective Well-Being. IZA Discuss. Pap. 2021, 22, 128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Grossi, E.; Sacco, P.L.; Blessi, G.T.; Cerutti, R. The impact of culture on the individual subjective well-being of the Italian population: An exploratory study. Appl. Res. Qual. Life 2011, 6, 387–410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Ercsey, I.; Józsa, L. The effect of the perceived value of cultural services on the quality of life. Int. Rev. Public Nonprofit Mark. 2016, 13, 15–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Michalos, A.C. Arts and the quality of life: An exploratory study. Soc. Indic. Res. 2005, 71, 11–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Kristoffersen, I. Great expectations: Education and subjective wellbeing. J. Econ. Psychol. 2018; 66, 64–78. [Google Scholar]
  45. Kumar, A.; Olshavsky, R.W.; King, M.F. Exploring Alternative Antecedents of Customer Delight. J. Consum. Satisf. 2001, 14, 14–26. [Google Scholar]
  46. Cocozza, S.; Sacco, P.L.; Matarese, G.; Maffulli, G.D.; Maffulli, N.; Tramontano, D. Participation to leisure activities and well-being in a group of residents of Naples-Italy: The role of resilience. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 1895. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Brown, J.L.; MacDonald, R.; Mitchell, R. Are people who participate in cultural activities more satisfied with life? Soc. Indic. Res. 2015, 122, 135–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Wheatley, D.; Bickerton, C. Subjective well-being and engagement in arts, culture and sport. J. Cult. Econ. 2017, 41, 23–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Nowak-Olejnik, A.; Schirpke, U.; Tappeiner, U. A systematic review on subjective well-being benefits associated with cultural ecosystem services. Ecosyst. Serv. 2022, 57, 101467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Zheng, D.; Liang, Z.; Ritchie, B.W. Residents’ social dilemma in sustainable heritage tourism: The role of social emotion, efficacy beliefs and temporal concerns. J. Sustain. Tour. 2020, 28, 1782–1804. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Yi, X.; Fu, X.; Lin, V.S.; Xiao, H. Integrating authenticity, well-being, and memorability in heritage tourism: A two-site investigation. J. Travel Res. 2022, 61, 378–393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Sanagustín-Fons, M.V.; Tobar-Pesántez, L.B.; Ravina-Ripoll, R. Happiness and cultural tourism: The perspective of civil participation. Sustainability 2020, 12, 3465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Abbasian, S. Disparate Emotions as Expressions of Well-Being: Impact of Festival Participation from the Participants’ Subjective View. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2023, 20, 329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Hoang, T.D.T.; Brown, G.; Kim, A.K.J. Measuring resident place attachment in a World Cultural Heritage tourism context: The case of Hoi An (Vietnam). Curr. Issues Tour. 2020, 1, 2059–2075. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Ahn, Y.-j.; Kang, E.M.; Kiatkawsin, K.; Zielinski, S. Relationships between community festival participation, social capital, and subjective well-being in a cross-cultural context. Healthcare 2023, 11, 2361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Wellard, I. Body-reflexive pleasures: Exploring bodily experiences within the context of sport and physical activity. Sport Educ. Soc. 2012, 17, 21–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Huang, H.; Humphreys, B.R. Sports participation and happiness: Evidence from US microdata. J. Econ. Psychol. 2012, 33, 776–793. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Rillo-Albert, A.; Sáez de Ocáriz, U.; Costes, A.; Lavega-Burgués, P. From conflict to socio-emotional well-being. Application of the GIAM model through traditional sporting games. Sustainability 2021, 13, 7263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Filo, K.; Coghlan, A. Exploring the positive psychology domains of well-being activated through charity sport event experiences. Event Manag. 2016, 20, 181–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Armbrecht, J.; Andersson, T.D. The event experience, hedonic and eudaimonic satisfaction and subjective well-being among sport event participants. J. Policy Res. Tour. Leis. Events 2019, 4, 457–477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Lavega-Burgués, P.; Bortoleto, M.A.C.; Pic, M. Editorial: Traditional Sporting Games and Play: Enhancing Cultural Diversity, Emotional Well-Being, Interpersonal Relationships and Intelligent Decisions. Front. Psychol. 2021, 12, 766625. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Downward, P.; Rasciute, S. Does sport make you happy? An analysis of the well-being derived from sports participation. Int. Rev. Appl. Econ. 2011, 25, 331–348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Gick, M.L. Singing, health and well-being: A health psychologist’s review. Psychomusicology Music Mind Brain 2011, 21, 176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Ghetti, C.M. Active music engagement with emotional-approach coping to improve well-being in liver and kidney transplant recipients. J. Music. Ther. 2011, 48, 463–485. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Papinczak, Z.E.; Dingle, G.A.; Stoyanov, S.R.; Hides, L.; Zelenko, O. Young people’s uses of music for well-being. J. Youth Stud. 2015, 18, 1119–1134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Evans, A.S. Preserving the consciousness of a nation: Promoting “Gross National Happiness” in Bhutan through her rich oral traditions. Storytell. Self Soc. 2006, 2, 87–105. [Google Scholar]
  67. Giovanis, E. Participation in socio-cultural activities and subjective well-being of natives and migrants: Evidence from Germany and the UK. Int. Rev. Econ. 2021, 68, 423–463. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Qiu, Q.; Zheng, T.; Xiang, Z.; Zhang, M. Visiting intangible cultural heritage tourism sites: From value cognition to attitude and intention. Sustainability 2019, 12, 132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Suzuki, S. Wisdom on the Pursuit of Happiness in Daily Life. Christmas Celebrations in the German Family. Paragrana 2013, 22, 235–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Sektani, H.H.J.; Khayat, M.; Mohammadi, M.; Roders, A.P. Factors linking perceptions of built heritage conservation and subjective wellbeing. Herit. Soc. 2023, 16, 52–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Sherry, J.; Curtis, A.; Mendham, E.; Toman, E. Cultural landscapes at risk: Exploring the meaning of place in a sacred valley of Nepal. Glob. Environ. Change 2018, 52, 190–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Najafi, M.; Shariff, M.K.B.M. The Concept of Place and Sense of Place in Architectural Studies. Int. J. Humanit. Soc. Sci. 2011, 80, 1100. [Google Scholar]
  73. Rollero, C.; Piccoli, N.D. Place attachment, identification and environment perception: An empirical study. J. Environ. Psychol. 2010, 30, 198–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Grossi, E.; Tavano Blessi, G.; Sacco, P.L. Magic moments: Determinants of stress relief and subjective wellbeing from visiting a cultural heritage site. Cult. Med. Psychiatry 2019, 43, 4–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  75. Chatterjee, H.J.; Camic, P.M. The Health and Well-Being Potential of Museums and Art Galleries; Taylor & Francis: Abingdon, UK, 2015; pp. 183–186. [Google Scholar]
  76. Ander, E.; Thomson, L.; Noble, G. Heritage, health and well-being: Assessing the impact of a heritage focused intervention on health and well-being. Int. J. Herit. Stud. 2013, 19, 229–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Wallace, C.; Beel, D. Researching Happiness. In How Cultural Heritage Can Contribute to Community Development and Wellbeing; Bristol University Press: Bristol, UK, 2021; pp. 133–154. [Google Scholar]
  78. Belver, M.H.; Ullán, A.M.; Avila, N.; Noreno, C.; Hernandez, C. Art museums as a source of well-being for people with dementia: An experience in the Prado Museum. Arts Health 2018, 10, 213–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Fagerholm, N.; Martín-López, B.; Torralba, M.; Oteros-Rozas, E.; Lechner, A.M.; Bieling, C.; Olafsson, A.S.; Albert, C.; Raymond, C.M. Perceived contributions of multifunctional landscapes to human well-being: Evidence from 13 European sites. People Nat. 2020, 2, 217–234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Ryu, H.-C. Expanding the Concept of Cultural Heritage Utilization and Classifying the Types. Munhwajae Korean J. Cult. Herit. Stud. 2014, 47, 4–17. [Google Scholar]
  81. Costa, M.L.; Estêvão, G. Design and Culture in the Making of Happiness. In Proceedings of the Advances in Design, Music and Arts: 7th Meeting of Research in Music, Arts and Design, EIMAD, Castelo Branco, Portugal, 14–15 May 2020. [Google Scholar]
  82. Puig, A.; Lee, S.M.; Goodwin, L.; Sherrard, D. The efficacy of creative arts therapies to enhance emotional expression, spirituality, and psychological well-being of newly diagnosed Stage I and Stage II breast cancer patients: A preliminary study. Arts Psychother. 2006, 33, 218–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 16 10955 g001
Figure 1. Schematic diagram of the path of influence of cultural heritage on subjective well-being under the demand theory.
Figure 1. Schematic diagram of the path of influence of cultural heritage on subjective well-being under the demand theory.
Sustainability 16 10955 g001
Sustainability 16 10955 g002
Figure 2. Schematic diagram of the path of influence of cultural heritage-derived activities on subjective well-being.
Figure 2. Schematic diagram of the path of influence of cultural heritage-derived activities on subjective well-being.
Sustainability 16 10955 g002
Table 1. Channels for the Impact of Cultural Heritage Derivative Activities on subjective well-being.
Table 1. Channels for the Impact of Cultural Heritage Derivative Activities on subjective well-being.
TypesFormsChannelsEffectRelated Literature
Undifferentiatedheritage tourismquality of life+/−Steiner (2015); Medet Yolal (2016) [32,33]
healthnil
subjective emotions+Jan Packer (2011) [34]
interpersonal relationships+Jan Packer (2011); Jibin Yu (2019) [34,35]
place attachment+Jibin Yu (2019) [35]
channel not mentionednil
Heritage Interactivequality of life+Jokić Biljana (2020) [36]
health+Jokić Biljana (2020) [36]
subjective emotions+Hei Wan Mak (2021); MacKenzie D. Trupp (2022) [37,38]
interpersonal relationships+Jokić Biljana (2020); Hei Wan Mak (2021) [36,37]
place attachmentnil
channel not mentioned+Antonio Rapacciuolo (2016) [39]
heritage goodquality of life+Bertacchini (2021) [40]
health+Enzo Grossi (2011); Bertacchini (2021) [40,41]
subjective emotions+Victoria Ateca-Amestoy(2016) [27]
interpersonal relationships+Ida Ercsey (2016); Victoria Ateca-Amestoy (2016); Bertacchini (2021) [27,40,42]
place attachmentnil
channel not mentioned+Enzo Grossi (2011) [41]
Heritage educationquality of life+Alex C. Michalos (2017) [43]
health+/ØAlex C. Michalos (2017); Ingebjorg Kristoffersen (2018) [43,44]
subjective emotions+Kumar (2001) [45]
interpersonal relationshipsnil
place attachment
channel not mentioned+Daniel Wheatley(2019) [23]
Undifferentiated formquality of lifenil
health+Sergio Cocozza (2020) [46]
subjective emotions+Daniel Wheatley (2019) [23]
interpersonal relationships+Jennifer L. Brown (2015); Daniel Wheatley (2019) [23,47]
place attachmentnil
channel not mentioned+/−/ØAgnieszka Nowak-Olejnik (2005); Jennifer L. Brown (2015); Daniel Wheatley (2017) [47,48,49]
Intangible Cultural Heritageheritage tourismquality of life+/ØDanni Zheng (2020) [50]
healthnil
subjective emotions+M. Victoria Sanagustín-Fons (2020); Xiaoli Yi (2021) [51,52]
interpersonal relationships+M. Victoria Sanagustín-Fons (2020); Xiaoli Yi (2021); Saeid Abbasian (2023) [51,52,53]
place attachment+Thuy D. T. Hoang (2020) [54]
channel not mentioned+Young-joo Ahn (2023) [55]
Heritage Interactivequality of lifenil
health+Haifang Huang (2012); Ian Wellard Ian (2012); [56,57]
subjective emotions+/−Ian Wellard Ian (2012); Kevin Filo (2016); John Armbrecht (2020); Pere Lavega-Burgués (2021); Aaron Rillo-Albert (2021) [56,58,59,60,61]
interpersonal relationships+Paul Downward (2011); Kevin Filo (2016) [59,62]
place attachmentnil
channel not mentioned
heritage goodquality of life
health+Mary L. (2011) [63]
subjective emotions+Puig (2006); Claire M. Ghetti (2011); Zoe E. Papinczak (2015) [64,65]
interpersonal relationships+A. Steven Evans (2006) [66]
place attachmentnil
channel not mentioned+Mary L. (2011); Eleftherios Giovanis (2021) [63,67]
Heritage educationquality of lifenil
health
subjective emotionsnilQihang Qiu (2020) [68]
interpersonal relationships+Suzuki (2013) [69]
place attachmentnil
channel not mentioned
Tangible Cultural Heritageheritage tourismquality of lifenil
health
subjective emotions+Sektani, Hawar Himdad J. (2023) [70]
interpersonal relationships+Najafi (2011); Jennifer Sherry (2018); Sektani, Hawar Himdad J. (2023) [70,71,72]
place attachment+Rollero (2010); Jennifer Sherry (2018); Sektani, Hawar Himdad J. (2023) [70,71,73]
channel not mentioned+Enzo Grossi (2019) [74]
Heritage Interactivequality of lifenil
health
subjective emotions+Erica E Ander (2013); Helen J. Chatterjee (2015); Beel (2021) [75,76,77]
interpersonal relationships+Helen J. Chatterjee (2015); Manuel H. Belver (2018); Beel (2021); Lee (2021) [22,75,77,78]
place attachmentnil
channel not mentioned
Heritage educationquality of life
health
subjective emotions
interpersonal relationships+Nora Fagerholm (2020) [79]
place attachmentnil
channel not mentioned+Sektani, Hawar Himdad J. (2023) [70]
Table 2. Comparison between the pathways of activities derived from tangible cultural heritage and those derived from intangible cultural heritage.
Table 2. Comparison between the pathways of activities derived from tangible cultural heritage and those derived from intangible cultural heritage.
Forms of Derivation of Cultural Heritage ActivitiesElementsEffect
Tangible Cultural HeritageIntangible Cultural HeritageUndifferentiated
heritage tourismquality of lifenil+/−+/−
healthnilnilnil
subjective emotions+++
interpersonal relationships+++
place attachment+++
element not mentioned++nil
heritage Interactivequality of lifenilnil+
healthnil++
subjective emotions++/−+
interpersonal relationships+++
place attachmentnilnilnil
element not mentionednilnil+
heritage goodquality of lifenilnil+
healthnil++
subjective emotionsnil++
interpersonal relationshipsnil++
place attachmentnilnilnil
element not mentionednil++
heritage educationquality of lifenilnil+
healthnilnil+/−/Ø
subjective emotionsnilnil+
interpersonal relationships++nil
place attachmentnilnilnil
element not mentioned+nil+
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

Kong, S.; Li, H.; Yu, Z. A Review of Studies on the Mechanisms of Cultural Heritage Influencing Subjective Well-Being. Sustainability 2024, 16, 10955. https://doi.org/10.3390/su162410955

AMA Style

Kong S, Li H, Yu Z. A Review of Studies on the Mechanisms of Cultural Heritage Influencing Subjective Well-Being. Sustainability. 2024; 16(24):10955. https://doi.org/10.3390/su162410955

Chicago/Turabian Style

Kong, Shaohua, Hanzun Li, and Ziyi Yu. 2024. "A Review of Studies on the Mechanisms of Cultural Heritage Influencing Subjective Well-Being" Sustainability 16, no. 24: 10955. https://doi.org/10.3390/su162410955

APA Style

Kong, S., Li, H., & Yu, Z. (2024). A Review of Studies on the Mechanisms of Cultural Heritage Influencing Subjective Well-Being. Sustainability, 16(24), 10955. https://doi.org/10.3390/su162410955

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