Next Article in Journal
Digital Transformation in the Cultural Heritage Sector and Its Impacts on Sustainable Regional Development in Peripheral Regions
Previous Article in Journal
Foresight for Sustainable Last-Mile Delivery: A Delphi-Based Scenario Study for Smart Cities in 2030
Previous Article in Special Issue
Enhancing Sustainable Tourism Through Virtual Reality: The Role of Collectable Experiences in Well-Being and Meaning in Life
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Public–Private Partnership for the Sustainable Development of Tourism Hospitality: Comparisons Between Italy and Saudi Arabia

1
Department of Architecture and Design, Effat University, 8482 Qasr Khouzam, Al-Nazlah Al-Yamaniyah, Jeddah 22332, Saudi Arabia
2
Sustainable Architecture Laboratory, Department of Architecture, College of Architecture and Design, Prince Sultan University, Riyadh 12435, Saudi Arabia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2025, 17(15), 6662; https://doi.org/10.3390/su17156662
Submission received: 6 June 2025 / Revised: 16 July 2025 / Accepted: 21 July 2025 / Published: 22 July 2025

Abstract

This study examines the role of public–private partnerships in promoting the sustainable development of travel destinations through a comparative analysis of two emblematic heritage-based hospitality projects: Dar Tantora in Al Ula, Saudi Arabia, and Sextantio Le Grotte della Civita in Matera, Italy. These case studies were analysed through both architectural–urban and economic–legal perspectives to highlight how public–private partnership models can support heritage conservation, community engagement, and responsible tourism development. A mixed-methods approach was employed, combining quantitative indicators—such as projected profitability, tourist volume, and employment—with qualitative insights from interviews with key stakeholders. The analysis reveals that while both models prioritise cultural authenticity and adaptive reuse, they differ significantly in funding structures, legal frameworks, and governance dynamics. Dar Tantora exemplifies a top-down, publicly funded model integrated into Saudi Arabia’s Vision 2030 strategy, whereas Sextantio reflects a bottom-up, private initiative rooted in social enterprise. The findings offer insights into how different public–private partnership configurations can foster sustainable tourism development, depending on local context, institutional frameworks, and strategic goals. The study contributes to the broader discourse on regenerative tourism, architectural conservation, and policy-driven heritage reuse.

1. Introduction

Over the past two decades, heritage tourism has emerged as a critical field of intersection between cultural preservation, urban revitalisation, and sustainable development. The growing number of UNESCO World Heritage Sites, now exceeding 1200 worldwide, underscores the global emphasis on conserving built heritage and ensuring its intergenerational transmission. However, the management of these heritage assets requires substantial financial resources and institutional capacity, which are often beyond the scope of national governments alone. In response, public–private partnerships have gained traction as a model to share responsibilities and leverage both public policy instruments and private sector investment to preserve, activate, and commercialise heritage resources. This is particularly evident in the tourism and hospitality sector, where public–private partnerships are increasingly used to develop boutique hotels and eco-lodges within historical buildings as a means to both protect and economically sustain architectural heritage.
As of July 2024, there are 1223 sites listed on the UNESCO World Heritage List worldwide, including those of national and local importance. This vast heritage received from the past and destined to be passed on to future generations requires a significant economic expenditure for its maintenance. For example, the Colosseum in Italy had a management cost of EUR 202 million for 2023. However, not all heritage sites can cover their management costs. For example, in 2022, the costs in Pompeii, Italy, exceeded the revenues.
Furthermore, the public apparatus is often unable to manage the significant tourist flows due to the lack of staff. For example, the Colosseum ticket office is entrusted to a private external body, CoopCulture. However, problems related to the management and conservation of heritage do not only concern Italy, which preserves over 20 UNESCO World Heritage sites, the majority of which are also found in other countries.
In most cases, there are two forms of heritage management: either the State manages the heritage autonomously and exclusively or grants it to private individuals through a collaboration known as a public–private partnership.
Despite the growing application of public–private partnerships in the development of heritage tourism, there is a significant lack of comparative studies that explore the impact of various legal, economic, and governance regimes on the implementation and results of such partnerships. Most of the literature on public–private partnerships is related to large infrastructures, transport, or urban renewal schemes, frequently without specific reference to culturally aware settings like historic urban centres. Additionally, studies that approach the topic of heritage public–private partnerships are primarily descriptive, without adequate consideration of the regulatory settings or the socio-cultural relationships determining project paths and community participation. Although some successful examples of the West in Europe have been reported, the literature is lacking in cross-cultural comparison, especially for emerging markets like the Arabian Peninsula, where the transformation of the tourism landscape is taking place in the form of ambitious national agendas. The present study fills the gap directly by subjecting the architectural, legal, economic, and social parameters of public–private partnerships in the field of heritage-based hospitality to comparative observation. It compares in comparative perspective two paradigmatic projects: Dar Tantora in Al Ula, Saudi Arabia—a top-down, publicly financed project in line with Saudi Vision 2030—and Sextantio in Matera, Italy—a bottom-up, privately motivated social business. Both projects are representative of different configurations of public–private partnership but share a standard reference to adaptive re-use, cultural authenticity, and tourism-led development. Through the observation of how legal arrangements, financial formulas, and social participation techniques model these results, the study brings deeper insight into the potential of the public–private partnership in enabling responsible tourism in vulnerable settings of the cultural heritage. The study’s contribution lies in its discussion of regenerative tourism, the adaptive re-use of architectural patrimony, and models of public–private partnership in culturally essential situations. With countries like Saudi Arabia looking increasingly to diversify their economies through cultural tourism, there is a pressing requirement for evidence-based models responsive to legal, institutional, and cultural variation. This paper contributes empirically to two comparative case studies and also theoretically to the literature of heritage governance, public–private partnership delivery, and context-aware conservation approaches. It also, through comparison of an explicit European context to an implicit but familiar Gulf state context, identifies cross-transferrable lessons and structural differences often ignored in comparative studies. It expands the range of analytical scope to include authenticity, community co-creation, and legal accountability alongside financial efficiency—all of which are important for equitable long-term cultural hospitality results. Through the paper, researchers, planners, and policymakers operating in cultural policy, tourism planning, and built cultural heritage management in different geographic and institutional settings are informed.
In particular, this research focuses on analysing public–private partnerships applied to the hotel sector in a heritage context for the sustainable development of a travel destination, with Dar Tantora in Al Ula, Saudi Arabia, as a case study.
It is essential to consider that this research on public–private partnerships in Saudi Arabia was difficult due to the lack of official financial data. Overall, the lack is brought about by the fast pace of building following the programme Saudi Vision 2030, where most of the projects of heritage tourism are in the initial phase and are managed through centralised organisations such as the Royal Commission for Al Ula. As such, detailed economic performance data is often unavailable for public disclosure, which is where estimates and secondary data are used to carry out comparative studies.
At the base of this study, there is the following research question:
To what extent can public–private partnerships contribute to the sustainable development of heritage tourism, and how do legal, institutional, and contextual factors influence their effectiveness across different models?
Here, travel destinations are heritage places wherein cultural, architectural, or archaeological heritage serves as the major draw. These destinations are framed through tourism methods that focus on the preservation, productive re-use, and effective adoption of cultural resources. Rather than considering heritage as a static setting, these destinations positively embed heritage as part of the tourism intent, bolstering cultural identity, generating local economic contributions, and achieving sustainable development through community engagement and place-based authenticity.
The theoretical foundation of this study is rooted in public–private partnership theory as applied to cultural infrastructure [1] and heritage value creation [2]. Public–private partnerships are conceptualised as hybrid governance mechanisms that combine public interest accountability with private sector efficiency. However, their application in cultural tourism requires adaptation to local governance contexts, heritage legislation, and societal values. By aligning public–private partnership arrangements with sustainability goals and regenerative tourism paradigms [2], this study contributes to the theorisation of public–private partnerships as a tool for balancing commodification and conservation in culturally sensitive environments.
This study draws upon theoretical frameworks concerning heritage governance, including the work of Graham and Howard [3] on authorised heritage discourse, and the models of public–private partnership typologies by Hodge and Greve [1], who distinguish between institutional and contractual public–private arrangements. While public–private partnerships have been widely applied in infrastructure, their role in heritage hospitality remains underexplored, especially when comparing centralised, state-driven systems (Saudi Arabia) to decentralised, community-led models (Italy). This highlights a significant research gap in the comparative application of public–private partnership frameworks in the field of sustainable tourism and cultural preservation. Our study aims to fill this gap by offering a comparative, context-sensitive analysis of two emblematic cases within different legal, economic, and governance structures.
The article’s structure is as follows: Section 2 is dedicated to the literature review. Section 4 focuses on the results, while Section 5 presents a comparative analysis of the two case studies. Then, Section 6 focuses on the discussions, and Section 7 and Section 8 discuss conclusions and limitations, respectively.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Public–Private Partnership in Heritage Management

Public–private partnership is a formal agreement between government units and private sector organisations that sets forth shared responsibilities for funding, management, and operating public interest projects. In heritage tourism, public–private partnerships aim for private investment and efficiency with protection of public cultural values and conservation responsibility.
The UN tourism definition [4], underlines the spatial and temporal aspect of the phenomenon, while McIntosh & Goeldner [5] speaking of “The sum of the phenomena and relationships arising from the interaction of tourists, business suppliers, host governments and host communities in the process of attracting and hosting these tourists and other visitors” underline the set of activities connected to it.
Over the last century, tourism has been viewed in terms of economic growth [6,7,8], often based on profits [9,10] and its contribution to GDP [11]. However, over the last quarter of a century, attention has shifted to aspects of sustainability, not just growth [12,13,14].
Public–private partnerships in tourism have been studied through various lenses: institutional efficiency [1], stakeholder engagement [15], and public accountability [16]. However, their adaptation to heritage contexts requires attention to socio-cultural values, regulatory settings, and conservation priorities. Studies such as those by Hodge & Greve, [1] and Žuvela et al. [17] show that successful public–private partnerships must navigate tensions between economic viability and cultural integrity. This review positions public–private partnerships not merely as financial tools but as governance mechanisms shaping heritage futures.

2.2. Public–Private Partnership and Sustainable Tourism Development

Sustainability is “the development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” [18].
This holistic definition brings together different perspectives, including economic, social, and environmental ones, which have converged in the Sustainable Development Goals [19,20,21,22] and the creation of indicators [23,24,25], also applied to the tourism sector. Making tourism sustainable and more holistic means considering these pressure factors systematically [26,27,28], based on analysing feedback and potential impacts [29].
The objectives of sustainability can be achieved through the development of public–private partnerships [30,31] also in the tourism sector [32,33], especially where the need for funds is greater [34], for project control strategies, firms engagement, co-creation of values [35], but also for monitoring the accessibility of tourist flows to a tourist site [36] and for the promotion of a destination [37,38,39,40] or service [41] as in the case of Portuguese cultural routes [42]. It encompasses various areas of tourism, including the economic [43], political [44], managerial [45], and cultural [46,47,48] aspects. Several studies have highlighted the contribution of public–private partnerships to the development of travel destinations, both from an economic and legal perspective. In terms of profitability, they have demonstrated a positive impact on the financial aspect of tourism infrastructure [49,50], which also encourages an increase in the annual number of tourists, closely tied to local economic vitality [50]. Additionally, tourists’ spending capacity serves as a key indicator for assessing the effectiveness of public–private partnerships in generating added value for local economies [51,52,53]. Other critical indicators include the average length of stay [54,55] and the number of employees involved [56,57], which reflect the employment and managerial impact of such partnerships. Beyond economic aspects, public–private partnerships are also crucial in achieving conservation goals related to both natural and cultural heritage [58,59,60], as well as enhancing accessibility to tourism resources [61,62]. Finally, destination enhancement projects demonstrate the strategic role of public–private partnerships in promoting inclusive and regenerative tourism development [63,64].

2.3. Applications of Public–Private Partnership in Hospitality Tourism

One of the cases in which public–private partnership emerges is the hotel sector, even if the latter is not necessarily linked to aspects of cultural tourism. Significant cases of public–private partnerships can be found in Girona, Spain, where the gastronomic sector has been revitalised through the involvement of private actors, including those in the hospitality sector, to promote the area’s excellence [65]. However, in Portugal, this approach in the hotel sector has been used to implement networking in the wellness area [66]. Unlike the first two cases, in Lagos, Nigeria, public–private partnership strategies have been introduced to improve hotel performance [67]. These cases, all irreducible to the hotel sector, highlight the transversality of public–private partnerships in applications even within the same field.

2.4. Governance Models and Heritage Asset Management

In the case of heritage tourism, asset management models tend to fall into three common types: fully public management, fully private management, and hybrid models like public–private partnerships. Each type carries unique advantages and specific drawbacks. Public management is frequently appreciated for prioritising conservation ethics, accessibility, and public accountability, but it is also subject to bureaucratic inefficiency, scant funds, and sluggish market responsiveness [68]. On the other hand, private management models tend to be superior in operational efficiency, innovation, and financial performance. Still, they are apt to put profits ahead of conservation objectives and risk omitting the locals or diluting cultural integrity. Public–private partnerships seek to harmonise the benefits of both sectors by taking advantage of public oversight and private finances; however, they are also subject to some deficiencies. Opponents point out that public–private partnerships could give rise to unbalanced power relationships, a lack of openness, or disproportionate benefit allocation, notably if legal protection and monitoring procedures are lacking [67]. As various scholars wish to remind us, success in any asset management model largely hinges on the surrounding circumstances, like legal frameworks, institutional capability, and engagement of stakeholders [32,34,35,44]. The present study draws on such findings to examine how various asset management structures, in two dissimilar case studies implemented through public–private partnerships, influence performance in the dimensions of heritage preservation, economic performance, and community engagement.

2.5. Justification of the Case Studies’ Selection

In light of what has just been observed, Saudi Arabia has been selected as a case study for three coexisting reasons: (1) the country presents itself as one of the most sustainable countries [69,70,71], especially in the case of heritage sites, as seen in Al Ula [72,73]; (2) the hotel sector is going to be developed in a sustainable way [74]; (3) there is a focus on sustainability in heritage hospitality [75].
The selected case study is Dar Tantora in Al Ula (Saudi Arabia), while for the comparative analysis, Sextantio in Matera (Italy) (Figure 1 and Figure 2).
The selections of Dar Tantora in Al Ula (Saudi Arabia) and Sextantio Le Grotte della Civita in Matera (Italy) as key case studies are intentional and strategic, due to the potential they both have to illustrate public–private partnership regimes in the form of heritage-based hospitality projects. In preference to conducting a generalised comparison between Italy and Saudi Arabia, the study is grounded on a project-level comparative approach. The reason for taking such an approach is the wish to see insight into how public–private partnership regimes work in use—in particular legal, socio-economic, and cultural conditions—just as much as to offer an interpretative lens through which broader institutional and policy regimes are to be interpreted. Both hotels were selected because they provide paradigmatic examples of how public–private partnerships are being used to rebrand heritage tourism in two very different regimes of governance and development. Dar Tantora is the focus of a top-down, state-led programme closely aligned to Saudi Vision 2030, which places national investment first and environmental responsiveness and cultural renewal in second place. Sextantio Le Grotte della Civita, by contrast, is the result of bottom-up, privately funded social entrepreneurship within the decentralised Italian planning regime and cultural conservation acts. Both projects bring architecture, tourism, and cultural policy together, but through different economic strategies, legal instruments, and models of stakeholder engagement. Studies of the two hotels provide particular practical insight into how public–private partnerships do (or muddy the waters of) sustainable goals of environmental betterment in cultural world heritage settings. Furthermore, comparing two real-world applications takes the research away from the theoretical discourse to the operational dynamics, benefits, limitations, and transferability of different models of public–private partnerships in tourism-based urban renewal.
This multi-scalar comparative method, grounded in architectural, legal, and economic analysis, is structured to reflect the embeddedness of public–private partnerships within national contexts while achieving analytical nuance through project-specific observation. The findings of the representative examples thus gained might then be applied to inform otherwise similar world settings where heritage development projects converge concerning sustainability, national identity, and tourism.
Located in the context of Al Ula’s sustainable tourism strategy, Dar Tantora (Figure 1) is an outstanding example of the reuse of architectural heritage. The project, which is located within a historically significant urban fabric, is an exceptional instance of how public–private partnerships can preserve and adapt vernacular architecture in compliance with Saudi Arabia’s Vision 2030 [76,77,78]. With the objective to create an impression of place and continuity within the historic urban setting, the project combines environmentally friendly construction techniques, local materials, and traditional Najdi building traditions in Saudi Arabia [79,80,81,82,83,84,85]. The albergo diffuso paradigm, first created in Italy and effectively employed in Matera’s Sextantio project, is reflected in Dar Tantora’s architectural style. Both examples highlight low-impact interventions and the revival of neglected architectural components. Urban areas that have been neglected and abandoned for many years can be revitalised without compromising their uniqueness by combining heritage safeguarding with tourist services [72].
The role of architecture is emphasised in the extensive literature in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf Regions [86,87,88], particularly where the historical building structures’ material and morphological properties are respected in the case of urban regeneration [89]. The restoration of mudbrick traditional buildings, realised with the implementation of passive design, is the key principle used for the intervention at Dar Tantora. The interventions aimed at promoting sustainable strategies to reduce the environmental footprint, along with enhancing the local value and cultural identity of the site. This approach emphasises the role of context-sensitive architectural intervention in the process of transforming historic landscapes to sustainable reuses [2,90,91]. Additionally, the revitalisation of open public spaces, infrastructure, and cultural areas for interaction promoted through the adaptive reuse of historical assets constitutes the area’s contributions in the urban regeneration framework. These strategies align with similar models’ success in other UNESCO World Heritage Sites [92], where architecture is an amplifier for people-driven development and an archive of memory for the community [2].
Recent heritage interventions in Saudi Arabia, including in Al Ula, demonstrate a national effort to revamp abandoned historic settlements into thriving nodes for sustainable tourism aligned with Vision 2030 [76,77,78]. The Dar Tantora project in Al Ula is a prime example, wherein a public–private partnership has enabled adaptive reutilisation of traditional Najdi architecture within a once-abandoned cityscape. The project incorporates passive environmental design strategies, local materials, and cultural integrity to formulate an eco-hospitality model that conserves architectural heritage while energising local economies. Like Italy’s Sextantio project at Matera, the Al Ula project illustrates how architectural regeneration is possible as a catalyst for tourism-driven municipality revival without eroding cultural identity. The strategy is aligned with recent Saudi attempts to refocus heritage as a driver of economic diversification, environmental sustainability, and community uplift, evident in other heritage-driven projects like Ushaiger Village and Darb Zubaydah [75,84,88]. All these projects collectively point to the strategic transition towards regenerative tourism models valorising cultural memory and local participation through sustainable design systems and governance structures.
Saudi Arabia has, in recent years, embraced a context-sensitive, multidisciplinary heritage preservation strategy [93] that prioritises sustainability, community participation, and tourist-driven reactivation [94]. The approaches to conservation tend to centre around minimal intervention techniques, applying traditional materials and techniques—mudbrick restoration, dry stone masonry, and passive cooling systems—maintaining the integrity of historical structures without advancing environmental degradation [95,96]. Examples include the project at Dar Tantora in Al Ula [97], where traditional Najdi architecture is reconstructed through local capabilities and environmentally friendly construction processes, preserving cultural tradition and low ecological footprints. These works are increasingly supported in the form of larger frameworks for community participation, including training initiatives, job opportunities, and assistance to local artisans, inducing a sense of proprietorship and long-term custodianship [98]. Public–private partnerships are also adopted in a critical position, directing investment to these heritage places and linking economic viability to cultural preservation. With these integrated approaches, Saudi Arabia is not just preserving its built heritage but also developing it into a resilient resource that promotes social inclusion and sustainable tourism growth.
Similar aspects emerge in the Sextantio (Figure 2), a non-profit organisation that aims to develop abandoned rural areas through hospitality projects [99]. There are projects in Matera (Italy), followed by those in the Abruzzo region (Italy) and on the Nkombo Island (Rwanda). However, this research focuses on the initial project of the Albergo Diffuso Sextantio “Le Grotte della Civita” in Matera. This project involves the restoration and rehabilitation of 18 caves and communal space within an ancient rock church. This project’s originality lies in its management’s sustainable [100] and profit-generating manner [101], which deeply involves the local community [102]. This pilot project successfully created multiple businesses and established a framework well known as the “albergo diffuso” [103,104,105], which was subsequently introduced in various parts of the globe [106,107,108].

3. Methodology

The methodology is based on mixed methods [109] focused on comparative case studies [110,111]. The quantitative analysis involves collecting existing data on profitability, the number of tourists, spending capacity, average stay, and job opportunities to identify each hotel’s economic impact and generated revenue. Data are determined for the period from 1 January 2024 to 31 December 2024, using publicly available data [97,99]. It is important to note that all financial and tourism-related data (e.g., profitability, tourist volume, average stay, and spending capacity) are projections based on available public sources and industry benchmarks. These figures do not reflect historical performance but serve as indicative estimates for the 2024 calendar year to support comparative analysis. Conversation-method interviews (Appendix A) represent the qualitative data highlighted by the directors of two selected hotels in Al Ula and Italy, who discuss the three factors of conservation, accessibility, and enhancement to explore how managerial strategies can harmonise both needs and duties. The selection of the sites of Dar Tantora in Al Ula, Saudi Arabia, and Sextantio in Matera, Italy, is based on four reasons:
  • They are UNESCO World Heritage Sites. Al Ula was listed in 2008 [112], while Matera was listed in 1993 [113].
  • They were initially used for residential purposes: the Al Ula buildings and the Matera grottos were used for living purposes in different historical moments [114,115].
  • They were initially abandoned and restored after a change in use [115,116].
  • They were restored and reused for hospitality purposes. The analysed buildings in both sites were converted for hospitality use [117,118].
The comparative analysis followed Yin’s [119] method for embedded case studies, comparing across three axes: legal framework, architectural intervention, and community engagement.
The qualitative data were obtained from interviews and were analysed by subjecting them to a thematic analysis approach to identify recurring patterns, differences, similarities, and lessons related to conservation strategies, accessibility, and cultural enhancement. For the quantitative analysis, the variables used to develop economic projections—aforementioned profitability estimates, tourists’ volume, and average spend—were sourced from hotel official websites, publicly published reports, and current economic metrics related to the hotel sector in Saudi Arabia and Italy.
Data was collected through both semi-structured phone interviews between hotel representatives and desk research. The interviews took place between December 2024 and April 2025 and focused on managerial strategies, operational models, and conservation programmes. At the same time, secondary data were gathered from academic sources, sanctioned tourism reports, and internet sources like institutional websites, project reports, and newspapers. The additional sources helped to validate the qualitative results and provide the financial and operational estimates needed by the quantitative research. The multi-source data collection method yielded a broader and more reliable baseline for the comparative study, especially since there was no publicly available financial report from the Saudi case.
This paper adopts a mixed-method research approach, incorporating quantitative and qualitative inquiry to account for both economically measurable outcomes and contextual considerations underlying heritage-led tourism. The quantitative aspect focuses on economic markers—profitability, tourist numbers, average stay, tourist spend, and employment—taken from publicly released sources, governmental datasets, and industry norms. These were extrapolated to the 2024 calendar year to allow comparative economic impact assessment. The quantitative aspect complements the qualitative one, which employs semi-structured interviews from the directors of Dar Tantora and Sextantio, using a pre-defined protocol (Appendix A). The interviews accounted for managerial strategies for conservation of the cultural heritage, accessibility, and cultural enrichment. The transcribed replies were thematically coded to identify patterns among approaches to governance, community engagement, and sustainability. The combined methodological approach allows triangulation of the findings and improved knowledge on how public–private collaboration operates within two diverse socio-legal and architectural settings.

4. Results

4.1. Comparisons Between Architectural Interventions

4.1.1. Description of Dar Tantora

Dar Tantora The House Hotel, inaugurated in May 2024, is a landmark project situated in Al Ula Old Town, Saudi Arabia [120]. Designed by architect Shahira Fahmy and operated by Kerten Hospitality [121,122], the hotel comprises 30 rooms meticulously restored within a cluster of 12th-century mudbrick homes [122]. The intervention embodies a design philosophy rooted in sustainability and cultural authenticity, preserving the vernacular Najdi architecture while integrating contemporary hospitality standards. The restored structures emphasise minimal intervention and passive environmental strategies, maintaining the integrity of the historic urban fabric. The hotel offers a variety of immersive facilities and amenities, including Joontos, an upscale courtyard restaurant that serves traditional Saudi cuisine, and Maqha, a rooftop café with sweeping views of the ancient townscape. Wellness is a central component of the guest experience, with a spa offering treatments using locally sourced Saudi oils, a dedicated yoga and meditation studio, and an infinity pool. Dar Tantora also places a strong focus on cultural engagement, providing traditional breadmaking sessions, Arabic coffee ceremonies, and storytelling evenings to foster a deep connection between visitors and local heritage. Additional amenities such as a cigar lounge, vintage car tours to archaeological sites, and proximity to the vibrant Al Jadidah Arts District enrich the stay with opportunities for leisure, exploration, and cultural discovery. The project sets a benchmark for heritage-based hospitality in Saudi Arabia, blending conservation, community identity, and sustainable tourism.
During the interviews, some important themes emerged for the problematic balance between profitability and cultural preservation at Dar Tantora. One interesting dilemma is reconciling high-end hotel standards with the architectural constraints of classic Najdi architecture. In preference to intrusive remodelling, the project depends on passive environmental techniques and site-based aesthetic traditions to optimise the comfort of the guests while maintaining cultural authenticity. Public investment—most notably through the Royal Commission for Al Ula—was seen to be an essential enabling factor, enabling the hotel to optimise long-term cultural value and community fit in preference to short-term financial return. Interview comments also highlighted how, while minimising financial risk through the funding model used, there are difficulties in maintaining year-round tourist activity and securing employment. Community outreach is a key aspect of the project’s vision, as evident in its descriptions, which include training schemes, craft exercises, and partnerships with in situ craftspeople. This approach integrates cultural transmission into the visitor’s experience. In Table 1, the values are projected for the upcoming 2024 tourist season and should be interpreted as indicative estimates rather than confirmed financial data.

4.1.2. Description of Sextantio

Sextantio Le Grotte della Civita is a pioneering hospitality venture in the centre of the Sassi district of Matera that revitalises heritage tourism in the form of adaptive reuse of prehistoric cave abodes. A 2009 launch by Italian businessman Daniele Kihlgren saw the hotel opened under the albergo diffuso concept. This pathbreaking practice disperses guestrooms throughout a historic town but keeps intact its original urban fabric [101,103]. The property combines 18 rooms hewn into the side of the rocky hillside with others that date as far back as prehistoric and medieval times [113].
The building work is a philosophy of extreme authenticity that respects the original monastically spare atmospheres of the original buildings by keeping modern intrusions to a minimum. Rooms receive candlelit illumination and individually hand-crafted furnishings according to local traditions, with such modern comforts as underfloor heating and freestanding bathtubs discreetly introduced. Public spaces at the hotel range from a 13th-century rock-hewn church reused as a communal dining and events space, where diners indulge in locally prepared cuisine by candlelight.
Sextantio strongly focuses on cultural sustainability with a commitment to reinvesting profits towards preserving local heritage and building up the local communities. Sextantio works intimately with local artisans, employs regional and local organic foodstuffs, and promotes social inclusion by providing employment and skills training to local people. The initiative is renowned all around the world for its low-impact architecture and socially responsible tourism practices. It presents an experience that reconciles past and present with an in-depth sense of harmony with the one-of-a-kind cultural context of Matera. The results of the interview also unveiled an original approach in Sextantio, where financial solidity is coupled with the safeguard of cultural patrimony through a community-oriented, socially driven model. Common to the trend of dedication to the retention of raw cave house authenticity without losing cultural surroundings came the avoidance of luxury additions in preference for minimal intervention, native material use, and crafts-based contributions in the name of historic continuity. Revenues are invested in conservation initiatives and in projects for the benefit of the community, which shows the long view in which cultures are regarded to be revitalised by tourism rather than capitalised. Community participation is through long-term relationships within the crafts community, cultural common programming, and an in-place model of hospitality for civic inclusivity and civic pride. The model, in the qualitative outcome, solidifies the picture of tourism functioning as a regenerative instrument based on local identity. In Table 2, the pricing shown is estimated based on seasonal trends and full occupancy assumptions for 2024, not on verified historical revenues.

5. Comparative Analysis

Table 3 presents the adaptive reuse strategies employed by Al Ula’s Dar Tantora in Saudi Arabia and Italy’s Matera’s Sextantio, showcasing regionally rooted yet philosophically compatible approaches to heritage preservation through adaptive reuse. Both projects have an abiding concern with authenticity achieved by minimal intervention: Dar Tantora draws on the use of local materials such as adobe and palm wood, whereas Sextantio employs the use of stone as well as natural plasters. Their preservation policies focus on cultural continuity—Dar Tantora by storytelling and craftsmanship, and Sextantio by the preservation of the original interior atmosphere free of modernist decoration.
Community participation is central to both models: Dar Tantora fosters local engagement through training and employment, whereas Sextantio involves residents in planning, service delivery, and cultural interpretation. In urban terms, Dar Tantora reintegrates abandoned structures within Al Ula’s historic core, while Sextantio respectfully restores the original layout of Matera’s old city fabric. Both initiatives embody sustainable environmental practices: Dar Tantora employs passive design to reduce energy consumption, and Sextantio minimises modern interventions to preserve its ecological and architectural footprint.
A more detailed inspection of the legal regimes reveals how they comprise the key to the two case studies’ governance, financial models, and approaches to conservation. For Dar Tantora, the Royal Commission for Al Ula (RCU) is subject to a centralised mission-oriented legal authority for the preservation of the cultural site through public investment, streamlined regulatory approvals, and consistency with national tourism aspirations of Vision 2030. The top-down legal setup for the organisation facilitates rapid rollouts of public–private partnerships, synchronised acts of conservation, and institutionalised community participation through training programmes. For Sextantio, the decentralised Italian legal system is encapsulated in the Legislative Decree n. 42/2004 is focused on the preservation of cultural heritage through the regulation of intervention, control, and compliance with conservation values. The system is tolerant of standalone private initiatives but imposes greater restrictions on physical intervention to encourage minimal intervention and authenticity. For both regimes, there is a dominance of safeguarding the stock of the heritage. Still, the ensuing modalities of operations are varied: the first enabling publicly facilitated exponential scaling of the site, the second, slow, community-driven, and compliance-based growth.
Tourism in Dar Tantora is anchored in community benefit and cultural conservation within a public–private partnership framework in line with Vision 2030 of Saudi Arabia and the proximity of the UNESCO property of Hegra. In contrast, Sextantio is a socially responsible private enterprise providing culturally immersive tourism within a property of UNESCO World Heritage status. Both governance arrangements adopt a common tenet of sustainable tourism underpinned by architectural heritage and local culture.
  • Dar Tantora: Adaptive reuse, Najdi architecture, traditional materials (adobe, palm wood), passive design, cultural storytelling, public–private partnership, community engagement (training, employment), located near UNESCO site Hegra.
  • Sextantio: Albergo diffuso model, troglodyte architecture, use of stone and plaster, low-impact restoration, cultural immersion, social enterprise model, UNESCO-listed Matera.
The quantitative data on the two hotels highlight a series of data, particularly in the convergence on the profitability of the two accommodation facilities and the greater profitability of Dar Tantora compared to Sextantio. However, it must be clarified that these financial comparisons are based on projected data for the 2024 period and not on actual performance data. This factor is also due (but not exclusively) to the greater number of rooms in the former compared to the latter. Dar Tantora has 30 rooms, while Sextantio has 18. It means the minimum occupancy (1 pax) of all available rooms (30 for Tar Tantora and 18 for Sextantio) is 10,000 to 6570. However, three significant divergences emerge on three crucial aspects. First, the average stay at Dar Tantora is 1/2 nights, while at Sextantio it is 2/3 nights. Second, the costs of the rooms vary significantly: the average price of a room at Tar Tantora is EUR600 per night, while at Sextantio, the cost for the same service is EUR400 per night (extra services, such as the spa, restaurant, and shuttle, have not been considered). Thirdly, there is a significant figure in the relationship between the number of employees and the number of rooms: at Dar Tantora, the number of employees for a structure with 30 rooms is 25/35 people, while at Sextantio, a hotel with 18 rooms, it is 20/30 (Table 4).
Both sites are focused on the restoration of existing buildings. However, in Dar Tantora, there is an attempt to reconcile heritage conservation and tourism development. In Matera, the focus is on marginalised and vernacular communities, with restoration practices implemented following local regulations. In both sites, there is also a predominance of public buildings. However, in Meta, it is possible to visit only private buildings.
In contrast, Dar Tantora periodically organises tours for non-customers within some areas of the private structures. In Dar Tantora, heritage is valorised through Founding, collaboration, and facilitation provided by the Government (national). It includes collaboration with a local tourism brand, as well as collaboration with local artisans and participation in event and festival organisation. On the contrary, in Sextantio, the promotion is entrusted to private capital, excluding significant public funding and strategic partnerships. It is in light of the greater autonomy in managing funds (Table 4).

6. Discussion

The sustainability of heritage tourism increasingly depends on effective collaborations between the public and private sectors. In particular, this research is based on the investigation through a comparative case study of Dar Tantora and Sextantio, two heritage-based hotels that represent the potential of public–private partnerships in fostering sustainable tourism. Public–private partnerships can strike a balance between economic growth and heritage conservation, thereby contributing to the environmental, economic, and social aspects of sustainable development.
Both case studies demonstrate a different approach to viewing heritage solely as a cultural asset, recognising it as a holistic asset for regenerative tourism and community revitalisation. It aligns with the concept of “regenerative tourism” proposed by Bellato et al. [2], emphasising community engagement, low environmental impact, and long-term economic inclusivity. So, although Dar Tantora and Sextantio operate under different governance structures—private-public partnerships and private social enterprises—both achieve sustainability by adopting context-sensitive architectural restoration, local materials, and culturally rooted experiences.
Three main priorities emerged from this research: heritage conservation, economic growth, and community engagement.
First, Dar Tantora’s development within the ancient mudbrick fabric of Al Ula’s old town represents a model where the Saudi government, via the Royal Commission for Al Ula, partners with private hospitality operators. It aligns with Saudi Vision 2030s aim to diversify the economy while preserving cultural heritage [76]. In particular, the restoration emphasises vernacular Najdi architecture, passive environmental strategies, and the reuse of local materials, including adobe and palm wood. These interventions reflect best practices in sustainable architecture, aligning with literature from El-Khoury et al. [123] on “mud as a living material”. In contrast, Sextantio in Matera employs the “albergo diffuso” model, which disperses hospitality across restored caves and medieval structures, with restoration led by a private entity. Sextantio’s philosophy of extreme authenticity preserves original atmospheres and materials, eschewing modern intrusions. Both projects show the importance of heritage conservation [58,75]. Although the two cases differ in their legal aspects, both initiatives maintain the integrity of their historical urban fabrics, demonstrating how architectural interventions within public–private partnership frameworks can harmonise economic utility with preservation. This approach counters the dichotomy of tourism as a threat or a saviour to heritage sites [91].
Secondly, both Dar Tantora and Sextantio are oriented towards high-spending targets. However, their economic structures differ significantly. Dar Tantora generates higher daily revenue due to its room capacity and premium pricing, although its average stay is shorter compared to Sextantio. Sextantio, though smaller in scale, achieves comparable profitability through consistent occupancy and reduced operating overhead, supported by community-based operations [101]. It demonstrates the necessity of continually developing the attractiveness and tourist appeal to enhance the travel experience beyond the original features of heritage buildings. Under this lens, public–private partnership in Saudi Arabia offers legal and financial advantages for heritage hospitality enterprises. For example, Dar Tantora benefits mainly from public funding, which enhances investor confidence and accountability. This legal framework facilitates a “triple bottom line” approach that encompasses sustainability, profitability, and cultural integrity. Sextantio, on the other hand, demonstrates how legal provisions in Italy [124] can support adaptive reuse projects, albeit with more decentralised support. The initiative’s social enterprise status enables it to reinvest profits in cultural and artisanal communities, aligning with the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals, which emphasise inclusive economic growth [69]. Both are interesting and opposing economic models. The first one is a top-down model based on the investment produced by the increase in profit and high spending capacity, which reduces the impact of tourism on heritage sites. Similar cases are evident in Msheireb Downtown Doha (Qatar), Saadiyat Island (Abu Dhabi) or Nur-Sultan (Kazakhstan) (Figure 3). The second is a bottom-up model based on the revitalisation of marginalised areas, oriented towards the enhancement and long-term permanence, as also seen in the cases of Guimarães (Portugal), Bilbao (Spain), and Berat (Albania) (Figure 4). However, the first model appears to be particularly interesting due to its capacity to utilise government funds, thereby reducing the initial cost of conservation, and for its ability to attract external investors who can create an exponential mechanism of growth rather than a balance between costs and revenue.
Third, both sites highlight the role of local communities: at Dar Tantora, training, job opportunities, and professional courses are organised to engage residents, considering that community involvement is essential for sustainable tourism [27]. Sextantio similarly integrates local craftspeople and cuisine into its operations, reinforcing cultural continuity and social inclusion. The “albergo diffuso” is defined as a “socially embedded hospitality model” that revitalises not only buildings but also cultural identity [103]. It has been demonstrated that heritage-based tourism, when grounded in local culture and co-managed with the community, enhances both authenticity and sustainability [64,107].
In particular, Saudi Arabia’s model, especially in Al Ula, is notable for integrating tourism with national strategies for heritage preservation, environmental design, and community empowerment—factors often absent in other public–private partnership initiatives. Similarly, Italy’s approach illustrates how long-term social entrepreneurship can complement policy-driven sustainability when aligned with local heritage values. As Hall [21] points out, sustainable tourism requires an “ecology of governance” where multiple actors—governments, businesses, and communities—interact within shared frameworks. Therefore, public–private partnerships offer a promising avenue for such interaction, especially when they prioritise heritage conservation and community involvement over short-term profits. It is essential to consider that the two models are compared along lines of future, and not past, financial performance. While Dar Tantora appears to offer a blueprint for greater profitability through its higher capacity, higher pricing model, and top-down investment model, these portrayals represent the exponential potential for growth rather than empirically determined results. The public investment-driven model employed in Saudi Arabia is strategically favourable in quick-tracking the construction of tourism by reducing the initial financial barriers for the private investors and maximising market visibility. However, the model could incur long-term costs of sustainability if it relies on continued public subsidies or if the anticipated level of tourists is not realised. The private investment-driven model of Sextantio, while less ambitious in scope, exhibits an enduring, community-based architecture that is geared to reinvest and to moderate the pace of growth. Both models carry the risks and dependencies of their own, which show the value of policy stability, confidence in the private sector, and appropriate forecasting to characterise successful public–private partnership strategies in cultural tourism.

Consumer Trends in Heritage Tourism

In recent years, consumer behaviour in tourism has increasingly favoured authenticity, immersive experiences, and responsible travel, especially within heritage contexts. Dar Tantora and Sextantio have responded to these shifts by offering culturally rooted experiences, traditional architecture, and locally sourced services that appeal to travellers seeking meaningful and sustainable stays. In particular, guests are interested in Dar Tantora’s cultural activities, such as workshops, bread-making classes, and Arabic coffee entertainment. Meanwhile, Sextantio attracts tourists for its minimal intervention design and historical ambience. These consumer trends reflect a growing interest in experiential tourism that preserves local culture and economies while preserving cultural integrity. As such, both hospitality models demonstrate how public–private partnerships can adapt to evolving consumer demands by integrating cultural identity and community value into the tourism offering.
The comparative analysis of Dar Tantora and Sextantio reveals that public–private partnerships serve as facilitators for the sustainable development of travel destinations, enhancing both their economic assets and preserving their historical and artistic value. Whether through government-led initiatives in Saudi Arabia or community-oriented enterprises in Italy, the public–private partnership demonstrates strong potential as a scalable model for sustainable tourism at a global level [66].

7. Conclusions

The results confirm that a public–private partnership is a crucial tool for the sustainable management of cultural heritage and the sustainable development of a travel destination. In particular, the research highlighted the presence of common elements and different aspects in the adoption of public–private partnerships as a management strategy. From the analysis of the two case studies, Dar Tantora (Saudi Arabia) and Sextantion (Italy), three crucial aspects emerge: the conservation of heritage, community engagement, and economic growth.
The first two are common and essential elements: the protection of heritage is considered a condition sine qua non of all the actions undertaken to preserve its authenticity and identity. Community participation is also considered a key aspect of the sustainable development plan for the tourist destination. However, in Saudi Arabia, the community is seen as a stakeholder, whereas in Italy, it is elevated to a key player. In any case, the crucial role and importance of the community appear evident and essential in the creation of a development plan and its implementation.
The case of economic growth is different. In this case, the models adopted differ: In Italy, the model is based on the balance between capital flows and conservation costs, primarily linked to private management. In Saudi Arabia, on the other hand, there is strong public support for covering the management costs of heritage (including private), which helps mitigate the costs by increasing profits and encouraging external private investments.
This model is more economically competitive because it has the potential for exponential growth. However, it depends on three main variables: (1) the consistency of public funding flows, (2) the consistency of private capital flows, and (3) the variation in conservation costs. This rapid growth could lead Saudi tourist destinations (and those of other contexts that adopt this model) to develop rapidly and sustainably provided that (1) the government considers the heritage as a public affair; (2) private interest is a facilitator and not a discriminant of the management of the assets; (3) the local community is actively represented among decision-makers. The policies of collaboration must be agreed upon with the social parties to prevent monopolies and exclusive uses by the private sector, ensuring that the common good remains a shared priority. Given that the financial data presented in the study are forward-looking projections for 2024, further empirical verification through future operational reporting is recommended.
It is important to emphasise here that the economic efficiency and growth potential of the Saudi public–private model are based on future data and qualitative findings, but not on confirmed past performance. Therefore, the achieved model for Dar Tantora must be considered a design pattern for scaling and long-term impact facilitated through favourable public support and invested funds. Even though the top-down model might hold the potential for exponential growth, the success of the approach will depend on the stability of the funding mechanism, demand in the market, and continued inclusion of the community. For these reasons, the inferences drawn in the study must be considered in terms of results meant but not ultimate measurements of performance. It will be crucial in the future to undertake longitudinal studies and access operational data to validate these initial findings empirically.
Therefore, the research confirms that public–private partnership success is achieved if heritage conservation and community engagement are embedded as non-negotiable pillars. At the same time, an economic asset is defined by the availability of local funding.
Consequently, the necessity of four actionable tools emerged: (1) institutionalisation of inclusive governance to institutionalise community co-decision mechanisms to ensure long-term participation; (2) balance incentives and safeguards for private investors, pairing tax breaks or grants with enforceable conservation targets; (3) improving risk-monitoring to implement a track of public-funding use, private-capital flows, and cost trends; (4) prevent monopolies and exclusive uses by the private sector, ensuring that the common good remains a shared priority.

Policy Implications

The comparative findings of Dar Tantora and Sextantio provide actionable insights for policymakers aiming to integrate public–private partnerships into heritage tourism strategies.
First, policy frameworks should institutionalise community co-decision mechanisms to ensure inclusive governance, aligning with the principles of authorised heritage discourse [3].
Second, incentives for private investors—such as tax exemptions and grants—must be tied to enforceable conservation targets, as suggested by Žuvela et al. [17], to prevent commodification risks.
Third, regulatory stability is crucial to maintain investor confidence, as demonstrated by the success of centralised governance in Saudi Arabia’s Vision 2030 initiatives [78].
These policy directions align with the UN Sustainable Development Goals, which emphasise strengthening efforts to protect and safeguard the world’s cultural and natural heritage.
Such policy considerations are aligned with global guidelines such as UNESCO’s 2011 Recommendation on the Historic Urban Landscape, which advocates a wide-ranging approach to dealing with cultural heritage cities that incorporates conservation, sustainable development, and community participation. Therefore, policymakers are encouraged to explore hybrid public–private models of collaboration that not only preserve cultural authenticity but can equally incorporate the diverse range of economic abilities and institutional settings of receiving places. Such models can be effective adaptive tools for balancing the protection of heritage with tourism development, advocating inclusive development, and achieving long-term sustainability for culture-based destinations.

8. Limitations and Future Research

One limitation of this study is the restricted access to official governmental data, particularly regarding the detailed financial mechanisms and fund allocations related to public investments in heritage hospitality projects, such as Dar Tantora. Although secondary sources and interviews provided useful data and suggestions, the need for available public information on investment strategies and long-term public–private partnership agreements has partially limited the depth of financial analysis. This challenge is especially relevant in Saudi Arabia, where tourism development is rapidly evolving under the framework of Vision 2030. The restricted access to official governmental financial data in Saudi Arabia can be attributed to several interrelated structural and policy dynamics. First, the tourism and heritage sectors are currently undergoing an accelerated phase of transformation under the national Vision 2030 framework, which promotes large-scale investment in cultural heritage, sustainable tourism, and public–private partnerships. Many of these initiatives are in developmental or pilot stages, and the financial performance of projects—such as Dar Tantora—may not yet be consolidated or available in standardised public formats. Moreover, the governance of these projects is often centralised under newly formed state-backed entities, such as the Royal Commission for Al Ula, which are mandated to oversee strategic development but may not yet follow transparent reporting protocols typical of more mature institutions. These entities typically prioritise strategic vision and rapid execution over public dissemination of detailed operational data in the early phases. In addition, public–private partnership agreements may involve proprietary or confidential terms between the government and investors, further limiting data disclosure. As a result, empirical financial data remain inaccessible primarily to independent researchers, making it necessary to rely on publicly available estimates and secondary sources to frame preliminary assessments. Addressing these constraints in future research will require greater institutional collaboration and improved data-sharing mechanisms as Vision 2030 projects move toward maturity. While the country is growing fast in tourism trends, future research should aim to collaborate more closely with institutional stakeholders, aiming for collaboration between the research institutions and governmental offices. Moreover, longitudinal studies focusing on these hospitality models’ social and economic impacts over time would be beneficial, particularly in emerging destinations like Al Ula. Comparative investigations of similar public–private initiatives across other Saudi heritage sites could further enhance understanding of how national strategic goals are implemented locally and their alignment with sustainable tourism and cultural preservation objectives.

Author Contributions

Conceptualisation, S.S. and S.M.; methodology, S.S. and S.M.; formal analysis, S.S.; investigation, S.M.; resources, S.S. and S.M.; data curation, S.S. and S.M.; writing—original draft preparation, S.S. and S.M.; writing—review and editing, S.S. and S.M.; visualisation, S.S. and S.M. In particular, S.S. is responsible for the legal and economic assets, while S.M. is responsible for the architectural and urban ones. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The authors gratefully acknowledge Prince Sultan University, Research Initiative Center RIC for covering the article processing charges (APC) and financial incentives.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the Institutional Review Board of PRINCE SULTAN UNIVERSITY (PSU IRB-2022-09-0123, 1 October 2022).

Informed Consent Statement

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

Data Availability Statement

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

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Chiara Cei, Michele Centonze, and Daniele Kihlgren. The authors gratefully acknowledge Prince Sultan University, Research Initiative Center RIC for covering the article processing charges (APC) and providing financial incentives. Many thanks to Prince Sultan University and Effat University for providing an environment that supports collaboration between institutions.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Appendix A

Here is the list of questions administered during the interview with the two hotel managers as part of the research.
  • How is public access to the hotel ensured for non-guests, and how is the general enjoyment of the heritage regulated?
  • What specific actions has the hotel management taken to contribute to the protection of its tangible cultural heritage?
  • Is the site subject to any national or local heritage protection laws? If so, how does this influence the hotel’s operations and responsibilities?
  • How is the hotel’s heritage value promoted, and what strategies enhance its visibility?
  • To what extent is the hotel integrated into regional or international tourism or cultural networks (e.g., hotel networks, associations, programs)?
  • Has the hotel received public or private funding for conservation and/or promotion? If yes, under what schemes (e.g., grants, loans, sponsorship, tax incentives)?
  • Are there ongoing financial incentives or tax benefits for maintaining and using the property as a heritage accommodation?
  • Are there any agreements or partnerships with public institutions or private companies (e.g., cultural ministries, municipalities, sponsors or ambassadors) to manage or co-promote the hotel?
  • How does the business model balance profitability with the duty to preserve and valorise the hotel’s cultural assets?
  • Are there mechanisms in place to involve the local community in protecting, utilising, or promoting the hotel?

References

  1. Hodge, G.A.; Greve, C. Public–Private Partnerships: An International Performance Review. Public Adm. Rev. 2007, 67, 545–558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Bellato, L.; Frantzeskaki, N.; Nygaard, C.A. Regenerative Tourism: A Conceptual Framework Leveraging Theory and Practice. Tour. Geogr. 2023, 25, 1026–1046. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Howard, P. The Routledge Research Companion to Heritage and Identity; Graham, B., Howard, P., Eds.; Routledge: Abingdon, UK, 2016; ISBN 9781315613031. [Google Scholar]
  4. UN Tourism. International Recommendations for Tourism Statistics 2008 (n. 83); UN Tourism: Madrid, Spain, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  5. McIntosh, R.W.; Goeldner, C.R. Tourism: Principles, Practices, Philosophies; Wiley: New York, NY, USA, 1986. [Google Scholar]
  6. Sun, Z.; Liu, L.; Pan, R.; Wang, Y.; Zhang, B. Tourism and Economic Growth: The Role of Institutional Quality. Int. Rev. Econ. Financ. 2025, 98, 103913. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Liu, Z. Sustainable Tourism Development: A Critique. J. Sustain. Tour. 2003, 11, 459–475. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Ford, L.; Olivera, M. On the Empirical Link between Tourism, Economic Growth and Energy Consumption: The Case of Uruguay. J. Policy Res. Tour. Leis. Events 2024, 16, 412–428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Brida, J.G.; Matesanz Gómez, D.; Segarra, V. On the Empirical Relationship between Tourism and Economic Growth. Tour. Manag. 2020, 81, 104131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Rasool, H.; Maqbool, S.; Tarique, M. The Relationship between Tourism and Economic Growth among BRICS Countries: A Panel Cointegration Analysis. Future Bus. J. 2021, 7, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. GÖKOVALI, U.; BAHAR, O. Contribution of Tourism to Economic Growth: A Panel Data Approach. Anatolia 2006, 17, 155–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Koodsela, W.; Dong, H.; Sukpatch, K. A Holistic Conceptual Framework into Practice-Based on Urban Tourism Toward Sustainable Development in Thailand. Sustainability 2019, 11, 7152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Alkier, R.; Milojica, V.; Roblek, V. A Holistic Framework for the Development of a Sustainable Touristic Model. Int. J. Mark. Bus. Syst. 2015, 1, 366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Rusu, V.; Rusu, C.; Matus, N.; Botella, F. Tourist Experience Challenges: A Holistic Approach. Sustainability 2023, 15, 12765. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Bovaird, T. Public–Private Partnerships: From Contested Concepts to Prevalent Practice. Int. Rev. Adm. Sci. 2004, 70, 199–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Klijn, E.-H.; Teisman, G.R. Institutional and Strategic Barriers to Public—Private Partnership: An Analysis of Dutch Cases. Public Money Manag. 2003, 23, 137–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Žuvela, A.; Šveb Dragija, M.; Jelinčić, D.A. Partnerships in Heritage Governance and Management: Review Study of Public–Civil, Public–Private and Public–Private–Community Partnerships. Heritage 2023, 6, 6862–6880. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Bruntland, G.H. Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: Our Common Future; UN: New York, NY, USA, 1987. [Google Scholar]
  19. Seraphin, H.; Gowreesunkar, V.G.B. Tourism: How to Achieve the Sustainable Development Goals? Worldw. Hosp. Tour. Themes 2021, 13, 3–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Khizar, H.M.U.; Younas, A.; Kumar, S.; Akbar, A.; Poulova, P. The Progression of Sustainable Development Goals in Tourism: A Systematic Literature Review of Past Achievements and Future Promises. J. Innov. Knowl. 2023, 8, 100442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Hall, C.M. Constructing Sustainable Tourism Development: The 2030 Agenda and the Managerial Ecology of Sustainable Tourism. J. Sustain. Tour. 2019, 27, 1044–1060. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Boluk, K.A.; Cavaliere, C.T.; Higgins-Desbiolles, F. A Critical Framework for Interrogating the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals 2030 Agenda in Tourism. J. Sustain. Tour. 2019, 27, 847–864. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Tanguay, G.A.; Rajaonson, J.; Therrien, M.-C. Sustainable Tourism Indicators: Selection Criteria for Policy Implementation and Scientific Recognition. J. Sustain. Tour. 2013, 21, 862–879. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Blancas, F.J.; Lozano-Oyola, M.; González, M.; Caballero, R. Sustainable Tourism Composite Indicators: A Dynamic Evaluation to Manage Changes in Sustainability. J. Sustain. Tour. 2016, 24, 1403–1424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Font, X.; Torres-Delgado, A.; Crabolu, G.; Palomo Martinez, J.; Kantenbacher, J.; Miller, G. The Impact of Sustainable Tourism Indicators on Destination Competitiveness: The European Tourism Indicator System. J. Sustain. Tour. 2023, 31, 1608–1630. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Glyptou, K. Operationalising Tourism Sustainability at the Destination Level: A Systems Thinking Approach Along the SDGs. Tour. Plan. Dev. 2024, 21, 95–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Roxas, F.M.Y.; Rivera, J.P.R.; Gutierrez, E.L.M. Framework for Creating Sustainable Tourism Using Systems Thinking. Curr. Issues Tour. 2020, 23, 280–296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Camusa, S.; Hikkerovab, L.; Sahutc, J.M. Systemic Analysis and Model of Sustainable Tourism. Int. J. Bus. 2012, 17, 365–378. [Google Scholar]
  29. Miller, G.; Torres-Delgado, A. Measuring Sustainable Tourism: A State of the Art Review of Sustainable Tourism Indicators. J. Sustain. Tour. 2023, 31, 1483–1496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Peter Sai, J.; Muzondo, N.; Marunda, E. Challenges Affecting Establishment and Sustainability of Tourism Public Private Partnerships in Zimbabwe. Asian Soc. Sci. 2015, 11, 35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Seki, K. A Study on the Process of Regional Tourism Management in Collaboration between Public and Private Sectors. WIT Trans. Ecol. Environ. 2013, 179, 339–349. [Google Scholar]
  32. Dai, R.; Zhang, C. Performance Analysis of PPP Models in Rural Tourism Projects of Shandong Province Based on DEA and Super-DEA. PLoS ONE 2024, 19, e0312380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Mazón, A.M.; Moraleda, L.F. Public Private Cooperation in Tourism Destinations Promotion: The Methodology of Social Network Analysis. Cuadernos. Turismo. 2013, 31, 199–223. [Google Scholar]
  34. Beresecka, J.; Papcunova, V. Cooperation between Municipalities and the Private Sector in the Field of Tourism (Case Study). Sci. Pap. Univ. Pardubic. Ser. D Fac. Econ. Adm. 2020, 28, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Balzan, A.; Correa-Jaramillo, J.; Jiménez-Zarco, A.I. Participation of Stakeholders in the Internationalization of the City of Medellin. J. Qual. Res. Tour. 2024, 5, 34–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. De Matteis, F.; Notaristefano, G.; Bianchi, P. Public—Private Partnership Governance for Accessible Tourism in Marine Protected Areas (MPAs). Sustainability 2021, 13, 8455. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Đurkin Badurina, J.; Klapan, M.; Soldić Frleta, D. Stakeholders’ Collaboration in the Development of an Authentic Gastronomic Offering in Rural Areas: Example of the Ravni Kotari Region in Croatia. Sustainability 2023, 15, 4649. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Carrillo-Hidalgo, I.; Pulido-Fernández, J.I. Examining the Organizational-Financial Structure of Public-Private Destination Management Organizations. In Smart Tourism as a Driver for Culture and Sustainability; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2019; pp. 543–562. [Google Scholar]
  39. Kozak, M.W. Innovation, Tourism and Destination Development: Dolnośląskie Case Study. Eur. Plan. Stud. 2014, 22, 1604–1624. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. González-Morales, O.; Álvarez-González, J.A.; Sanfiel-Fumero, M.Á.; Armas-Cruz, Y. Governance, Corporate Social Responsibility and Cooperation in Sustainable Tourist Destinations: The Case of the Island of Fuerteventura. Isl. Stud. J. 2016, 11, 561–584. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Gundelfinger, J. Benefits of Public–Private Cooperation: The Case Study of Seve Ballesteros-Santander Airport in Spain. J. Airpt. Manag. 2024, 18, 156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Moreno Lobato, A.; Hernández-Mogollón, J.M.; Di-Clemente, E. La Gestión Público-Privada En La Red de Destinos de Los Itinerarios Culturales Del Consejo de Europa: La Ruta Del Emperador Carlos V. Rev. Galega Econ. 2021, 30, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Tarkhanova, N.P. Public-Private Partnership as an Instrument for Regional Entrepreneurial Development. J. Adv. Res. Dyn. Control Syst. 2020, 12, 544–548. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Ly, T.P.; Zhang, C. Why Public–Private Cooperation Is Not Prevalent in National Parks within Centralised Countries. Asia Pac. J. Tour. Res. 2019, 24, 1109–1125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Russo, N.E.; Darmohraj, A. Public-Private Collaboration in Tourism. Institutional Capacities in Local Tourism Management Partnerships in Argentina. Rev. CLAD Reforma Democr. 2016, 65, 157–192. [Google Scholar]
  46. Ferrara, C.; Pierdicca, R.; Paolanti, M.; Aleffi, C.; Tomasi, S.; Paviotti, G.; Passarini, P.; Mignani, C.; Ferrara, A.; Cavicchi, A. The Role of ICTs and Public-Private Cooperation for Cultural Heritage Tourism. The Case of Smart Marca. Capitale Cult. 2020, 189–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Ruoss, E. Opportunities to Leverage World Heritage Sites for Local Development in the Alps. eco.mont (J. Prot. Mt. Areas Res.) 2015, 8, 53–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Jung, T.H.; Lee, J.; Yap, M.H.T.; Ineson, E.M. The Role of Stakeholder Collaboration in Culture-Led Urban Regeneration: A Case Study of the Gwangju Project, Korea. Cities 2015, 44, 29–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Dimitrić, M.; Tomas Žiković, I.; Arbula Blecich, A. Profitability Determinants of Hotel Companies in Selected Mediterranean Countries. Econ. Res.-Ekon. Istraž. 2019, 32, 1977–1993. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Mucharreira, P.R.; Antunes, M.G.; Abranja, N.; Justino, M.R.T.; Quirós, J.T. The Relevance of Tourism in Financial Sustainability of Hotels. Eur. Res. Manag. Bus. Econ. 2019, 25, 165–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Barrera-Martínez, A.M.; Santana-Talavera, A.; Parra-López, E. Destination Competitiveness Through the Lens of Tourist Spending: A Case Study of the Canary Islands. Sustainability 2025, 17, 3262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Louca, C. Income and Expenditure in Tourism Industry: Time Series Evidence from Cyprus. Tour. Econ. 2006, 12, 603–617. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Rodríguez, X.A.; Martínez-Roget, F.; Pawlowska, E. Academic Tourism: A More Sustainable Tourism. Reg. Sect. Econ. Stud. 2013, 13, 89–98. [Google Scholar]
  54. Chen, M.-H. The Response of Hotel Performance to International Tourism Development and Crisis Events. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2011, 30, 200–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Xiao, Q.; O’Neill, J.W.; Mattila, A.S. The Role of Hotel Owners: The Influence of Corporate Strategies on Hotel Performance. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 2012, 24, 122–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Južnik Rotar, L.; Gričar, S.; Bojnec, Š. The Relationship between Tourism and Employment: Evidence from the Alps-Adriatic Country. Econ. Res.-Ekon. Istraž. 2023, 36, 1–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Townsend, A. New Directions in the Growth of Tourism Employment?: Propositions of the 1980s. Environ. Plan. A Econ. Space 1992, 24, 821–832. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Dehghan Pour Farashah, M.; Aslani, E.; Yadollahi, S.; Ghaderi, Z. Postoccupancy Evaluation of Historic Buildings after Their Adaptive Reuse into Boutique Hotels: An Experience from Yazd, Iran. Int. J. Build. Pathol. Adapt. 2023, 41, 849–874. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Henderson, J.C. Hip Heritage: The Boutique Hotel Business in Singapore. Tour. Hosp. Res. 2011, 11, 217–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Liu, J.; Hua, X. A 30-Year Controversy over the Shanghai East China Electric Power Building: The Creation and Conservation of Late 20th Century Chinese Architectural Heritage. Built Herit. 2021, 5, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Abdul Kadir, S.; Jamaludin, M.; Awang, A.R. Accessibility Adaptation in the Design of Heritage Boutique Hotels: Malacca Case Studies. Environ.-Behav. Proc. J. 2020, 5, 205–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Said, S.Y.; Aksah, H.; Ismail, E.D. Heritage Conservation and Regeneration of Historic Areas in Malaysia. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2013, 105, 418–428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Piriyakul, I.; Piriyakul, R. Unveiling the Power of Storytelling and Co-design: Enhancing Customer Value in Cultural Boutique Hotels. Int. J. Tour. Res. 2024, 26, e2653. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Sarantakou, E.; Tsamos, G.; Vlami, A.; Christidou, A.; Maniati, E. Factors of Authenticity: Exploring Santorini’s Heritage Hotels. Tour. Hosp. 2024, 5, 782–799. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Ginés-Ariza, P.; Noguer-Juncà, E.; Fusté-Forné, F. Local Perspectives of the Relationships between Food and Tourism in the City of Girona (Catalonia, Spain). Int. J. Hosp. Tour. Syst. 2024, 17, 100–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. de Figueiredo, V.M.P.; da Costa Guerra, R.J.; Gonçalves, E.C.C. Cooperation Networks in Tourism and Hospitality: An Analysis Applied to Health and Wellness Tourism Product in Portugal. In Tourism Innovation in Spain and Portugal; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2021; pp. 27–41. [Google Scholar]
  67. Adeola, O.; Ezenwafor, K. The Hospitality Business in Nigeria: Issues, Challenges and Opportunities. Worldw. Hosp. Tour. Themes 2016, 8, 182–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Abdymanapov, S.A.; Toxanova, A.N.; Galiyeva, A.H.; Abildina, A.S.; Aitkaliyeva, A.M. Development of Public-Private Partnership in the Republic of Kazakhstan. Int. Electron. J. Math. Educ. 2016, 11, 1113–1126. [Google Scholar]
  69. Iqbal, T.; Aftab, F. Exploring Tourism’s Contribution to Saudi Arabia’s Vision 2030: Aligning with UN SDG 8 for Sustainable Growth. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. Plan. 2025, 20, 1283–1289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Hamdi, R.; Touati, M.S.E.; Alsharif, B.N. Determinants of Tourism in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and Its Impact on Sustainable Development. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2024, 26, 32217–32228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Sampieri, S.; Bagader, M. Sustainable Tourism Development in Jeddah: Protecting Cultural Heritage While Promoting Travel Destination. Sustainability 2024, 16, 9148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Filippi, L.D.; Mazzetto, S. Comparing AlUla and The Red Sea Saudi Arabia’s Giga Projects on Tourism towards a Sustainable Change in Destination Development. Sustainability 2024, 16, 2117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Sampieri, S.; Saoualih, A.; Safaa, L.; de Carnero Calzada, F.M.; Ramazzotti, M.; Martínez-Peláez, A. Tourism Development through the Sense of UNESCO World Heritage: The Case of Hegra, Saudi Arabia. Heritage 2024, 7, 2195–2216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Al-Romeedy, B.S.; Alharethi, T. Leveraging Green Human Resource Management for Sustainable Tourism and Hospitality: A Mediation Model for Enhancing Green Reputation. Discov. Sustain. 2025, 6, 67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Moscatelli, M. Heritage as a Driver of Sustainable Tourism Development: The Case Study of the Darb Zubaydah Hajj Pilgrimage Route. Sustainability 2024, 16, 7055. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Moshashai, D.; Leber, A.M.; Savage, J.D. Saudi Arabia Plans for Its Economic Future: Vision 2030, the National Transformation Plan and Saudi Fiscal Reform. Br. J. Middle East. Stud. 2020, 47, 381–401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Khan, M.B.I.; Iqbal, S. Vision 2030 and the National Transformation Program. In Research, Innovation and Entrepreneurship in Saudi Arabia; Routledge: Abingdon, UK, 2020; pp. 146–166. [Google Scholar]
  78. GOV.SA. Kingdom of Saudi Arabia Vision 2030. Available online: https://www.vision2030.gov.sa/ (accessed on 10 July 2025).
  79. Al Naim, M.A. Urban Transformation in the City of Riyadh: A Study of Plural Urban Identity. Open House Int. 2013, 38, 70–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Alnaim, M.M. The Hierarchical Order of Spaces in Arab Traditional Towns: The Case of Najd, Saudi Arabia. World J. Eng. Technol. 2020, 08, 347–366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Alnaim, M.M. Discovering the Integrative Spatial and Physical Order in Traditional Arab Towns: A Study of Five Traditional Najdi Settlements of Saudi Arabia. J. Archit. Plan.-King Saud Univ. 2022, 34, 223–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Mashary Alnaim, M.; Abdulfattah Bay, M. Regionalism Indicators and Assessment Approach of Recent Trends in Saudi Arabia’s Architecture: The Salmaniah Architectural Style and the King Salman Charter Initiatives as a Case Study. Ain Shams Eng. J. 2023, 14, 102144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Mazzetto, S. Fostering National Identity Through Sustainable Heritage Conservation: Ushaiger Village as a Model for Saudi Arabia. Heritage 2024, 8, 4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Mazzetto, S.; Vanini, F. Urban Heritage in Saudi Arabia: Comparison and Assessment of Sustainable Reuses. Sustainability 2023, 15, 9819. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Iswan; Khan, A.; Kadir, F.K.A.; Jabor, M.K.; Anis, S.N.M.; Zaman, K. Saudi Arabia’s Sustainable Tourism Development Model: New Empirical Insights. Int. Soc. Sci. J. 2021, 71, 109–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Ryan, C.; Stewart, M. Eco-Tourism and Luxury—The Case of Al Maha, Dubai. J. Sustain. Tour. 2009, 17, 287–301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Sharpley, R. Planning for Tourism: The Case of Dubai. Tour. Hosp. Plan. Dev. 2008, 5, 13–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Mazzetto, S. Sustainable Heritage Preservation to Improve the Tourism Offer in Saudi Arabia. Urban Plan 2022, 7, 195–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Moscatelli, M. Rethinking the Heritage through a Modern and Contemporary Reinterpretation of Traditional Najd Architecture, Cultural Continuity in Riyadh. Buildings 2023, 13, 1471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Modica, P.; Capocchi, A.; Foroni, I.; Zenga, M. An Assessment of the Implementation of the European Tourism Indicator System for Sustainable Destinations in Italy. Sustainability 2018, 10, 3160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Alvarez, M.D.; Yuksel, A.; Go, F. Heritage Tourism Destinations: Preservation, Communication and Development; CABI: Wallingford, UK, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  92. Zhang, J.; Xiong, K.; Liu, Z.; He, L. Research Progress and Knowledge System of World Heritage Tourism: A Bibliometric Analysis. Herit. Sci. 2022, 10, 42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Algassim, A. Favourable Sustainable Tourism Development in Al-Juhfa, Saudi Arabia. J. Assoc. Arab Univ. Tour. Hosp. 2021, 204–221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. El-Khoury, R.; Aouad, D.; Lteif, C. Beyond Materiality: Mud as a Living Material in Heritage Preservation. Front. Sustain. Cities 2025, 7, 1550496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Dwidar, S.; Abowardah, E. Internal Courtyards One of the Vocabularies of Residential Heritage Architecture and Its Importance in Building Contemporary National Identity. In Proceedings of the Nternational Architecture and Urban Studies Conference House & Home, Istanbul, Turkey, 3–4 March 2017. [Google Scholar]
  96. Moussa, R.A. A Responsive Approach for Designing Shared Urban Spaces in Tourist Villages. Sustainability 2023, 15, 7549. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Dar Tantora Dar Tantora. Available online: https://dartantora.co/ (accessed on 10 July 2025).
  98. Arab News Preserving the Past, Building the Future: Saudi Arabia’s Cultural Heritage and Business Synergy. 2024. Available online: https://www.arabnews.com/node/2578632/business-economy%20Arab%20NewsArab%20News%202Arab%20News%202Arab%20News%202 (accessed on 4 May 2025).
  99. Sextantio Sextantio. Available online: https://www.sextantio.it/ (accessed on 10 July 2025).
  100. Gardetti, M.A.; Torres, A.L. Sustainability in Hospitality; Routledge: London, UK, 2017; ISBN 9781351285360. [Google Scholar]
  101. Tani, M.; Papaluca, O. Local Resources to Compete in the Global Business. In Handbook of Research on Global Hospitality and Tourism Management; IGI Global: Hershey, PA, USA, 2015; pp. 119–141. [Google Scholar]
  102. Di Gregorio, D. Place-Based Business Models for Resilient Local Economies. J. Enterprising Communities People Places Glob. Econ. 2017, 11, 113–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Confalonieri, M. A Typical Italian Phenomenon: The “Albergo Diffuso”. Tour. Manag. 2011, 32, 685–687. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Fissi, S.; Romolini, A.; Gori, E. Building a Business Model for a New Form of Hospitality: The Albergo Diffuso. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 2020, 32, 307–323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Paniccia, P.M.A.; Leoni, L. Co-Evolution in Tourism: The Case of Albergo Diffuso. Curr. Issues Tour. 2019, 22, 1216–1243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Antonić, B.; Stupar, A.; Kovač, V.; Sovilj, D.; Grujičić, A. Urban Regeneration through Cultural–Tourism Entrepreneurship Based on Albergo Diffuso Development: The Venac Historic Core in Sombor, Serbia. Land 2024, 13, 1379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Ferwati, M.S.; El-Menshawy, S.; Mohamed, M.E.A.; Ferwati, S.; Al Nuami, F. Revitalising Abandoned Heritage Villages: The Case of Tinbak, Qatar. Cogent Soc. Sci. 2021, 7, 1973196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Giampiccoli, A.; Saayman, M.; Jugmohan, S. Are ‘Albergo Diffuso’ and Community-Based Tourism the Answers to Community Development in South Africa? Dev. S. Afr. 2016, 33, 548–561. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Saunders, M.; Lewis, P.; Thornhill, A. Research Methods for Business Students; Pearson: Harlow, UK, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  110. Stake, R.E. The Art of Case Study Research; Sage Publications, Inc.: Los Angeles, CA, USA, 1995. [Google Scholar]
  111. Yin, R. Case Study Research: Design and Methods; Sage Publications, Inc.: Los Angeles, CA, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  112. UNESCO. Hegra. Available online: https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/1293/ (accessed on 10 July 2025).
  113. UNESCO. The Sassi and the Park of the Rupestrian Churches of Matera. Available online: https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/670/#:~:text=Outstanding%20Universal%20Value&text=Located%20in%20the%20southern%20Italian,natural%20caves%20of%20the%20Murgia (accessed on 10 July 2025).
  114. Clauss-Balty, P.; Kanhoush, Y.; Ben Bader, S.; Charbonnier, J. Preliminary Analyses of Vernacular Earthen Architecture in the Gardens of Al-‘Ūla Oasis (Saudi Arabia). Proc. Semin. Arab. Stud. 2023, 52, 87–107. [Google Scholar]
  115. Rota, L. Matera. Storia Di Una Città; Giannatelli: Matera, Italy, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  116. al-Nasif, A. Al-’Ula (Saudi Arabia): A Report on a Historical and Archaeological Survey. Bull. (Br. Soc. Middle East. Stud.) 1981, 8, 30–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Alharthi, G.W. Tourism and Cultural Entrepreneurship in Saudi Arabia: The Case of Family Businesses in AlUla. J. Arab. Stud. 2024, 14, 28–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Losito, M.F. Sassi e Airbnb La Città Di Matera Fra Sviluppo e Designazione a Capitale Europea Della Cultura. 2022. Available online: https://www.academia.edu/104926642/Sassi_e_Airbnb_La_citt%C3%A0_di_Matera_fra_sviluppo_e_designazione_a_Capitale_Europea_della_Cultura (accessed on 5 May 2025).
  119. Yin, R.K. Case Study Research: Design and Methods; Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  120. Time Magazine Dar Tantora The House Hotel: World’s Greatest Places 2024. 2024. Available online: https://time.com/6992272/dar-tantora-2/ (accessed on 3 May 2025).
  121. Palmer, D.; Dar Tantora by The House Hotel Announced in AlUla. Kerten Hospitality. Available online: https://kertenhospitality.com/dartantora-by-the-house-hotel-announced-in alula/ (accessed on 3 May 2025).
  122. Ortile, M. Condé Nast Traveler. Available online: https://www.cntraveler.com/story/dar-tantora-hotel-alula-saudi-arabia (accessed on 4 November 2024).
  123. El-Khoury, R. Looking for the Liberal in the Neo-Liberal City [Alternative Public Spaces from Lebanon]. In Urban Challenges in the Globalizing Middle-East: Social Value of Public Spaces; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2021; pp. 69–83. [Google Scholar]
  124. Legislative Decree Legislative Decree, 22 Gennaio 2004, n. 42. Codice Dei Beni Culturali e Del Paesa. 2004. Available online: https://www.gazzettaufficiale.it/atto/serie_generale/caricaDettaglioAtto/originario?atto.dataPubblicazioneGazzetta=2004-02-24&atto.codiceRedazionale=004G0066 (accessed on 1 May 2025).
Figure 1. Dar Tantora in Alula, Saudi Arabia (Source: Authors).
Figure 1. Dar Tantora in Alula, Saudi Arabia (Source: Authors).
Sustainability 17 06662 g001
Figure 2. Sextantio Hotel in Matera, Italy (Source: www.sextantio.it).
Figure 2. Sextantio Hotel in Matera, Italy (Source: www.sextantio.it).
Sustainability 17 06662 g002
Figure 3. Tourism development in Dar Tantora.
Figure 3. Tourism development in Dar Tantora.
Sustainability 17 06662 g003
Figure 4. Tourism development in Sextantio.
Figure 4. Tourism development in Sextantio.
Sustainability 17 06662 g004
Table 1. Dar Tantora: room types, features, and estimated pricing. Prices are estimated based on comparable luxury accommodations in Al Ula and may vary depending on season and availability.
Table 1. Dar Tantora: room types, features, and estimated pricing. Prices are estimated based on comparable luxury accommodations in Al Ula and may vary depending on season and availability.
Room TypeDescriptionFeaturesEstimated Price (EUR)
Dar Al LubanEntry-level roomThe traditional layout, natural ventilation, and candlelit ambience300–400
Dar Al BukhourEnhanced room with lounge areaAdditional seating space, traditional décor400–500
Dar Al HareerPremium room with lounge
and terrace
Private terrace with daybeds, panoramic views500–600
Dar Al OudTwo-bedroom suiteIdeal for families or groups, spacious living areas700–800
Table 2. Sextantio Le Grotte della Civita—room types, features, and estimated pricing, based on current bookings and seasonal averages in Matera.
Table 2. Sextantio Le Grotte della Civita—room types, features, and estimated pricing, based on current bookings and seasonal averages in Matera.
Room TypeDescriptionFeaturesEstimated Price (EUR)
Classic Cave RoomEntry-level cave roomOriginal cave walls, minimalist furniture, and candlelit lightingEUR250–EUR300
Superior Cave RoomEnhanced room with expanded spaceRustic stone finishes, heated floors, and a large stone basinEUR300–EUR400
Suite Cave RoomPremium suite with added amenitiesLarger footprint, soaking tub, panoramic Sassi viewsEUR400–EUR500
Executive SuiteLargest suite, ideal for long staysSeparate lounge, king bed, luxury tub, private entranceEUR500–EUR600
Table 3. Architectural reuse principles: Dar Tantora vs. Sextantio.
Table 3. Architectural reuse principles: Dar Tantora vs. Sextantio.
PrincipleDar Tantora (Al Ula, Saudi Arabia)Sextantio (Matera, Italy)
Heritage ContextTraditional mudbrick buildings in a historic oasis townAncient cave dwellings (Sassi) in a UNESCO-listed rocky landscape
Architectural Style PreservedNajdi vernacular architecture
(mud, stone, wood)
Troglodyte cave architecture with medieval stone and wood features
Reuse StrategyAdaptive reuse for boutique eco-hotelAdaptive reuse into an albergo diffuso model
Restoration ApproachMinimal intervention, traditional techniques; emphasis on authenticityConservation-led; restoration with respect to original materials and form
Local Materials UsedAdobe, palm wood, local stoneStone, wood, natural plaster
Community InvolvementEngagement through training and employmentDeep involvement in planning, service provision, and cultural interpretation
Integration with Urban FabricReintegration of abandoned buildings within the historic coreRespectful insertion into the old city fabric; maintaining original street layouts
Environmental SustainabilityPassive design (natural ventilation and lighting); minimal energy useLow-impact renovation; reuse of structures with minimal modern intervention
Cultural ContinuityInteriors reflect local heritage (design, crafts, storytelling)Preservation of interior ambience; no addition of modern décor elements
Tourism PhilosophySustainable tourism is linked to cultural preservation and community benefitsResponsible tourism through cultural immersion and authenticity
Management ModelPublic–private partnership with heritage preservation goalsPrivate initiative with a social enterprise model
UNESCO ConnectionLocated in Al Ula, near the UNESCO site HegraLocated in the UNESCO-listed Matera
Table 4. Economic and legal principles: Dar Tantora vs. Sextantio.
Table 4. Economic and legal principles: Dar Tantora vs. Sextantio.
Economic and Legal PrinciplesDar TantoraSextantio
Profitability~EUR15,000 daily revenue from room rentals at full occupancy (excl. extras); high-end heritage tourism model~EUR7000–EUR11,000/day estimated at full occupancy; boutique heritage hospitality model with stable revenue generation.
Number of tourists (annual)Approx. 10,950 tourists/year (30 rooms × 365 days)Approx. 6570 tourists/year (18 rooms × 365 days at full occupancy)
Capacity for spending
(for tourists)
High-spending segment: ~EUR600 per night; excludes additional cultural/spa/dining expensesMedium-to-high spending: ~EUR300–EUR600 per night per tourist, depending on room type and services.
Average stay
(per night)
1–2 nights (short cultural heritage stays are typical in Al Ula)2–3 nights (extended stays are common due to the immersive cultural experience in Matera)
Number of employeesEstimated 25–35 staff (incl. operations, maintenance, cultural programme staff, and community hires)An estimated 20–30 staff (due to smaller scale; decentralised model)
ConservationConservation based on restoration;
Focus on the balance between conservation and development
Use of traditional building techniques
RCU law on conservation
Conservation based on restoration;
Focus on marginalised areas and vernacular, minor historical centres;
Use of a non-invasive building technique
Use of the legislative decree n. 42 2004
AccessibilityPredominance of private-use buildings;
Private buildings are accessible through organised tours and events for non-guest visitors
Public areas are fully accessible
Predominance of private-use buildings;
Private buildings are not accessible.
Public spaces are fully accessible
EnhancementFounding, collaboration, and facilitation from the Government (national);
Collaboration with a local tourism brand;
Collaboration with local artisans for the building restoration
Tours;
Participation in events and festival organisation;
Prevalence of high-spending tourism
Private funding + public funding without the responsibility of the local land authorities;
No sponsorship and local labels;
Promotion of local cuisine and handicrafts;
Prevalence of high-spending tourism with strategic low-cost offers
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

Sampieri, S.; Mazzetto, S. Public–Private Partnership for the Sustainable Development of Tourism Hospitality: Comparisons Between Italy and Saudi Arabia. Sustainability 2025, 17, 6662. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17156662

AMA Style

Sampieri S, Mazzetto S. Public–Private Partnership for the Sustainable Development of Tourism Hospitality: Comparisons Between Italy and Saudi Arabia. Sustainability. 2025; 17(15):6662. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17156662

Chicago/Turabian Style

Sampieri, Sara, and Silvia Mazzetto. 2025. "Public–Private Partnership for the Sustainable Development of Tourism Hospitality: Comparisons Between Italy and Saudi Arabia" Sustainability 17, no. 15: 6662. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17156662

APA Style

Sampieri, S., & Mazzetto, S. (2025). Public–Private Partnership for the Sustainable Development of Tourism Hospitality: Comparisons Between Italy and Saudi Arabia. Sustainability, 17(15), 6662. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17156662

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