Next Article in Journal
Social Support and Environmental Factors for Older People Living in South Tyrol: A Multivariate Analysis
Next Article in Special Issue
The UNESCO Environmental Corridor of Extremadura: Tourism and Governance as Tools for Social Sustainability
Previous Article in Journal
Interrogating Transitional Justice: The Multiple Meanings of a Concept
Previous Article in Special Issue
Unlocking Tourist Motivations in a Smart Tourism Destination: An Application of the Push–Pull Theory
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Societies
Volume 15
Issue 5
10.3390/soc15050124
societies-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

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

Relationship Between Preservation of Built Cultural Heritage and Economic Development in Lisbon and Porto: Cultural Legacy and Urban Revitalization as Serial Mediation Mechanisms

by
Rosa Rodrigues
1,*,
João Caldeira Heitor
1,
Helena Pimentel
2 and
Tiago Lopes
1
1
Instituto Superior de Gestão, Business & Economics School, 1500-552 Lisboa, Portugal
2
CIGEST—Management Research Center, 1700-097 Lisboa, Portugal
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Societies 2025, 15(5), 124; https://doi.org/10.3390/soc15050124
Submission received: 4 March 2025 / Revised: 21 April 2025 / Accepted: 22 April 2025 / Published: 1 May 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Embodiment and Engagement of Tourism with Social Sustainability)
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The preservation of built cultural heritage (PBCH) plays a vital role in fostering economic development by stimulating and revitalizing urban spaces. This study, conducted in the Portuguese cities of Lisbon and Porto, evaluated the impact of PBCH on urban economic growth, emphasizing the roles of cultural legacy and urban revitalization as serial mediators. Employing a cross-sectional, quantitative approach grounded in a hypothetico-deductive methodology, data were collected from 633 tourists aged 18 to 73 years (57.2% female) via a structured questionnaire. The findings demonstrated that PBCH, cultural legacy, and urban revitalization significantly contribute to regional economic development. Moreover, cultural legacy partially mediates the relationship between heritage preservation and urban revitalization, indicating a positive indirect effect. A serial mediation mechanism—where two mediators operate in a specific causal order, linking the independent variable (PBCH) to the dependent variable (economic development) through cultural legacy followed by urban revitalization—was identified. A comparative analysis of the indirect effects highlighted that cultural legacy has a stronger mediating influence than urban revitalization alone, although the combined serial effect proved to be the most substantial. This research underscores the critical role of PBCH as a driver of economic progress, facilitated through its intertwined relationships with cultural heritage and urban renewal, offering valuable insights for policymakers and stakeholders in urban development

1. Introduction

Over the past two decades, built cultural heritage management has shifted from focusing solely on conservation to becoming an integral part of regional strategic planning [1]. In this context, Guzman et al. [2] note that, in addition to playing a crucial role in community identity and cohesion, it also contributes to urban development by attracting investment to the local community. Li et al. [3] add that integrating built cultural heritage into urban planning strategies can yield significant economic benefits, as it creates a conducive environment for local business development and helps attract more tourists to the region [4].
The revitalization of urban spaces through PBCH can improve quality of life and preserve local history while modernizing infrastructure [5]. This approach safeguards cultural values and stimulates economic growth, as enhanced infrastructure attracts new business ventures [6]. However, effective management requires a participatory approach in which local communities actively engage in heritage conservation and development strategies [7]. PBCH management also faces significant challenges, particularly in cities with limited resources or those undergoing rapid urban expansion that may endanger historical structures [8]. Nevertheless, when appropriate policies are implemented, new opportunities for sustainable economic development and urban revitalization can emerge [9].
Built cultural heritage serves not only as a historical resource but also as a foundation for fostering social cohesion and local identity [10]. To leverage its full potential, public policies must balance cultural preservation with economic development, ensuring that revitalization initiatives are inclusive and sustainable [11]. As Yeh et al. [12] and Chen et al. [13] emphasize, PBCH plays a multifaceted role—stimulating local economies while reinforcing a community’s cultural narrative. This study addresses this issue and aims to assess the impact of PBCH on the economic growth of urban regions by exploring how cultural legacy and urban revitalization act as serial mediators that enhance this relationship.
Despite the growing consensus around the importance of PBCH, empirical studies that analyze, in an integrated and statistically rigorous way, the mechanisms through which heritage preservation contributes to urban economic development remain scarce. The existing literature is largely dominated by qualitative and descriptive approaches, with few studies exploring the indirect effects of PBCH using mediation models that include variables such as cultural legacy and urban revitalization.
In this context, the present study seeks to fill this gap by applying a sequential mediation model to a large sample of tourists visiting historic centers in Portugal. The investigation focuses on tourists’ perceptions of how PBCH contributes to the economic development of urban areas, through the mediating effects of cultural legacy and urban revitalization. This model aims to support evidence-based policymaking that aligns heritage conservation with strategies for inclusive and sustainable economic growth.
The article is structured as follows: Section 2 presents the literature review and theoretical foundations of the hypotheses; Section 3 details the methodology, including the research design, data collection instrument, and statistical analysis plan; Section 4 presents the results of the tested model; Section 5 discusses the main findings in light of the literature; and Section 6, Section 7 and Section 8 offer the study’s conclusions, theoretical and practical contributions, and limitations.
Based on the theoretical framework and considering the specific territorial and cultural context of the study—focused on the cities of Lisbon and Porto—the following hypotheses were formulated:
Hypothesis 1.  
The PBCH positively influences the economic development of urban regions.
Hypothesis 2. 
The relationship between PBCH and urban revitalization is mediated by cultural legacy.
Hypothesis 3.  
Cultural legacy and urban revitalization act as serial mediators between the PBCH and the economic development of urban regions.

2. Literature Review

2.1. The Relationship Between the Preservation of Built Cultural Heritage and the Economic Development of Urban Regions

The PBCH encompasses numerous tangible and intangible dimensions [14], revealing a complex transformation process that seeks to keep up with societies’ pace and development goals. Urban transformation may represent a threat to cultural heritage, making it urgent to maintain the sustainable connection between the past and the future [15]. As explained by Jelinčić [16] (p. 2), “heritage is not and should not be a static symbol of the past but is a living proof of a community identity related to their contemporary ways of living”. Cultural supply offers opportunities for preservation and exploration with results in terms of entrepreneurship, education, research, and cultural exchange [17].
The revitalization of built cultural heritage—which comprises the preservation of historic buildings and sites for their architectural, historical, or other significant value [18]—aims to maintain a standard that allows visitors to enjoy the resource, whilst retaining the sense of belonging of the local community [19]. Cultural facilities act as catalysts for urban development, attracting leisure businesses and investment opportunities, and ultimately influencing the reputation of the cities [17].
Many cultural assets are transformed into tourist attractions, creating new goods and services that promote economic development and support the mission of preserving heritage [18]. Thus, new entrepreneurial opportunities emerge, contributing to the revitalization of infrastructure, the creation of jobs, increased investment, and enhanced tax revenues for cities and governments. However, the economic valuation of cultural goods must be approached through a multi-attribute utility theory, as their economic value is influenced by various interdependent factors including, e.g., the production system, market demand, employment opportunities, and the efficiency of transport and communication networks [20].
Cultural heritage acts as a potential driving force for development, introducing new industries, affecting governance, and improving the quality of life in the territory—it contributes to the character of the place [21]. Chng and Narayanan [1] highlight the emergence of new creative industries, for instance, which spawn growth and economic development, while fostering cultural resilience [14]. Rudokas et al. [22] categorize some of these benefits, clarifying that both active and passive heritage appreciation may influence the system’s entire value chain. Emotional cognition and feedback from community residents are directly related to the sustainability of the project, influencing their participation and sense of cultural identity [6].
The notion of heritage is inherently multidimensional, with consequences that are both economic and social [23]. Successful preservation strategies must therefore go beyond conservation practices, integrating inclusive business models and sustainable urban policies that promote social cohesion and cultural continuity. As Jelinčić [16] and Wei et al. [24] highlight, heritage valorization must involve the local community at every stage, ensuring that development efforts foster participation, well-being, and a sense of belonging.
Based on the studies mentioned, the first hypothesis was formulated.
Hypothesis 1.  
The PBCH positively influences the economic development of urban regions.

2.2. The Mediating Role of Cultural Legacy in the Relationship Between the Preservation of Built Cultural Heritage and Urban Revitalization

The cultural and creative industries in Europe play a key role in regional development by revitalizing neglected areas, promoting tourism, and enhancing the local economy [13]. Nevertheless, these initiatives must be accompanied by inclusive policies that prevent adverse effects such as gentrification and the displacement of local populations. As Kalfas et al. [25] emphasize, effective strategies should ensure that cultural revitalization benefits are equitably shared within the community.
According to Wang et al. [26], the preservation of cultural heritage enhances the integrity of cultural landscapes while fostering tourism and local pride. Madandola and Boussaa [27] argue that regenerating historical resources contributes to social cohesion and community identity, thereby reinforcing the long-term sustainability of cultural tourism.
Tourism management and cultural heritage initiatives are essential when developing tourism destinations, increasing awareness about tourism and its opportunities and providing sufficient training for employees, local people, and managers on cultural heritage. In particular, heritage hotels are a way to provide tourists with intangible cultural heritage and contemporary life experiences [28]. To ensure the quality of the cultural and tourist services offered, it will be necessary to consider the particularities and exigencies of the present cultural heritage and those of the local community and environment [29].
According to the UNESCO World Heritage Centre [30] (p. 1), “heritage is our legacy from all historical periods that we live with today and what we pass on to future generations. They are our touchstones, our points of reference, our identity”. Geçikli et al. [31] proposes that cultural heritage is a strong tool in tourism creation potential and is fundamental for preservation, especially in economically disadvantaged countries. Moreover, strategies should be developed to enhance natural and cultural heritage while developing jobs and growth, strengthening local traditions to reconnect tourists with the environment, landscape, and cultural heritage [32]. In light of the aforementioned, the second hypothesis was formulated.
Hypothesis 2. 
The relationship between PBCH and urban revitalization is mediated by cultural legacy.

2.3. Serial Mediation Model

The revitalization of built cultural heritage and its dynamization can contribute to the development of cultural heritage, with social and economic benefits, improving culture, and preserving local identity.
These actions can preserve local identity by recovering and making heritage available in historic places, strengthening the sense of community belonging, thus fostering cultural tourism and generating revenue that boosts local economies. As stated by Boussaa and Madandola [33], cultural legacy has the potential to promote cultural attractions, preserve a city’s built heritage, rehabilitate old urban areas, and promote community pride, solidarity, and economic development.
The cultural legacy, embodied in the cultural heritage of urban communities, is understood by Sheng et al. [6] as a central driving force, given its historical and cultural value. In this sense, it has high potential for development around culture and local communities themselves.
Heritage preservation allows for the development of heritage tourism, based on tangible and intangible elements from the past [34]. Not just an aesthetic issue, urban revitalization allows for the rebirth, revitalization, and reconstitution of a significant part of a city or a specific area [33].
The revitalization of built cultural heritage and its dynamization can contribute to the development of cultural heritage, with social and economic benefits, improving culture and preserving local identity [6].
In view of the above, it is understood that urban regeneration policies are fundamental to the development of actions around urban sustainability as a strategic tool for preserving built heritage and transforming cities into sustainable, livable, and wealth-generating places [33].
Revitalizing sites composed of built cultural heritage by promoting community involvement and pride can create opportunities for residents to participate in cultural activities, enhancing local history and traditions, thus ensuring the preservation of cultural identity [35]. At a time when globalization and homogenization are running rampant throughout the world, the preservation of local identity allows current and future generations to secure their cultural roots and heritage.
The review of the literature provided insights that facilitated the formulation of the third hypothesis.
Hypothesis 3.  
Cultural legacy and urban revitalization act as serial mediators between the PBCH and the economic development of urban regions.
The research model presented in Figure 1 exposes the relationship between the variables under study.

3. Methodology

This study adopts a quantitative, cross-sectional design grounded in a hypothetico-deductive approach. It aims to assess tourists’ perceptions of how the PBCH contributes to the economic development of urban regions, through the mediating effects of cultural legacy and urban revitalization.

3.1. Study Context and Data Collection

Data were collected between June and August 2024 in Lisbon and Porto, two Portuguese cities whose historical centers are classified as UNESCO World Heritage Sites [30]. The selection of these cities was based on several criteria: their internationally recognized cultural heritage, high density of built heritage assets, and advanced stage of heritage-led urban revitalization policies. In addition, Lisbon and Porto stand out for their economic and touristic relevance, hosting millions of visitors annually and representing key urban destinations in Southern Europe. Their historical depth, combined with current challenges related to cultural sustainability and economic diversification, makes them particularly suitable for analyzing the relationships between built heritage preservation, urban regeneration, and local development. As such, they constitute emblematic cases within the European context of urban tourism and cultural planning.

3.2. Sampling Procedure

A probabilistic stratified convenience sampling method was used. The sampling was stratified by location—targeting high-density tourist zones with notable heritage significance (e.g., Tower of Belém, Jerónimos Monastery, Luiz I Bridge, and Serra do Pilar Monastery). A total of 633 tourists, aged between 18 and 73 years, were surveyed in person. Data collection was carried out by trained field researchers using a standardized protocol to ensure consistency and data quality. The sociodemographic characteristics of the sample are presented in Table 1.

3.3. Instrument and Measures

The questionnaire used in this study was structured into four validated measurement scales:
Preservation of built cultural heritage. The six items that assessed the participants’ perceptions of the importance of conserving buildings and structures of historical significance possessing cultural value were adapted from the study by Siddiqui et al. [36] (e.g., the conversion of built cultural heritage into a tourist attraction allows for the perpetuation of collective memory).
Economic development. The process of growth and enhancement of the economic conditions in the region was assessed through the adaptation of the nine items used by Poudel et al. [37] (e.g., the conversion of built cultural heritage into a hotel unit contributes to the development of the local economy).
Cultural legacy. The four items used to assess cultural legacy were adapted from the studies by Prayag et al. [38] and Gursoy et al. [39] (e.g., the conservation of built cultural heritage reflects the identity of a people/region).
Urban revitalization. To measure the revitalization process of the region, the four items developed by Park et al. [40] (e.g., the conversion of built cultural heritage into a hotel unit significantly contributes to urban invigoration).
All items were answered using a seven-point Likert scale, which ranged from “Strongly Disagree” (1) to “Strongly Agree” (7), depending on the degree of agreement with each statement.
Sociodemographic questions. To describe the sample, questions of a sociodemographic nature were added (e.g., sex, age, and reason for visit).
Control variables. Age and duration of stay were utilized as control variables. According to Buhalis and Karatay [41], Generation Z believes that cultural heritage needs to be preserved to create transformative experiences and to promote the economic development of regions. Madeira et al. [42] further demonstrated that the longer tourists remain in a region, the more they value its dynamics, specifically the exploration of local culture and heritage.

3.4. Data Analysis Plan

The analysis involved multiple stages:
  • Descriptive statistics and tests for normality (e.g., Mardia’s coefficients);
  • Common Method Bias check via Harman’s single-factor test;
  • Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to assess convergent and discriminant validity (using CR, AVE, and MSV indices);
  • Multiple linear regression to test direct effects;
  • Sequential mediation analysis using Hayes’ PROCESS macro (Model 6), with 5.000 bootstrap samples and 95% bias-corrected confidence intervals, to test indirect effects through cultural legacy and urban revitalization.
All analyses were performed using SPSS (version 29) and AMOS (version 29).
The results of this study must be interpreted within the context in which they were obtained—two urban heritage-rich cities in Portugal (Lisbon and Porto). As such, the findings cannot be generalized to rural settings, smaller cities, or regions with different socio-economic and cultural dynamics without further validation. Future research is encouraged to replicate the model in diverse territorial contexts.

4. Results

The Mardia coefficient [43,44] indicated that the skewness and kurtosis values were within the [−1.5, 1.5] range recommended by Ventura-León et al. [45]. The standardized coefficient exceeded the 5% threshold (p > 0.05) [46], demonstrating that the data followed a multivariate normal distribution.
To ensure that the results were not affected by Common Method Bias, Harman’s single factor test was conducted, which encompassed all items. The unrotated solution accounted for 36.39% of the total variance, remaining below the 50.0% threshold established by Kock et al. [47].
The values of Composite Reliability (CR) were above 0.70 and those of the Average Variance Extracted (AVE) exceeded 0.50 [48], thereby ensuring convergent validity. As recommended by Tran and Le [49], the Maximum Shared Variance (MSV) was lower than the AVE, confirming discriminant validity (Table 2). It was also determined that there is a significant correlation among all of the analyzed variables. However, age and duration of stay did not show relevant associations with the constructs. The results indicate that these sociodemographic variables do not influence tourists’ opinions on the PBCH cultural legacy, urban revitalization, and economic development of the region.
To verify whether the observed variables represent the latent factors [50], a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted. The results indicated that the model demonstrates a good fit to the sample data [χ2(431) = 3.51, p < 0.001, GFI = 0.87, CFI = 0.92, TLI = 0.91, RMSEA = 0.06, LO90 = 0.06, HI90 = 0.07]. Subsequently, the research hypotheses were tested. It is important to note that no discriminant analysis was conducted, as this technique was not relevant to the objectives or structure of the present model.

4.1. Validation of Research Hypotheses

To test the research hypotheses, multiple linear regression analyses were conducted, and a serial mediation model was estimated. The aim was to ascertain the extent to which the PBCH positively influences the economic development of urban regions, both directly and indirectly through cultural legacy and urban revitalization. The data analysis revealed that the model is linear and statistically significant [F(1, 631) = 609.975, p < 0.001]. It was also found that 49.0% of the variance in economic development is explained by PBCH alone, which represents a strong effect and validates Hypothesis 1 (β = 0.701, t = 24.657, p < 0.001). These findings highlight the relevance of PBCH not only as a cultural symbol but also as a substantial contributor to local economic growth.
In testing Hypothesis 2, cultural legacy was found to partially mediate the relationship between PBCH and urban revitalization. Specifically, PBCH significantly predicted cultural legacy (β = 0.222, p < 0.001), which, in turn, was positively associated with urban revitalization (β = 0.803, p < 0.001). When cultural legacy was included in the model, the direct effect of PBCH on urban revitalization was reduced from β = 0.288 to β = 0.116, while remaining statistically significant. This suggests a partial mediation, meaning that part of the effect of PBCH on revitalization occurs through its capacity to reinforce cultural memory and identity, which then stimulates regeneration initiatives. The Sobel test [51] confirmed this mediation effect (Z = 5.620, p < 0.05).
In line with Hypothesis 3, the serial mediation model demonstrated that PBCH positively influences economic development through a sequential path: first enhancing cultural legacy, which then facilitates urban revitalization. The serial indirect effect (B = 0.109, 95% CI [0.012, 0.033]) was statistically significant, indicating that this chain of mediation mechanisms plays a critical role in translating heritage conservation into tangible economic outcomes. Importantly, the indirect effect via cultural legacy alone (B = 0.128) was stronger than that of urban revitalization alone (B = 0.106), although the serial pathway produced a distinct and complementary effect.
Additionally, Hayes’ [52] PROCESS macro (Model 6) for SPSS was used with 5.000 bias-corrected bootstraps and 95% confidence intervals to verify the indirect effect of cultural legacy and urban revitalization separately. Paired comparisons between the three indirect effects were conducted to test whether they exerted equal impacts on the relationship between PBCH and economic development (Table 3). The results indicated that the indirect effect of PBCH on economic development through cultural legacy was greater (B = 0.128, SE = 0.005, 95% CI [0.001, 0.058]) than the indirect effect through urban revitalization (B = 0.106; SE = 0.001, 95% CI [0.010, 0.021]), which, in turn, was smaller than the serial mediating effect (B = 0.109; SE = 0.002, 95% CI [0.012, 0.033]).
To provide a clearer and more integrated view of the effects tested in the mediation model, Table 4 presents a synthesis of the direct, indirect, and total effects identified in the analysis. This summary allows for a comparative understanding of the magnitude and significance of each pathway. As shown, the direct effect of PBCH on economic development remains the strongest, although all three indirect effects—via cultural legacy, via urban revitalization, and through the serial pathway—are statistically significant and contribute cumulatively to the outcome. The total effect (B = 1.044) reflects the combined impact of all mechanisms at play, reinforcing the argument that built heritage preservation operates not only through its immediate effects, but also by activating complementary cultural and urban processes that jointly enhance economic outcomes.
As shown in the comparative analysis of the predictors (Table 5), this relationship is primarily driven by PBCH, with complementary contributions from cultural legacy and urban revitalization. These findings are further interpreted in the following subsection.

4.2. Practical Interpretation and Comparative Weight of Predictors

The predictor with the strongest influence on perceived economic development was PBCH itself (β = 0.658), followed by cultural legacy (β = 0.126) and urban revitalization (β = 0.051). Although all predictors were statistically significant, these results show that preservation alone explains nearly 40% of the perceived variation in economic development (semi-partial R2 = 39.69%). This highlights the strategic importance of investment in heritage conservation policies as a means of promoting inclusive urban growth.
The mediating variables, though statistically less powerful in isolation, play a complementary role by enhancing the socio-cultural and spatial dynamics that link heritage to urban sustainability. Cultural legacy acts as a symbolic and identity-based mediator, while urban revitalization reflects more tangible spatial transformations. Together, they form a cohesive pathway by which PBCH affects not only the physical environment but also economic trajectories.
The results demonstrated that PBCH has a significant impact on the economic development of urban regions. It was also found that cultural legacy and urban revitalization act as serial mediators in the relationship between PBCH and economic growth.

5. Discussion

This study significantly contributes to understanding the impact of PBCH on the economic development of urban regions, highlighting the roles of cultural heritage and urban revitalization as mediating mechanisms.
The findings demonstrated that PBCH has a significantly positive impact on the economic development of urban regions, thereby validating the first research hypothesis. Similarly, Chng and Narayanan [13] emphasize the importance of integrating cultural heritage preservation into public policies and urban planning strategies. Ren and Han [18] add that cultural assets, beyond preserving historical memory and local identity, foster economic dynamism. Galluccio and Giambona [17] argue that the revitalization of historical heritage transforms neglected areas into investment hubs and tourist attractions, creating new business and employment opportunities. Consequently, Chan et al. [19] suggest that the preservation of historical buildings and sites plays a crucial role in the economic development of urban regions, establishing a reciprocal relationship between cultural identity and sustainable growth. Urban regions with well-preserved cultural heritage tend to be more attractive to both visitors and residents, thereby fostering the development of sectors such as hospitality, commerce, and cultural services [53].
The second hypothesis, which posited that cultural heritage exerts a mediating influence on the relationship between PBCH and urban revitalization, was also corroborated. This mediation suggests that heritage preservation goes beyond an aesthetic or physical conservation function, as it reinforces cultural and historical values and fosters a sense of community belonging. These conclusions align with the studies of Boussaa and Madandola [33], which emphasize that this perception is essential for ensuring local residents’ engagement in urban revitalization projects. In line with this perspective, Wang et al. [26] emphasize that the regeneration of historical resources stimulates sustainable tourism and creates environments that value historical memory and local identity. Denes and Pradit [10] highlight that heritage preservation, by rescuing and enhancing culturally significant structures, promotes the continuity of traditions and collective memories, as cultural heritage serves as a bridge between the past and the present. Lesh [54] goes further, asserting that cultural heritage becomes the foundation upon which regions reinvent themselves, respecting their history while projecting into the future.
The combined impact of cultural heritage and urban revitalization on economic development was significantly positive, confirming the third research hypothesis. This sequential relationship highlights that urban revitalization, driven by the collective values and traditions passed down through generations, improves infrastructure and the quality of life for local inhabitants while generating substantial economic impact [35]. In line with this idea, Francini and Rozochkina [55] note that cultural heritage revitalization in urban communities consolidates cultural identity, increases tourist numbers, and creates unique experiences that stimulate the local economy. According to Sheng et al. [6], redevelopment projects of historic centers contribute to sustainable development by balancing environmental, social, and economic preservation, making cities more resilient and competitive. This process demonstrates that culture and urbanism, when articulated, have the potential to transform cities into hubs of innovation and human and economic development [33].
Nonetheless, these findings must be interpreted within the territorial and cultural context in which the study was conducted, namely, Lisbon and Porto. These findings demonstrate that cultural heritage contributes to development not only by attracting investment and tourism but also by revitalizing the urban fabric and reinforcing social cohesion. These are urban areas with rich cultural heritage and strong tourism infrastructure. As such, the results may not be generalizable to rural regions, smaller cities, or territories with different socio-economic dynamics. Further research is needed to test the applicability of the proposed model in diverse geographic contexts and validate its broader relevance.

6. Conclusions

This study highlights the relevance of PBCH as a strategic factor for the economic development of urban regions, emphasizing the roles of cultural legacy and urban revitalization as mediating mechanisms. The results show that the preservation of historical heritage not only maintains the collective memory and cultural identity of communities but also generates positive economic impacts. This multidimensional approach underscores the importance of considering cultural heritage as a strategic asset in the development of sustainable policies. By strengthening the connection between cultural preservation and economic progress, this study encourages the development of strategies that balance preservation with modernization.
However, it is important to note that these conclusions are context-specific and reflect the empirical reality of Lisbon and Porto. Generalizing the findings to other regions requires further validation in different territorial and socio-economic settings.

7. Theoretical and Practical Contributions

This research offers significant theoretical and practical contributions. It demonstrates how the preservation of built cultural heritage may act as a catalyst for sustainable economic development. The inclusion of cultural legacy and urban revitalization as sequential mediators provides a theoretical perspective that allows for a detailed exploration of these complex relationships. The research model draws attention to the fact that cultural preservation is not merely a historical or aesthetic issue but also serves as an essential driver for sustainable development and economic growth in urban regions.
The study highlights that urban revitalization, when guided by cultural legacy, can be a powerful tool for transforming degraded areas into dynamic hubs of economic activity. Furthermore, it emphasizes the importance of community involvement in the success of cultural preservation and urban revitalization, as this fosters a sense of belonging and strengthens residents’ connections to local culture.

8. Limitations and Suggestions for Future Research

Despite the significant theoretical and practical contributions of this study, several limitations should be acknowledged and addressed in future research. First, the cross-sectional design adopted does not allow for causal inference, restricting the analysis to the correlations observed between the variables. Second, the investigation relies on the respondents’ perceptions, which may introduce bias, especially if participants do not possess in-depth knowledge about the impact of preservation and revitalization policies. Furthermore, the sample was limited to two major Portuguese cities that, despite their rich cultural heritage, do not represent regions with different cultural, social, and economic characteristics. While the relationships between PBCH, cultural legacy, urban revitalization, and economic development were statistically demonstrated, it is not possible to affirm that they follow the proposed causal sequence, due to the non-longitudinal nature of the data.
Therefore, it is suggested that future studies also incorporate the perspective of local residents, who play an active and continuous role in heritage conservation and urban revitalization processes. Including this perspective could enrich the analytical model by enabling a comparison between external perceptions (tourists) and internal ones (residents) regarding the impacts generated by built heritage. This approach would contribute to a more holistic and inclusive analysis, particularly in contexts where heritage valorization processes may trigger gentrification, social exclusion, or identity tensions. It is important to highlight that this suggestion emerged from a recommendation by one of the reviewers of this manuscript and, considering its relevance, it was integrated in this section as a concrete proposal for future studies.
In addition, future research should consider longitudinal studies to explore how the relationships between PBCH, cultural legacy, urban revitalization, and economic development evolve over time. It is also recommended to investigate more diverse geographical contexts, including rural areas, smaller cities, or territories under different socio-political conditions, in order to test the external validity of the model. Moreover, the inclusion of new mediators and external factors—such as specific public policies, environmental sustainability, or community resilience—could contribute to a deeper understanding of these mechanisms.
Finally, the complementarity between quantitative and qualitative methodologies is strongly encouraged, namely, through semi-structured interviews, focus groups, or urban ethnographies. These approaches may reveal symbolic, affective, and experiential dimensions of individuals’ relationships with cultural heritage. It is equally crucial to investigate how the economic benefits of preservation may foster unintended social consequences such as gentrification or residential exclusion. Addressing these questions could provide a more nuanced and comprehensive perspective on the true impact of built heritage preservation on urban and economic development.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, R.R., J.C.H., H.P. and T.L.; methodology, R.R.; software, R.R.; validation, R.R., J.C.H., H.P. and T.L.; formal analysis, R.R., J.C.H., H.P. and T.L.; investigation, R.R.; resources, R.R., J.C.H., H.P. and T.L.; data curation, R.R.; writing—original draft preparation, R.R., J.C.H., H.P. and T.L.; writing—review and editing, R.R., J.C.H., H.P. and T.L.; visualization, R.R., J.C.H., H.P. and T.L.; supervision, R.R., J.C.H., H.P. and T.L.; project administration, R.R., J.C.H., H.P. and T.L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and the corresponding Ethics Statement was approved by the ISG/CIGEST Ethics Committee (approval code: CIG_0010.10/2024, 2024-03-14).

Informed Consent Statement

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

Data Availability Statement

The data underlying this article will be shared on reasonable request to the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Chng, K.; Narayanan, S. Culture and Social Identity in Preserving Cultural Heritage: An Experimental Study. Int. J. Soc. Econ. 2017, 44, 1078–1091. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Guzman, P.; Roders, A.; Colenbrander, B. Impacts of Common Urban Development Factors on Cultural Conservation in World Heritage Cities: An Indicators-Based Analysis. Sustainability 2018, 10, 853. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Li, J.; Krishnamurthy, S.; Roders, A.; van Wesemael, P. Community participation in cultural heritage management: A systematic literature review comparing Chinese and international practices. Cities 2020, 96, 102467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Lak, A.; Gheitasi, M.; Timothy, D.J. Urban regeneration through heritage tourism: Cultural policies and strategic management. J. Tour. Cult. Change 2020, 18, 386–403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Ramkissoon, H. Perceived social impacts of tourism and quality-of-life: A new conceptual model. J. Sustain. Tour. 2023, 31, 442–459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Sheng, G.; Liao, L.; Xiong, L.; Zhu, B.; Cheung, S. Revitalization and development strategies of fostering urban cultural heritage villages: A quantitative analysis integrating expert and local resident opinions. Systems 2022, 10, 202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Nasrolahi, A. Local People’s Participation in Cultural Heritage Conservation and Management. In Handbook of Research on Inclusive and Innovative Architecture and the Built Environment; IGI Global: Hershey, PA, USA, 2023; pp. 415–437. [Google Scholar]
  8. Coombes, M.; Viles, H. Integrating nature-based solutions and the conservation of urban built heritage: Challenges, opportunities, and prospects. Urban For. Urban Green. 2021, 63, 127192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Awad, J.; Jung, C. Extracting the planning elements for sustainable urban regeneration in Dubai with AHP (analytic hierarchy process). Sustain. Cities Soc. 2022, 76, 103496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Denes, A.; Pradit, A. Chiang Mai’s intangible cultural heritage: Urban revitalization and cultural identity in a northern Thai city. J. Urban Cult. Res. 2022, 25, 3–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Boodaghi, O.; Fanni, Z.; Mehan, A. Regulation and policy-making for urban cultural heritage preservation: A comparison between Iran and Italy. J. Cult. Herit. Manag. Sustain. Dev. 2022. ahead-of-print. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Yeh, J.; Lin, S.; Lai, S.; Huang, Y.; Yi-Fong, C.; Lee, Y.; Berkes, F. Taiwanese indigenous cultural heritage and revitalization: Community practices and local development. Sustainability 2021, 13, 1799. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Chen, Z.; Ren, X.; Zhang, Z. Cultural Heritage as Rural Economic Development: Batik Production Amongst China’s Miao Population. J. Rural. Stud. 2021, 81, 182–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Hani, U.; Azzadina, I.; Sianipar, C.; Setyagung, E.; Ishii, T. Preserving Cultural Heritage through Creative Industry: A Lesson from Saung Angklung Udjo. Procedia Econ. Financ. 2012, 4, 193–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Fu, L.; Zhang, Q.; Tang, Y.; Pan, J.; Li, Q. Assessment of Urbanization Impact on Cultural Heritage Based on a Risk-Based Cumulative Impact Assessment Method. Herit. Sci. 2023, 11, 177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Jelinčić, D. Indicators for Cultural and Creative Industries’ Impact Assessment on Cultural Heritage and Tourism. Sustainability 2021, 13, 7732. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Galluccio, C.; Giambona, F. Cultural Heritage and Economic Development: Measuring Sustainability over Time. Socio-Econ. Plan. Sci. 2024, 95, 101998. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Ren, W.; Han, F. Indicators for Assessing the Sustainability of Built Heritage Attractions: An Anglo-Chinese Study. Sustainability 2018, 10, 2504. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Chan, S.; Lee, W.; Tang, B.; Chen, Z. Legacy of Culture Heritage Building Revitalization: Place Attachment and Culture Identity. Front. Psychol. 2024, 14, 1314223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Nijkamp, P. Economic Valuation of Cultural Heritage. In The Economics of Uniqueness: Investing in Historic City Cores and Cultural Heritage Assets for Sustainable Development; Licciardi, G., Amirtahmasebi, R., Eds.; The World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 2012; pp. 75–106. [Google Scholar]
  21. Tweed, C.; Sutherland, M. Built Cultural Heritage and Sustainable Urban Development. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2007, 83, 62–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Rudokas, K.; Landauskas, M.; Gražulevičiūtė-Vilneiškė, I.; Viliūnienė, O. Valuing the Socio-Economic Benefits of Built Heritage: Local Context and Mathematical Modeling. J. Cult. Herit. 2019, 39, 229–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Dalmas, L.; Geronimi, V.; Noël, J.; Sang, J. Economic Evaluation of Urban Heritage: An Inclusive Approach under a Sustainability Perspective. J. Cult. Herit. 2015, 16, 681–687. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Wei, Y.; Huang, C.; Lam, P.; Yuan, Z. Sustainable Urban Development: A Review on Urban Carrying Capacity Assessment. Habitat Int. 2015, 46, 64–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Kalfas, D.; Kalogiannidis, S.; Ambas, V.; Chatzitheodoridis, F. Contribution of the Cultural and Creative Industries to Regional Development and Revitalization: A European Perspective. Urban Sci. 2024, 8, 39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Wang, Q.; Yang, C.; Wang, J.; Tan, L. Tourism in Historic Urban Areas: Construction of Cultural Heritage Corridor Based on Minimum Cumulative Resistance and Gravity Model—A Case Study of Tianjin, China. Buildings 2024, 14, 2144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Madandola, M.; Boussaa, D. Cultural Heritage Tourism as a Catalyst for Sustainable Development: The Case of Old Oyo Town in Nigeria. Int. J. Herit. Stud. 2023, 29, 21–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Riyami, H.; Almuhrzi, H.; Scott, N. Heritage Hotel Experiences in Nizwa, Oman. Int. J. Tour. Res. 2021, 24, 169–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Bogan, E. The Tourism Potential of the Jewish Cultural Heritage in Bucharest. Societies 2022, 12, 120–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. UNESCO. World Heritage. Available online: https://whc.unesco.org/en/about/ (accessed on 13 December 2024).
  31. Geçikli, R.; Turan, O.; Lachytová, L.; Dağli, E.; Kasalak, M.; Uğur, S.; Guven, Y. Cultural Heritage Tourism and Sustainability: A Bibliometric Analysis. Sustainability 2024, 16, 6424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. 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]
  33. Boussaa, D.; Madandola, M. Cultural Heritage Tourism and Urban Regeneration: The Case of Fez Medina in Morocco. Front. Archit. Res. 2024, 13, 2635–2657. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Park, H. Heritage Tourism; Routledge: London, UK, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  35. Ji, F.; Wang, F.; Wu, B. How Does Virtual Tourism Involvement Impact the Social Education Effect of Cultural Heritage? J. Destin. Mark. Manag. 2023, 28, 100779. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Siddiqui, S.; Bano, N.; Hamid, S. An Evaluation of Tourists’ Intention towards the Sustainable Conservation of Cultural Heritage Destinations: The Role of Place Identity, Destination Image & Sustainable Intelligence. J. Tour. Sustain. Well-Being 2023, 11, 81–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Poudel, S.; Nyaupane, G.; Budruk, M. Stakeholders’ Perspectives of Sustainable Tourism Development: A New Approach to Measuring Outcomes. J. Travel Res. 2014, 55, 465–480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Prayag, G.; Chen, N.; Del Chiappa, G. Domestic Tourists to Sardinia: Motivation, Overall Attitude, Attachment, and Behavioural Intentions. Anatolia 2018, 29, 84–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Gursoy, D.; Zhang, C.; Chi, O. Determinants of Locals’ Heritage Resource Protection and Conservation Responsibility Behaviors. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 2019, 31, 2339–2357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Park, S.; Hsieh, C.; Lee, C. Examining Chinese College Students’ Intention to Travel to Japan Using the Extended Theory of Planned Behavior: Testing Destination Image and the Mediating Role of Travel Constraints. J. Travel Tour. Mark. 2017, 34, 113–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Buhalis, D.; Karatay, N. Mixed Reality (MR) for Generation Z in Cultural Heritage Tourism towards Metaverse. In Information and Communication Technologies in Tourism 2022; Stienmetz, J., Ferrer-Rosell, B., Massimo, D., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2022; pp. 16–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Madeira, A.; Rodrigues, R.; Palrão, T.; Santos, V. The Influence of Web Summit Attendees’ Age and Length of Stay on Leisure Activity Preferences and City Image. Int. J. Event Fest. Manag. 2023, 14, 326–343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Mardia, K. 9 Tests of Univariate and Multivariate Normality. In Handbook of Statistics; Krishnaiah, P.R., Ed.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1980; Volume 1, pp. 279–320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Cain, M.; Zhang, Z.; Yuan, K. Univariate and Multivariate Skewness and Kurtosis for Measuring Nonnormality: Prevalence, Influence and Estimation. Behav. Res. Methods 2017, 49, 1716–1735. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Ventura-León, J.; Peña-Calero, B.; Burga-León, A. The effect of normality and outliers on bivariate correlation coefficients in psychology: A Monte Carlo simulation. J. Gen. Psychol. 2023, 150, 405–422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Mardia, K.; Kent, J.; Taylor, C. Multivariate Analysis; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2024; Volume 88. [Google Scholar]
  47. Kock, F.; Berbekova, A.; Assaf, A. Understanding and Managing the Threat of Common Method Bias: Detection, Prevention and Control. Tour. Manag. 2021, 86, 104330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Shrestha, N. Factor Analysis as a Tool for Survey Analysis. Am. J. Appl. Math. Stat. 2021, 9, 4–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Tran, V.; Le, N. Impact of Service Quality and Perceived Value on Customer Satisfaction and Behavioral Intentions: Evidence from Convenience Stores in Vietnam. J. Asian Financ. Econ. Bus. 2020, 7, 517–526. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. McNeish, D.; Wolf, M. Dynamic Fit Index Cutoffs for Confirmatory Factor Analysis Models. Psychol. Methods 2023, 28, 61–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  51. Preacher, K. Calculation for the Sobel Test: An Interactive Calculation Tool for Mediation Tests. Available online: http://quantpsy.org/sobel/sobel.htm (accessed on 29 December 2024).
  52. Hayes, A. Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach; The Guilford Press: New York, NY, USA, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  53. Gai, A.; Dwijayani, H.; Pattiruhu, F.; Joesidawati, M.; Safari, A. Analysis of the Influence of Comprehensive Environmental Study and Regional Heritage Preservation on the Growth in the Valuation of Tourism Site Towards World Class Tourism. Innovative 2024, 4, 7287–7295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Lesh, J. Saving Heritage Policy: The Past and Future of Conservation in the Australian City. In Australian Urban Policy: Prospects and Pathways; Freestone, R., Randolph, B., Steele, W., Eds.; ANU Press: Canberra, Australia, 2024; pp. 125–145. [Google Scholar]
  55. Francini, C.; Rozochkina, T. Cultural Heritage and Urban Development: Embracing the Historic Urban Landscape Approach. In Cultural Heritage and Development in Fragile Contexts: Learning from the Interventions of International Cooperation in Afghanistan and Neighboring Countries; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2024; pp. 105–113. [Google Scholar]
Societies 15 00124 g001
Figure 1. Serial mediation model. Note: PBCH = preservation of built cultural heritage. Source: authors’ own work.
Figure 1. Serial mediation model. Note: PBCH = preservation of built cultural heritage. Source: authors’ own work.
Societies 15 00124 g001
Table 1. Sociodemographic characteristics of the sample.
Table 1. Sociodemographic characteristics of the sample.
Sociodemographic VariablesN = 633
Sex mentioned on the identification document
Male
Female
271 (42.8%)
362 (57.2%)
Age group
25 years or younger
Between 26 and 35 years
Between 36 and 45 years
Between 46 and 55 years
56 years or older
135 (21.3%)
136 (21.5%)
151 (23.9%)
122 (19.3%)
89 (14.1%)
Educational qualifications
Below bachelor’s degree
Bachelor’s degree
Above bachelor’s degree
289 (45.7%)
239 (37.8%)
105 (16.6%)
Reason for visit
Work
Tourism/Leisure
Visit family
Other reason
48 (7.6%)
500 (79.0%)
59 (9.3%)
26 (4.1%)
Length of stay
Weekend
One week
More than one week
219 (34.6%)
259 (40.9%)
155 (24.5%)
Source: authors’ own work.
Table 2. Descriptive statistics.
Table 2. Descriptive statistics.
VariableMSDCRAVEMSV1234
1. PBCH6.08 10.840.900.700.66(0.91)
2. ED5.85 10.840.830.640.620.701 **(0.81)
3. CL4.80 11.520.920.750.680.222 **0.313 **(0.94)
4. UD5.35 11.320.910.760.670.288 **0.342 **0.803 **(0.93)
Age46.1717.41---0.2070.207−0.126−0.136
Length of stay5.575.26---−0.0560.1040.041−0.035
Note. N = 633; ** p < 0.001; PBCH = preservation of built cultural heritage; ED = economic development; CL = cultural legacy; UD = urban revitalization; M = mean; SD = standard deviation; CR = Composite Reliability; AVE = Average Variance Extracted; MSV = Maximum Shared Variance. 1 Scale ranging from 1 to 7; Cronbach’s Alpha are in brackets. Source: authors’ own work.
Table 3. Comparison of the indirect effects of PBCH through cultural legacy and urban revitalization on economic development.
Table 3. Comparison of the indirect effects of PBCH through cultural legacy and urban revitalization on economic development.
Effects Bootstrapping CI
Total indirect effectBSELowerUpper
Model 1: PBCH → Cultural legacy → Economic development0.1280.0050.0010.058
Model 2: PBCH → Urban revitalization → Economic development0.1060.0010.0100.021
Model 3: PBCH → Cultural
legacy → Urban revitalization → Economic development		0.1090.0020.0120.033
Contrasts
Model 1 versus Model 20.0220.0020.0170.064
Model 1 versus Model 30.0190.0040.0310.066
Model 2 versus Model 30.0130.0060.0190.040
Note. PBCH = preservation of built cultural heritage; B = unstandardized beta; SE = standard error; CI = confidence intervals. Source: author’s own work.
Table 4. Summary table of mediation effects.
Table 4. Summary table of mediation effects.
Effect TypeEstimate (B)Standard Error (SE)95% CI [Lower, Upper]
Direct effect0.7010.028[0.645, 0.757]
Indirect effect via cultural legacy0.1280.005[0.001, 0.058]
Indirect effect via urban revitalization0.1060.001[0.010, 0.021]
Serial indirect effect0.1090.002[0.012, 0.033]
Total effect1.044--
Source: authors’ own calculation based on Table 3.
Table 5. Influence of predictor variables on the economic development of regions.
Table 5. Influence of predictor variables on the economic development of regions.
Predictor VariablesEconomic Development (β)Semi-Partial R2
PBCH    0.658 **39.69%
Cultural legacy   0.126 *1.16%
Urban revitalization   0.051 *0.09%
R2 ajustado
F(3, 629)		 0.516
225.165 **
Note. PBCH = preservation of built cultural heritage; * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.001. Source: authors’ own work.
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

Rodrigues, R.; Heitor, J.C.; Pimentel, H.; Lopes, T. Relationship Between Preservation of Built Cultural Heritage and Economic Development in Lisbon and Porto: Cultural Legacy and Urban Revitalization as Serial Mediation Mechanisms. Societies 2025, 15, 124. https://doi.org/10.3390/soc15050124

AMA Style

Rodrigues R, Heitor JC, Pimentel H, Lopes T. Relationship Between Preservation of Built Cultural Heritage and Economic Development in Lisbon and Porto: Cultural Legacy and Urban Revitalization as Serial Mediation Mechanisms. Societies. 2025; 15(5):124. https://doi.org/10.3390/soc15050124

Chicago/Turabian Style

Rodrigues, Rosa, João Caldeira Heitor, Helena Pimentel, and Tiago Lopes. 2025. "Relationship Between Preservation of Built Cultural Heritage and Economic Development in Lisbon and Porto: Cultural Legacy and Urban Revitalization as Serial Mediation Mechanisms" Societies 15, no. 5: 124. https://doi.org/10.3390/soc15050124

APA Style

Rodrigues, R., Heitor, J. C., Pimentel, H., & Lopes, T. (2025). Relationship Between Preservation of Built Cultural Heritage and Economic Development in Lisbon and Porto: Cultural Legacy and Urban Revitalization as Serial Mediation Mechanisms. Societies, 15(5), 124. https://doi.org/10.3390/soc15050124

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