Universal Accessibility to Cultural Heritage in Spain: A Bibliometric Review

Abstract

Universal accessibility in cultural heritage is a key challenge to ensure the inclusion of all visitors in historical and tourist environments. The aim of this research is to analyze the current state of research on universal accessibility to cultural heritage in Spain, identifying the key institutions, themes, and trends within this field. Additionally, it seeks to assess how these findings relate to national priorities and highlight gaps in the implementation of accessibility measures. This study employed the PRISMA 2020 framework to select and analyze 1035 scientific articles published between 2010 and 2025, retrieved from the Scopus and Web of Science databases. Bibliometrix (an R package) and Biblioshiny were used to analyze the data. The results show an exponential growth in publications since 2018, highlighting key areas such as accessible tourism, digitalization, the use of technologies for heritage documentation, urban planning, and geo-heritage conservation. It is concluded that accessibility in cultural heritage is an expanding interdisciplinary field with increasing international significance. It is recommended to continue exploring innovative technological solutions, strengthen governance strategies, and expand studies to rural and natural environments to ensure truly universal accessibility.

1. Introduction

Universal accessibility is the main pillar underpinning the right to participation and full inclusion of all people, promoting both equality and non-discrimination [1]. The United Nations (UN), in the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities held in 2014, reflected the urgency of removing barriers to promote access for people with disabilities because the limitations they present depend on how they interact with the environment and whether it is prepared or not [2]. Finally, the 2030 Agenda, through the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), highlights the importance of guaranteeing universal access to green spaces and public areas, as emphasized in SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities. This emphasizes the importance of adapting cultural heritage and its associated information by implementing measures that eliminate potential physical, cognitive, and sensory barriers [3].

Cultural heritage is part of the identity of each society as it represents the artistic, historical, and social heritage that has been passed down from generation to generation [4]. It forms a fundamental pillar in people’s lives as well as in their sense of belonging, which is why it is necessary to promote and guarantee its universal accessibility [1,5]. Thus, it is essential to remove barriers that may impede the enjoyment of people with needs or disabilities, promoting accessible tourism [6]. UN Tourism points out that access to cultural heritage must become an opportunity to promote the inclusion of all people [7]. This is why, in recent years, the human right to participate in cultural life has been encouraged, promoting measures such as the broadening of the concept of access to include physical, cognitive, and sensory terms.

In this regard, approximately 16% of the world’s population has a disability, which translates into 1.3 billion people and reflects the need for cultural heritage to be adapted and accessible to all without compromising its preservation and conservation [8]. In this context, it is also necessary to train professionals such as public transport drivers to promote the autonomy and accessibility of people with disabilities [9].

In a practical context, the need for accessible cultural heritage implies physical modifications and the development of tools that enable people with disabilities or specific needs to enjoy more inclusive experiences [10]. This requires the development of various resources such as adapted audio guides, specialized signage, and multisensory tours, as these strategies are essential for adapting monuments, museums, and heritage cities to ensure accessibility [11]. A wide variety of tools and strategies has been implemented internationally to improve accessibility to cultural heritage. Specifically, digitalization has enabled solutions to be sought to minimize or eliminate barriers, facilitating the creation of inclusive destinations [12,13].

From Mundial or European regulations, Spain supports and protects accessibility through various regulations and standards. Among these, several key norms promote and ensure accessibility across the country. On the one hand, the UNE 170001:2007 standard outlines the DALCO (deambulation, apprehension, localization, and communication) criteria to promote and guarantee accessibility and constitutes a management system to promote universal accessibility in public spaces by improving the implementation and development of strategies that favor universal adaptation [14]. On the other hand, Law 16/1985, of 25 June 1985, on Spanish Historical Heritage, reflects the guarantee of access to cultural assets, while respecting their conservation and preservation [15]. Additionally, Law 8/2013, of 26 June, on urban rehabilitation, regeneration, and renovation, points out the importance of unifying accessibility measures with rehabilitation works [16]. Furthermore, the II National Plan for Universal Accessibility (2022–2026) establishes specific guidelines to ensure that infrastructures, goods, and services are accessible to all [17].

In this regard, it is important to appreciate that Spain occupies a prominent place in the world’s cultural heritage landscape, with a wealth of history and art spanning millennia. The country has more than 50 UNESCO World Heritage Sites, ranging from geological sites [18], prehistoric cave paintings to architectural masterpieces such as the Alhambra in Granada, Gaudí’s Sagrada Familia in Barcelona, and the old city of Ávila [19]. This diversity of cultural assets not only reflects the complex history of the Iberian Peninsula but also serves as a fundamental testimony to the historical trajectory and identity of the Spanish nation. Spain’s cultural heritage plays a crucial role in defining the country’s national identity and social cohesion. Moreover, this rich cultural legacy is not only a source of national pride but also a significant economic engine, attracting over 80 million tourists annually and contributing 12.4% to the Spanish Gross Domestic Product in 2019 [20]. Despite its vast historical and cultural wealth, the country must adapt its cultural spaces and services to guarantee access and enjoyment for all individuals [21,22], regardless of their functional abilities.

The benchmarking of accessibility to cultural heritage in Spain reveals significant progress, albeit with specific characteristics and challenges compared to other European cases. Spain has implemented standards such as UNE 41531:2018 [23], comparable to the Italian approach to universal design and digitalization. Notable examples include the Museo del Prado and the Alhambra, which offer adapted routes and braille guides. However, countries like Italy and Belgium have adopted more comprehensive systems, such as the European Disability Card [24], which Spain has not yet implemented. In terms of legal frameworks, Spain’s late ratification of the Faro Convention in 2018 contrasts with more advanced European policies, such as the Access City Award [25]. Moreover, while Finland and Slovenia have integrated accessibility into national plans with clear metrics, Spain shows a fragmented implementation characterized by pilot projects. Although transnational initiatives such as ARCHES [26] and COME-IN! [27] could serve as benchmarks to assess Spain’s innovation, the absence of harmonized metrics hinders a clear determination of whether these advances are pioneering or reactive to European directives.

The evolution of the number of cultural heritage assets recognized in Spain and the percentage of tourism in the Spanish GDP from 2015 to 2022 is shown in Figure 1 [28]. Here, an increasing trend in both variables is observed between 2015 and 2019, indicating that cultural heritage assets may contribute to Spain’s attractiveness as a tourist destination. However, a significant drop in the percentage of tourism in GDP is visible in 2020, which coincides with the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on global tourism. Despite this decline, the number of cultural heritage assets continued to grow, suggesting ongoing efforts in heritage recognition and conservation. From 2021 onward, tourism rebounded, aligning with an increasing number of heritage assets, reinforcing the hypothesis that cultural heritage plays a key role in Spain’s tourism sector.

In this study, a bibliometric review is conducted to provide an in-depth analysis of research on universal accessibility in Spain. In this study, the term universal accessibility does not imply a global geographic scope but rather refers to the principle of ensuring that cultural heritage environments are accessible to all individuals, regardless of age, disability, or personal condition. This concept is rooted in inclusive design and is widely supported by Spanish legal and policy frameworks. The choice to focus specifically on the Spanish context responds to the country’s notable legislative and institutional advancements in the field of accessible heritage. The following research questions are proposed: RQ1—What is the state of research on universal accessibility to cultural heritage in Spain? RQ2—Which publications, authors, institutions, themes, and trends dominate this scholarly landscape? RQ3—How do these findings reflect national priorities and gaps in accessibility implementation? Given the complexity of this challenge—rooted in the need to ensure accessibility in a country renowned for its rich cultural heritage and where international tourism serves as a key economic driver—this review examines the current state of research, identifying trends, gaps, and future directions in the field, that is valuable for researchers, practitioners and policymakers.

2. Materials and Methods

This review follows a bibliometric methodology structured into five distinct phases, as shown in Figure 2: (i) The first phase involves the identification of key literature, focusing on scientific articles. (ii) In the second phase, bibliometric data are systematically collected and structured for subsequent analysis. (iii) The third phase consists of data analysis and processing, employing various statistical and analytical techniques to identify patterns, trends, and relationships within the literature. (iv) The fourth phase involves the synthesis and visualization of the data, transforming findings into graphical representations to enhance interpretation. (v) Finally, the fifth phase focuses on drawing the main conclusions and insights from the study.

To accomplish the first phase outlined in Figure 2, we selected studies from the Scopus and Web of Science databases to ensure comprehensive and high-quality coverage of scientific publications. These databases were chosen for their rigorous indexing and broad disciplinary scope, which are crucial for conducting reliable and replicable bibliometric analyses. The data collection spanned from 2010 to 1 March 2025, based on database results. To ensure a thorough and precise search, a combination of multiple keywords was applied using Boolean operators in both databases, as detailed in

Table 1. Search string.

Search String
(TITLE-ABS-KEY (“accessib *”) AND ALL (“univer *”) AND ALL (“Spain” OR “Spanish” OR “Iber *”) AND ALL (“cultural heritage” OR “heritage sites” OR “monument *” OR “historic * buil *”))

* Word variations and expansion of the search results.

. Here, wildcard symbols were applied to capture variations of key terms and broaden the search scope. For instance, “historic * buil *” was applied to encompass variations such as “historic buildings” and “historical building”, thus maximizing the retrieval of relevant literature. On the one hand, the term cultural heritage is understood in a broad and inclusive view, in line with definitions proposed by UNESCO and Spanish legislation, as previously commented. It encompasses both tangible elements—such as monuments, archaeological sites, historic buildings, and museums—and intangible expressions of culture. This interpretation is consistent with the search terms used in the bibliometric review (e.g., “cultural heritage”, “heritage sites”, “monument *”, “historic * buil *”) and reflects the diverse ways in which heritage is studied, preserved, and made accessible in the Spanish context. On the other hand, accessibility is a multidimensional concept that refers to the conditions that allow all individuals to access, use, and benefit from spaces, services, products, and information without barriers. In the context of cultural heritage, accessibility encompasses various interrelated dimensions, including physical access (e.g., ramps, signage, spatial design), sensory and cognitive accessibility (e.g., for individuals with visual, auditory, or neurodiverse conditions), digital accessibility (e.g., virtual tours, accessible websites), linguistic and cultural accessibility (e.g., multilingual content), and even economic and social accessibility (e.g., affordability, inclusive policies).

Continuing with the methodology, the second phase outlined in Figure 2 focused on selecting and systematically organizing the retrieved studies on universal accessibility in Spanish cultural heritage to ensure a structured and efficient subsequent analysis. To ensure a structured and transparent review process, the PRISMA 2020 framework was applied [29,30]. This framework is a key tool in bibliometric analysis, providing a systematic approach to literature selection [31]. Initially, a broad search was conducted, including journal articles, conference proceedings, and books to achieve comprehensive coverage. However, filtering was later refined to focus exclusively on peer-reviewed journal articles, as they ensure greater consistency and rigor in bibliometric research than conference papers, reviews, and book chapters. In this context, the PRISMA 2020 flow diagram enhances the transparency and reproducibility of the study selection process by visually outlining its key phases [32,33], as stated in Figure 3: (i) Identification: a total of 1897 records were retrieved from Scopus and Web of Science, with 114 identified as duplicates. (ii) Screening: no records were excluded at this stage, as all were considered relevant to the study. (iii) Eligibility: from the 1753 remaining records, 709 were removed for not being journal articles (303 books, 205 conference papers, 119 reviews, and 82 book chapters), while 9 additional records were excluded for not meeting the inclusion criteria. (iv) Inclusion: the final dataset comprised 1035 journal articles selected for bibliometric analysis, as can be seen in Table S1.

Following the third phase outlined in Figure 3 and adhering to the PRISMA 2020 framework, the bibliometric analysis was carried out using the Bibliometrix R-4.4.2 package along with the Biblioshiny tool [34,35]. Bibliometrix provides a robust set of analytical tools, ranging from basic descriptive statistics to advanced techniques such as co-citation networks and factorial analysis, facilitated through the Biblioshiny application. This methodological approach enables a comprehensive assessment of the research landscape by examining publication trends, citation patterns, co-occurrence networks, and thematic mapping. Key bibliometric indicators, such as publication growth, citation impact, and thematic clustering, provide valuable insight into the development and significance of research in the field.

3. Results

This Section presents the results of the bibliometric analysis. Here, the study presents the general bibliometric data, the information on the impact of scientific journals, the most relevant authors, and the list of affiliations and countries.

3.1. Bibliometric Trends and Research Growth

Table 2. Summary of Bibliometric Data from 2015 to 2025.

Description	Results	Description	Results
Main information about the data		Authors
Timespan	2010–2025	Authors	4083
Sources (journals, books, etc.)	599	Authors of single-authored docs	142
Documents	1035	Authors Collaboration
Annual growth rate %	9.68	Single-authored docs	152
Document average age	4.01	Co-authors per doc	4.34
Average citations per doc	10.66	International co-authorships %	4.247
Document Contents		Document Types
Keywords plus (ID)	3524	Article	1034
Author’s keywords (DE)	3927	Article; early access	1

summarizes the bibliometric data on accessibility in cultural heritage between 2010 and 2025. A total of 1035 documents have been included that are part of 599 sources, with an annual growth rate of 9.68%, indicating a steady increase in scientific output. The average age of the documents is 4.01 years, and the average number of citations per document is 10.66, reflecting a relevant impact. In terms of content, 3524 keywords plus (terms automatically generated from article references) and 3927 author keywords have been identified, evidencing the thematic diversity of the field. Authorship shows strong collaboration in comparison with other similar fields [36,37], with 4083 authors in total and an average of 4.34 co-authors per paper, while single-author publications are less frequent (142 papers). In addition, 4.247% of the papers have international co-authorship, pointing to the global dimension of the subject. Finally, in line with the inclusion or exclusion criteria, most of the documents correspond to scientific articles. These results reflect the consolidation of accessibility in cultural heritage as a growing field of study, with increasing academic impact and international collaboration.

Figure 4 shows the annual evolution of scientific production and citation impact in the field of study. The brown bar represents the number of papers published per year, showing an exponential growth from 2018 onwards. This increase reflects a growing interest in the topic and an increased awareness in the scientific community. The yellow line represents the average number of citations per article, with a notable peak in 2013, suggesting the existence of key studies with a high initial impact. However, from 2015 onward, this trend shows a progressive decrease, which may be associated with the expansion of the field and the diversification of the topics addressed, diluting the impact of citations in individual studies. The blue line, which represents the average number of citations per year, remains relatively stable, with slight fluctuations over time. This indicates that, although the number of publications has grown, the overall impact of the area in terms of citations remains constant, which could be interpreted as a consolidation of knowledge and a greater maturity of research in the subject area.

3.2. Most Influential Scientific Journals

Table 3. Most impactful scientific journals based on Bradford’s law.

Scientific Journal	Publisher	Quartile	Ranking	Frequency	Cumulative Frequency	Zone
Sustainability (Switzerland)	MDPI	Q3 (Green & Sustainable Science & Technology)	1	46	46	Zone 1
Heritage	MDPI	Q2 (Multidisciplinary Sciences)	2	21	67	Zone 1
Geoheritage	Springer	(Q2, Geosciences, Multidisciplinary)	3	16	83	Zone 1
Land	MDPI	(Q2, Environmental Studies)	4	16	99	Zone 1
Virtual Archaeology Review	Universitat Politecnica de Valencia	Q1, (Archaeology)	5	16	115	Zone 1
Journal of Cultural Heritage	Elsevier	Q1, (Geosciences, Multidisciplinary)	6	15	130	Zone 1
Applied Sciences (Switzerland)	MDPI	Q1 (Engineering, Multidisciplinary)	7	13	143	Zone 1
Remote Sensing	MDPI	Q1, (Geosciences, Multidisciplinary)	8	12	155	Zone 1
Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports	Elsevier	Q1, (Archaeology)	9	11	166	Zone 1
Digital Applications in Archaeology and Cultural Heritage	Elsevier	-	11	7	184	Zone 1

presents the most influential scientific journals ranked according to their frequency of appearance and their accumulation in zones of relevance, according to Bradford’s Law. According to this principle, publications are grouped into concentration zones where a few journals contain most of the relevant articles, while others have a smaller contribution. In this case, Sustainability leads the list with 46 publications, making it the main source of dissemination in the area. It is followed by Heritage, with 21 articles, and Geosciences, with 16. Other prominent journals include Land (14 articles), Virtual Archaeology Review (13), Journal of Cultural Heritage (13), and Applied Sciences (Switzerland) (13). According to Bradford’s Law, scientific publications are distributed unevenly across journals, with a small core (Zone 1) containing the highest number of relevant articles, while subsequent zones have progressively fewer key publications. In this study, Zone 1 includes the most influential journals, as they contain the majority of high-impact articles on this topic. As can be observed, most of the journals listed are open access and promote rapid publication, especially from the publisher MDPI.

The analysis of scientific production indicated in Table 3 is complemented by

Table 4. Most impactful sources based on h-index and total citations.

Scientific Journal	Hirsch Index	Egghe’s g-Index	M-quotient (m-Index)	Total Citations	Number of Articles	Article Year Start
Sustainability (Switzerland)	10	16	1.667	360	46	2020
Geoheritage	9	16	1.000	260	16	2017
Remote Sensing	8	11	1.000	132	12	2018
Journal of Cultural Heritage	7	15	0.636	254	15	2015
Applied Sciences (Switzerland)	6	11	1.000	138	13	2020
Heritage	6	10	0.857	120	21	2019
Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports	6	11	0.600	145	11	2016
Land	6	7	1.200	68	16	2021
Virtual Archaeology Review	6	9	0.462	95	16	2013
Digital Applications in Archaeology and Cultural Heritage	5	7	0.625	92	7	2018

, which considers key bibliometric metrics such as the Hirsch index (h-index), the Egghe g-index (g-index), and the M-quotient (m-index), as well as the total number of citations and the volume of publications per journal. In this regard, the h-index measures an author’s or journal’s productivity and citation impact, where an index of h means that h articles have been cited at least h times. The g-index is an alternative that gives more weight to highly cited articles, ensuring that the top g articles together have at least g² citations. The m-index adjusts the h-index for career length, providing a more time-sensitive measure of impact. On the one hand, taking into account the h-index and the number of citations, Sustainability tops the list with an h-index of 10 and a total of 360 citations, reflecting its strong influence in the area. Geosciences and Remote Sensing follow with an h-index of 9 and 8, respectively, highlighting their contribution in terms of cumulative citations. Journal of Cultural Heritage, Applied Sciences, and Heritage present intermediate values, with h-indexes of 7 and 6, while other journals, such as Digital Applications in Archaeology and Cultural Heritage, show a lower relative impact, with an h-index of five. On the other hand, the M-quotient (m-index), which measures productivity adjusted for time since first publication, reveals that Sustainability has the highest value (1.667), suggesting a rapid accumulation of impact in a short time. In contrast, longer-established journals, such as Virtual Archaeology Review (m-index of 0.462), show a more gradual growth.

In this Section, it is also worth highlighting the cumulative evolution of scientific production in the most influential journals in the area from 2010 to 2025, as seen in Figure 5. A moderate growth is observed until 2018, followed by a notable increase in recent years, especially in Sustainability and Heritage, which lead in the number of papers published annually. Until 2015, production remained relatively low and evenly distributed among the different journals, with no clear trend of leadership. However, as of 2015, accelerated growth is evident as indicated in Figure 4, particularly in journals with a focus on sustainability and heritage conservation, suggesting a shift in the scientific agenda toward the inclusion of universal accessibility in these areas. The growth of publications in Heritage, Land, and Virtual Archaeology Review also indicates a diversification in the coverage of this topic, integrating it not only in general sustainability studies but also in specific areas such as archaeology and land management. In terms of future projection, if the current trend continues, it is expected that the volume of publications will continue to increase, consolidating universal accessibility as a central axis within cultural heritage research.

3.3. Key Authors and Their Impact on the Field

The most relevant authors ranked by number of published papers and authorship fractionation are listed in Figure 6. In this regard, as stated in Table 2, the research includes 4083 authors with an average of 4.34 co-authors per article. D. Ruban (Southern Federal University) tops the list with 14 papers and a fractionation value of 6.25, indicating a high contribution to the field with respect to the rest of the authors. He is followed by J. Liu (Key Laboratory of Environment Change and Resources Use in Beibu Gulf, Nanning Normal University) with 8 publications and a fractional contribution of 1.24, reflecting a lower proportion of authorship in the papers. Other prominent researchers include M. Gil-Docampo (University of Santiago de Compostela), A. Mikhalenko (Institute of Earth Sciences, Southern Federal University), J. Ortiz-Sanz (University of Santiago de Compostela), and M. Cazorla (Universitat Politècnica de València), with between 6 and 7 publications each, but with different levels of fractionation, suggesting different roles within the scientific collaborations. In particular, M. Cazorla shows a high fractionation value (2.2) compared to other authors with a similar number of publications, indicating a more central participation in the studies in which he has collaborated. The analysis suggests that the field is dominated by a small core of authors with a high level of productivity, followed by a larger group of researchers with relevant contributions but with less individual weight in published articles.

Table 5. Authors’ local impact by h-index.

Author	Hirsch Index	Egghe’s g-Index	M-Quotient (m-Index)	Total Citations	Number of Publications	First Year of Publication on Topic
D. Ruban	5	8	0.714	78	14	2019
F. P. Cruz	4	4	1.000	57	4	2022
R. Fort	4	4	0.444	87	4	2017
M. Gil-Docampo	4	6	0.364	81	6	2015
Y. Li	4	5	0.800	66	5	2021
J. Liu	4	4	0.667	171	4	2020
J. Ortiz-Sanz	4	6	0.364	81	6	2015
O. Rivero	4	5	0.667	38	5	2020
M. Rueda	4	4	1.000	57	4	2022
L. Zhang	4	5	0.308	63	5	2013

presents the local impact of the most relevant authors in the area, considering bibliometric metrics such as the Hirsch index (h-index), the Egghe g-index (g-index), the M-quotient (m-index), the total number of citations, and the number of publications. Similarly, D. Ruban is positioned as the researcher with the highest impact, with an h-index of 5, a g-index of 8, and a total of 78 citations in 14 publications since 2019. This profile indicates a combination of high productivity and moderate impact in terms of citations. Authors such as F. P. Cruz, R. Fort, and M. Gil-Docampo present an h-index of 4, with a citation volume between 47 and 87, indicating that their studies have received considerable recognition within the scientific community. In particular, F. P. Cruz has an m-index of 1000, reflecting a rapid growth in his impact since his first publication in 2022. Researchers such as Y. Liu and J. Liu also stand out with similar h-index and g-index values, but with a larger number of publications and a more distributed impact. In contrast, L. Zhang, with an h-index of 4 but an m-index of 0.308, shows slower growth in impact since his first publication in 2013.

In terms of author collaboration, the co-authorship network shown in Figure 7 reveals a fragmented structure composed of multiple small clusters, rather than a single cohesive research community. This suggests that, despite the growing interest in universal accessibility to cultural heritage, collaboration remains relatively localized, often limited to institutional or national contexts. The most prominent node, corresponding to D. Ruban, indicates a high level of productivity and connectivity within a specific research group. Other authors form smaller, loosely connected clusters, highlighting the opportunity to foster broader interdisciplinary and international partnerships to strengthen and unify the research field.

3.4. Institutional and Geographical Contributions to Research

Figure 8 shows the evolution in the number of documents published by the five most frequent affiliations, all of them universities, between 2010 and 2025. As indicated above, a notable growth can be seen from 2018 onwards, with a more exponential increase in recent years. The University of Seville is positioned as the institution with the highest number of publications, followed by the Universitat Politècnica de València and the University of Valencia. The University of Granada and the Southern Federal University also show an upward trend, although with a lower volume of publications. In this sense, as might be expected, the four institutions that publish the most on the subject are Spanish.

Figure 9 analyzes the scientific production of the affiliations over time. Spain ranks first with 257 articles, which is due to its inclusion in the search query but also reflects its leadership in the study of accessibility in cultural heritage in Spain. Italy and China follow with 95 and 93 articles, respectively. The United States, the United Kingdom, Portugal, France, and other countries have lower volumes of publications. As for the type of publications, most of the articles are Single-Country Publications (SCP), with 241 in the case of Spain, indicating that research in this field is usually carried out within a single country. However, there are also 16 publications in international collaboration (Multiple-Country Publications, MCP), which shows a growth in cooperation between institutions from different countries.

Figure 10 shows the countries of the corresponding authors together with the total number of citations and the average number of citations per article, and Figure 11 presents the most cited countries in this field of study. Spain leads in total citation volume with 2154 citations, followed by Italy (1149 citations) and China (709 citations). However, when analyzing the average impact of each article, it is observed that Australia has the highest average with 24.9 citations per article, suggesting that its publications have a high impact on the academic community. China (13.7 citations per article) and Italy (12.1 citations per article) also stand out in this regard. In contrast, although Spain leads in citation volume, its average per article (8.4) is lower compared to other countries. In this regard, the countries most frequently cited—Spain, Italy, and China—align with those producing the highest volume of research, reinforcing their role as reference points in the academic development of this field.

4. Discussion

This Section presents a detailed discussion of the bibliometric analysis results, focusing on the trends observed in the most impactful documents, the keyword analysis, the co-occurrence network, and the thematic map. Additionally, it explores future research directions and outlook, highlighting emerging themes and potential avenues for further investigation in the field.

4.1. Analysis of the Most Impactful Documents and Citation Trends

Table 6. Most impactful documents based on the total number of citations received.

Ref.	Authors	Total Citations	Total Citations per Year	Normalized Total Citations
[38]	A. Jovanović et al.	187	46.75	14.12
[39]	I. Palomo	178	19.78	7.23
[6]	E. Michopoulou et al.	165	15.00	7.94
[40]	B. Savoldi et al.	134	26.80	11.31
[41]	J. Gao et al.	121	13.44	4.92
[42]	C. Fenu et al.	112	14.00	6.62
[43]	P.M. Da Costa et al.	101	12.63	5.97
[44]	S. Mesquita et al.	87	8.70	3.94
[45]	Y. Hou et al.	79	19.75	5.97
[46]	L. Herrero Prieto et al.	76	8.44	3.09

Normalized citations were calculated by dividing the total number of citations of each document by the number of years since its publication.

shows the most impactful documents based on the total number of citations received (total citations, total citations per year, and normalized total citations). Thus, the analysis of the most cited documents in the field of universal accessibility to Spanish cultural heritage reveals several key trends shaping both research and practice in this area: (i) integration of technology and accessibility, (ii) multidisciplinary and collaborative approaches, (iii) accessible and sustainable tourism, (iv) innovation in evaluation methods, and (v) smart cities and accessible heritage.

First, the growing importance of integrating innovative technological solutions to enhance accessibility in cultural heritage has been stated [38,41]. This trend is evident in the development and application of technologies such as augmented reality, mobile applications, and intelligent guidance systems. These advancements are transforming how visitors engage with heritage sites, providing immersive and personalized experiences tailored to diverse accessibility needs. For example, augmented reality applications can offer detailed descriptions and virtual reconstructions of artifacts or historical structures, enabling individuals with visual impairments or mobility limitations to experience cultural heritage in unprecedented ways. Moreover, mobile applications in the Spanish context include the implementation of beacon-based navigation systems in museums and historical sites (e.g., National Archaeological Museum), mobile apps with audio descriptions and sign language interpretation (e.g., Áppside project supported by Fundación Orange), and virtual tours designed for people with reduced mobility or cognitive disabilities, which often incorporate GPS, Bluetooth Low Energy sensors, and QR codes to provide location-based content adapted to the user’s needs. Compared to international examples—such as the use of AI-based visual recognition systems in Italy or haptic feedback devices in the UK—Spain’s approach emphasizes mobile integration and the inclusion of sign language and easy-to-read content. Furthermore, these studies highlight how technology helps overcome cognitive and sensory barriers in addition to enhancing physical accessibility, resulting in more inclusive and enriching experiences for all visitors.

Second, there is a critical need for a multidisciplinary approach to accessibility in cultural heritage [5,39]. For example, collaborations between conservationists and accessibility specialists (usually engineers and architects) can result in adaptations that improve access without compromising the historical integrity of sites, and this multidisciplinary perspective is driving the development of new agendas and methodologies that incorporate accessibility considerations from the earliest stages of conservation planning and heritage site management. This trend acknowledges that creating truly accessible heritage environments requires close collaboration among a diverse range of professionals, including conservation experts, designers, technologists, accessibility specialists, historians, and cultural managers.

Third, accessible and sustainable tourism is one of the movements observed in the field [44,46]. Research suggests that enhancing the accessibility of heritage sites enhances people with disabilities and increases the overall attractiveness of destinations, attracting a wider and more diverse audience. Following this, it generates positive economic benefits by creating jobs and stimulating investment in infrastructure and related services. In addition, these studies explore how accessibility strategies can be aligned with the principles of sustainable tourism, ensuring the long-term conservation of heritage sites and making them accessible to present and future generations. This trend is driving a rethinking of the planning and management of heritage sites, with an increasing emphasis on inclusion and sustainability as key pillars of cultural and tourism development.

Fourth, the development of new methods and tools for assessing and improving accessibility in heritage environments [40,42]. Research includes natural language processing techniques and data analysis to identify accessibility barriers and propose effective solutions. The application of these technologies allows for more precise and systematic accessibility evaluations, facilitating the implementation of more efficient interventions. Both studies also emphasize how crucial it is to include local communities and final users in the assessment and design phase to guarantee that the solutions created are appropriate and successful for the unique requirements of any heritage site.

Finally, the connection between smart city initiatives and cultural heritage accessibility is another key trend shaping the field [43,45]. The research in this area suggests combining information and communication technology to make cities more welcoming and make it easier for people to access cultural treasures. The use of smart technology, such as sensors and geographic information systems, may significantly enhance the experience of tourists by giving them access to real-time data about services, alternate routes, and accessibility. These technological methods can also assist in better managing tourist flows, which will lessen the impact on the environment and maintain the integrity of heritage sites.

4.2. Conceptual Structure Based on Keyword Analysis

Keyword analysis is an essential component of bibliometric studies, as it allows research trends and areas of major interest within a specific field to be identified. In this study, an analysis of the most frequent keywords in the articles reviewed was carried out, as indicated in

Table 7. Most frequent keywords in scientific papers.

Keywords	Frequency
accessibility *	92
human/humans	59
Spain *	44
tourism	36
tourism development	30
cultural heritage *	29
GIS	26
sustainable development	26
ecotourism	24
female	22
male	22
tourist destination	22
perception	21
sustainability	21
tourism management	21
urban area	20
archaeology	19
heritage conservation	18
photogrammetry	18
spatial analysis	18
conservation	17

* Words included in the search string.

. Here, it is important to note that author keywords are terms chosen directly by the article’s authors to represent the main topics, whereas keywords plus are algorithmically generated from titles of cited references. The combination of both provides a richer view of conceptual structures.

The term accessibility, with 92 mentions, confirms that universal accessibility has transcended its initial consideration as a mere technical or normative criterion to consolidate itself as a fundamental principle within cultural heritage management. This finding is consistent with the “Design for All” approach and the policies promoted by organizations such as UNESCO and the ONU through the Sustainable Development Goals, in particular SDG 11, which calls for sustainable and inclusive cities and communities [47,48]. Likewise, the strong presence of Spain (44 mentions) and cultural heritage (29 mentions) is evidence of the territorial and thematic specificity of the studies analyzed. In the Spanish context, accessibility in cultural heritage has gained relevance due to the richness and diversity of its heritage, as well as the regulatory framework that regulates its conservation and public use [49,50,51,52]. However, the difference in the frequency of these terms suggests that, although accessibility is a recurrent theme, its specific application to cultural heritage is still a growing field in literature.

The analysis of external keywords reveals that accessibility in cultural heritage cannot be addressed in isolation but is deeply interconnected with tourism (36 mentions), tourism development (30 mentions), and sustainability (26 mentions). This interconnection responds to a paradigm shift in heritage management, where a balance is sought between the conservation of cultural assets and their responsible enjoyment by a diverse public [53,54,55]. The frequent mention of tourism shows that studies view accessibility in heritage as essential for the competitiveness and sustainability of cultural destinations [56]. Universal accessibility in heritage tourism implies the elimination of architectural barriers and, moreover, the implementation of inclusive strategies that allow people with functional, sensory, or cognitive diversity to fully experience cultural heritage [11,57]. In this regard, the recurrence of terms such as perception (21 mentions) and sustainability (21 mentions) indicates a growing concern for understanding how visitors perceive accessibility and what impact inclusive strategies have on the sustainability of heritage destinations. Sustainability is not limited to the material preservation of sites, but also encompasses social sustainability, ensuring that all individuals, regardless of their abilities, can access and participate in the heritage [58].

Another significant finding is that a large number of terms related to technology applied to heritage accessibility and conservation, such as GIS (26 mentions), photogrammetry (18 mentions), and spatial analysis (18 mentions). The use of GIS (Geographic Information Systems) and photogrammetry makes it possible to develop accessibility maps, model accessible three-dimensional environments, and assess the impact of interventions on heritage sites [59,60]. These technological advances reinforce the paradigm of “intelligent accessibility”, where digitization and interactive tools can overcome some of the physical limitations of heritage spaces without compromising their integrity [61,62]. Moreover, the presence of heritage conservation (19 mentions) and archaeology (19 mentions) implies that some studies have explored how to balance accessibility with the need to preserve the historical and material value of heritage assets [63,64]. This is a key debate in the field of universal accessibility, as in many cases, interventions to improve accessibility may conflict with criteria of authenticity and conservation.

Finally, the inclusion of terms such as human (34 mentions), female (22 mentions), and male (22 mentions) opens a reflection on human diversity in heritage accessibility. Accessibility must examine the visitor’s experience in terms of factors such as gender, age, and specific needs. The fact that both female and male visitors have the same frequency suggests that some studies have considered access to heritage from a gender equity perspective [65]. This is particularly relevant in the context of feminist heritage studies, which have questioned the way in which heritage spaces have historically been designed and narrated from a predominantly male perspective [66]. Furthermore, the presence of urban areas (20 mentions) reinforces the idea that accessibility in cultural heritage is not limited to isolated sites but must be integrated within an inclusive urban planning that facilitates mobility and interaction with the built environment [67,68].

4.3. Keyword Co-Occurrence Network and Thematic Clustering

The keyword co-occurrence analysis allows us to visualize the conceptual structure of universal accessibility in Spanish cultural heritage and the interrelationships between the most relevant topics. Figure 12 shows the co-occurrence network of keywords, where node size represents keyword frequency, edge thickness indicates the strength of co-occurrence between terms, and colors denote thematic clusters generated by the Biblioshiny clustering algorithm.

The two nodes with the greatest weight in the network are accessibility and cultural heritage, which reaffirms that accessibility in cultural heritage constitutes the backbone of the field of study, according to the query used. The closeness and relationship between these concepts imply that accessibility is now regarded as a fundamental concept that influences scholarly discourse rather than as a supporting component of heritage management. On the one hand, accessibility appears closely linked to concepts such as mobility, inclusion, digitization, and education, which indicates that accessibility is studied from a different approach: physical, social inclusion, digital accessibility, and educational experiences. The presence of audio description and space syntax reinforces the idea that accessibility is being approached from a multisensory and spatial perspective, incorporating advanced methodologies to improve comprehension and navigation in heritage environments [61,69]. On the other hand, cultural heritage is related to terms such as sustainability, virtual reality, photogrammetry, and archaeology, suggesting that cultural heritage research has incorporated digital technologies as key tools to improve accessibility and preservation, as commented on in the previous Section. The intersection between accessibility and emerging technologies opens new lines of research on how digitization can mitigate physical barriers without altering the authenticity of heritage.

The diagram reveals several sub-clusters of terms representing specific approaches within the study of accessibility in cultural heritage. The blue cluster, focused on accessible tourism and digitization, links accessibility with concepts such as sustainable tourism, education, museums, digitization, and inclusion. This relationship highlights the importance of strategies that ensure inclusive experiences for all visitors, aligned with the sustainable development of heritage tourism. Furthermore, the presence of the term COVID-19 suggests that the pandemic prompted research on accessibility in digital environments and the adaptation of heritage spaces to new health challenges [70,71]. On the other hand, the green cluster, focusing on technology and heritage reconstruction, groups together terms such as virtual reality, augmented reality, photogrammetry, and 3D modelling. The strong interconnection between these concepts reflects the increasing use of immersive technologies to document and disseminate accessible heritage, facilitating the exploration of these spaces without physical barriers for people with disabilities, as previously remarked.

Other clusters highlight different perspectives on accessibility in cultural heritage. The red cluster, oriented toward spatial analysis and urban planning, includes terms such as GIS, urban planning, remote sensing, and landscape archaeology. The presence of these terms indicates that accessibility is addressed through the adaptation of existing spaces and, more importantly, through spatial planning strategies that enhance mobility in heritage cities. Finally, the orange cluster emphasizes the relationship between accessibility and geological heritage, grouping terms such as geoconservation, geosites, and geotourism. This sub-cluster highlights the need to ensure accessibility in natural environments of heritage value, promoting adapted trails and inclusive signage in geoparks to facilitate the experience of different audiences [72,73,74].

4.4. Thematic Mapping of Research Domains

Figure 13 presents a thematic map that categorizes research topics related to universal accessibility in Spanish cultural heritage based on development degree (density) and relevance degree (centrality). This classification enables a strategic understanding of the thematic evolution of the field, identifying motor themes, basic themes, niche themes, and emerging or declining themes.

The motor themes, situated on the upper-right quadrant, exhibit both high centrality and density, indicating that they are well developed and structurally important for the field. Topics such as perception, conservation, and decision-making emphasize the importance of accessibility’s cognitive and evaluative aspects. Here, the presence of perception and decision-making highlights the increasing role of user experience in accessibility studies, indicating a shift toward understanding how individuals interact with cultural heritage spaces.

The basic themes, in the lower-right quadrant, are fundamental to the research field but show a lower degree of internal development. The key aspects of accessibility, Spain, tourism, tourism development, and cultural heritage are emphasized by the strong connection between accessibility and tourism. This is consistent with more general considerations in cultural heritage management, where accessibility is seen as being crucial to fostering inclusive travel and improving long-term economic viability. The presence of tourism development implies that accessibility is a strategic instrument for increasing cultural tourism and promoting heritage as an economic asset, in addition to being a social and ethical consideration.

The niche themes, situated on the upper-left quadrant, represent specialized but relatively isolated research lines, including terms such as human, humans, female, male, and adult. This suggests that although there are studies on demographic diversity in accessibility, they are still at the margins of the primary field of research. The lack of strong centrality suggests that gender and age-related accessibility issues have not yet been fully integrated into the core discourse of cultural heritage accessibility. This gap calls for more intersectional research approaches that consider how different population groups experience and engage with heritage spaces.

The emerging or declining themes, in the lower-left quadrant, include cultural heritage, city, archaeology, photogrammetry, remote sensing, cave, and software. These subjects could be either emerging lines of inquiry or fields that are becoming less relevant. The inclusion of archaeology and photogrammetry indicates a growing interest in using remote sensing and digital technologies to make heritage places more accessible. These technologies have not been extensively investigated or implemented in the larger accessibility discourse, nonetheless, based on their low centrality. The presence of city indicates potential discussions on urban heritage accessibility, an aspect that requires further exploration in relation to smart cities and sustainable urban planning.

In view of the comprehensive analysis carried out in this research, it is possible to affirm that Spain focuses its universal accessibility research on its cultural heritage on the user, which goes beyond physical accessibility to include cognitive and experiential aspects. It is increasingly important to understand how visitors interact with heritage spaces [75]. Furthermore, there is a trend toward internationalization and benchmarking of global practices in cultural heritage accessibility.

The analysis highlights the close relationship between accessibility, tourism, and economic development in the context of cultural heritage [76]. Accessibility is seen as a crucial factor in fostering inclusive tourism [77], enhancing the long-term economic viability of heritage sites, and meeting the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) defined in the 2030 Agenda [5,19]. However, the analysis also reveals several important gaps in the current research landscape. Although this bibliometric study primarily focuses on trends, authorship patterns, and thematic clusters, it is necessary to acknowledge that certain critical dimensions of accessibility remain underrepresented.

In particular, challenges faced by individuals with visual impairments (e.g., blindness, color blindness) [78], people with neurodivergent conditions (e.g., autism) [79], and culturally diverse or non-Spanish-speaking visitors [80] are seldom addressed explicitly in the literature. These aspects are central to the concept of universal accessibility, which aims to ensure inclusive heritage experiences for all, regardless of physical, cognitive, linguistic, or cultural background. Similarly, demographic diversity—such as gender and age differences—has not been fully integrated into mainstream academic discourse. The limited attention to these areas points to opportunities for future research that align more closely with principles of equity and inclusion. Finally, the growing interest in digital and remote sensing technologies to improve accessibility is noted, although their application to urban heritage and sustainable city planning remains an emerging and insufficiently explored field [81]. Addressing these gaps will be essential to advance more comprehensive and effective strategies for accessible cultural heritage management in Spain and beyond.

4.5. Classification of Technologies Applied to Accessibility in Cultural Heritage

Table 8. Comparison of technologies applied to accessibility in cultural heritage.

Technologies	Added Search Field	Number Results (%)
Immersive Visualization Tools	AND(“virtual reality” OR “VR” OR “augmented reality” OR “AR” OR photogrammetry OR “3D scanning”)	81.01
Mobile and Navigation Technologies	AND(“beacons” OR “QR code *” OR “navigation app *” OR “Bluetooth Low Energy” OR “BLE”)	5.34
Cognitive and Adaptive Accessibility Tools	AND(“Visual recognition” OR “adaptive description *” OR “sign language” OR “easy-to-read”)	5.06
Environmental Sensing and Monitoring	AND(“motion sensor *” OR “thermal imaging” OR “luminance” OR “microclimate”)	4.92
User Experience and Biometric Analysis	AND(“eye-tracking” OR “biometric *” OR “emotion recognition” OR “visitor tracking”)	3.66

* Word variations and expansion of the search results.

identifies five major technologies aimed at accessibility in heritage environments, including the search terms for their identification in the literature, and the percentage of articles in which they appear. Here, immersive visualization tools (virtual reality, augmented reality, photogrammetry, and 3D scanning) dominate with a resounding 81.01% of mentions. This leadership can be explained for several reasons: first, because they facilitate three-dimensional reconstructions of monuments and sites, breaking physical accessibility barriers [82,83]; second, because they make it possible to superimpose layers of multimedia information (text, audio and hyperlinks) adaptable to different user profiles [84,85]; and third, because there are multiple platforms and pilot projects (e.g., Google Arts & Culture or AR applications of major museums) that have consolidated their academic and commercial implementation [86]. However, their mass adoption is still conditioned by the need for specific hardware infrastructures (glasses, scanners) and technical knowledge that can be an obstacle for institutions with limited resources.

In contrast, the rest of the categories are well below in terms of frequency, with values ranging from 5.34% for mobile and navigation technologies to 3.66% for user experience and biometric analytics. Mobile solutions (beacons, QR codes, BLE-based apps) guide visitors indoors and outdoors using low-energy signals, triggering localized content on their personal devices [87,88]. Cognitive and adaptive tools (visual recognition, AI-generated descriptions, virtual sign language, “easy-to-read” content) offer inclusive interfaces for people with sensory or intellectual difficulties [89]. Moreover, environmental and monitoring sensors (motion detectors, thermography, luminance, microclimate) adjust lighting, air conditioning, and visitor flows in real time, ensuring safe and comfortable conditions in sensitive heritage spaces [90,91]. At 4.92%, its integration into intelligent building management systems is still at an experimental stage but aims to minimize physical risks and preserve heritage value. Lastly, biometric analysis of the experience (eye-tracking, emotional recognition, route tracking) collects interaction data that allow the cognitive and emotional load of the visitor to be evaluated, optimizing routes and content [92,93]. Although it represents only 3.66% of the references, it shows great potential for personalizing the visit in real time, depending on the profile or state of mind of each user.

These technologies help to improve the specific needs of groups such as children and families, the elderly, users with intellectual disabilities, and people with low vision or blindness. For example, virtual and augmented reality environments can be designed with simple interfaces, pictograms, and narrations adapted for young children, while mobile navigation systems—combined with auditory descriptions and haptic feedback—facilitate safe travel for the elderly or those with reduced mobility. For those with cognitive difficulties, “easy-to-read descriptions” and dynamic geolocation-based signage ensure a progressive understanding of heritage information. Finally, visual recognition technologies, together with AI-based audio descriptions and proximity sensors, can turn real spaces into accessible tours for blind users, automatically activating auditory points of interest and adapting the light intensity of the physical environment to avoid glare or excessive shadows. Together, the combination of these tools makes it possible to design inclusive and modular experiences according to the characteristics of each visitor.

Although Spain has made significant progress in the digitization and promotion of its cultural heritage [94,95], there are areas where data and research are still insufficient. Particularly noteworthy is the scarce exploration of digital tools applied to intangible heritage, such as oral traditions and local festivities, as well as the lack of studies on digitization in rural or smaller heritage sites, which are usually left out of large national projects. In addition, there are still shortcomings in the standardization of digital methodologies, specialized training of professionals, and the integration of platforms and databases, which hinders unified access and interoperability of resources. Finally, there is hardly any research on the social and economic impact of these digital initiatives, which limits the understanding of their true scope and potential for Spanish society.

4.6. Future Research Directions and Ethical Considerations

Universal accessibility to cultural heritage in Spain has seen important advances but also faces significant challenges. The implementation of the II National Plan for Universal Accessibility in 2024 reinforces the country’s commitment to the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, allocating resources to ensure accessibility in areas such as culture, public services, and education. In addition, initiatives such as “More Social Museums” seek to eliminate physical, sensory, and intellectual barriers in cultural spaces, promoting an inclusive experience for all citizens [17]. However, although regulations and specific projects have improved access to immovable cultural assets and artistic activities, challenges persist in the uniform implementation of these measures, especially in historic urban environments.

The study of universal accessibility in Spanish cultural heritage is evolving toward a more interdisciplinary and technology-driven approach. Future research should emphasize the use of emerging technologies and explore specific tools such as indoor navigation systems based on Bluetooth Low Energy sensors, augmented reality or virtual reality applications tailored for people with sensory and cognitive impairments [96,97], and AI-driven platforms for adaptive content delivery [98]. To evaluate and enhance accessibility conditions in heritage buildings, future research should focus on integrating innovative digital technologies such as artificial intelligence, machine learning, and big data analytics. Integration of real-time user feedback via smart sensors and mobile applications can improve accessibility solutions’ customization, making cultural heritage experiences more inclusive and flexible to meet a range of demands. Furthermore, the implementation of virtual and augmented reality should focus on representation and interactive engagement that allows users with disabilities to navigate heritage sites in innovative ways.

A crucial approach for future research remains in policy evaluation and governance structures. While accessibility is recognized as a fundamental right, discrepancies persist in its implementation across different heritage sites. Comparative research across areas with different accessibility laws might reveal important information about issues and effective practices. Public–private partnerships should also be investigated to finance and maintain long-term accessibility initiatives. To guarantee that accessibility solutions are practical, user-centered, and context-sensitive, the need for co-creation with stakeholders—such as heritage managers, urban planners, and individuals with disabilities—should be underlined even more.

Another key aspect to consider is the expansion of accessibility beyond urban and well-known heritage sites. Future research should examine how to make lesser-known legacy assets, such as rural and natural heritage, more accessible, even if most studies focus on significant cultural landmarks. To guarantee that universal accessibility is a truly inclusive and geographically equitable policy, it will be crucial to develop accessible infrastructure and sustainable transportation networks in remote places. To sum up, the main original contributions of this paper highlight the recent and growing interest in universal accessibility within Spanish cultural heritage, particularly in areas such as (i) accessible tourism, (ii) digitalization, and (iii) the use of emerging technologies for heritage documentation and conservation.

An important research gap lies in the accessibility of rural and natural heritage. Unlike major urban heritage landmarks, these environments often lack adequate infrastructure, digital connectivity, and funding. Future studies should examine how to implement low-cost, sustainable solutions—such as mobile interpretation units, solar-powered information points, and accessible trails—to ensure equity in access to cultural heritage across territories. The integration of universal accessibility principles in rural planning policies is essential to prevent geographic exclusion.

Additionally, initiatives for accessibility must be incorporated with the growing concern for climate resilience and sustainability in cultural heritage. Future studies should investigate how accessibility interventions might be created to solve environmental issues and preserve the integrity of heritage buildings. A balanced strategy that balances inclusion with heritage conservation and climate adaptation can be achieved using eco-friendly materials for accessibility improvements, energy-efficient digital infrastructure, and green transportation solutions. Accessibility research should, in this regard, be a proactive discipline that foresees future difficulties and guarantees that cultural legacy is accessible for future generations, rather than only a reactive endeavor to eliminate obstacles.

Finally, accessibility interventions must consider ethical considerations related to the preservation of heritage. Enhancing access should not compromise the historical or architectural integrity of heritage sites. Therefore, future research should explore strategies that balance inclusion with conservation, for instance, through reversible or non-invasive design solutions, the use of compatible materials, and participatory decision-making involving conservation specialists and users with disabilities. Addressing these tensions through inclusive heritage management frameworks will be key to ensuring respectful and sustainable interventions.

5. Conclusions

This bibliometric study has provided a comprehensive overview of research trends on universal accessibility in Spanish cultural heritage. The research was conducted using the Scopus and Web of Science databases and followed the PRISMA 2020 framework to ensure a rigorous and systematic analysis, with 1035 journal articles being selected for bibliometric analysis. The results show an exponential increase in the number of publications since 2018, thereby demonstrating a growing academic interest in accessibility within the cultural heritage field. Additionally, the analysis identified key thematic clusters, such as accessible tourism and digitalization, the application of technologies in heritage documentation, spatial planning strategies, and geoheritage conservation. These findings highlight the interdisciplinary nature of accessibility research, which connects cultural heritage studies with digital innovation and urban mobility to foster inclusive environments. The presence of terms related to COVID-19 suggests that the pandemic accelerated discussions on digital accessibility and adaptive strategies for heritage sites.

A comparative insight suggests that while Spain has made notable progress in digital accessibility—such as mobile apps with sign language and beacon navigation—certain European countries, like Italy or the UK, demonstrate higher technological maturity in accessibility innovation, including the deployment of AI-based assistance systems and haptic feedback solutions. Furthermore, despite regulatory frameworks like Law 8/2013 and the II National Plan for Universal Accessibility, implementation remains uneven, especially in rural and smaller heritage sites.

The analysis of the most cited documents in this field reveals several key trends shaping both research and practice, including the application of technological innovations to enhance accessibility, emphasizing the use of augmented reality, intelligent guidance systems, and 3D modeling; multidisciplinary and collaborative approaches, involving cooperation between conservators, architects, engineers, and accessibility experts; accessible and sustainable tourism, stressing the need to ensure inclusive experiences in heritage destinations without compromising sustainability; innovation in evaluation methods, with the development of advanced tools such as data analysis and natural language processing to enhance accessibility; and the relationship between smart cities and accessible heritage, where technologies like geographic information systems and urban sensors optimize mobility in heritage environments.

From a practical perspective, the findings offer several actionable implications: (i) policymakers should develop funding instruments that prioritize accessibility projects in rural and underserved heritage areas; (ii) institutions can adopt emerging as part of their visitor experience strategies; and (iii) heritage professionals are encouraged to adopt participatory design approaches involving people with disabilities to ensure that interventions are context-sensitive and sustainable.

To sum up, this paper provides original contributions by highlighting the recent and accelerating interest in universal accessibility within Spanish cultural heritage, particularly in key areas such as accessible tourism, digitalization, and the application of emerging technologies for documentation and conservation. Despite its strengths, this study presents certain limitations, such as the exclusive reliance on publications indexed in Scopus and Web of Science, which may exclude relevant grey literature, local reports, or policy documents; and the dependence on keyword-based search strategies, which may miss studies that address accessibility indirectly or through alternative terminologies.

Looking ahead, future research should prioritize the development of innovative, user-centered solutions based on technologies such as artificial intelligence, augmented reality, and machine learning to enhance both accessibility and the quality of visitor experiences. Moreover, strengthening governance and sustainability strategies is essential, particularly through fostering cross-sector collaboration among heritage professionals, policymakers, technologists, and user advocacy groups to ensure the effective and inclusive implementation of universal accessibility standards. Finally, expanding the research focus to include rural and natural heritage contexts is strongly recommended, as these areas often remain overlooked despite their significant cultural and social value. Ensuring that accessibility becomes a cross-cutting priority in all heritage environments will be key to advancing inclusive and sustainable cultural policies.