INTRODUCTION

Cities are at the forefront of major global challenges influencing the 21st century. From climate change to migration, inequality to pandemics, and criminal violence to war and terrorism, cities are the principal theatres where these problems play out and are addressed. There are numerous risks facing cities that cause fragility and thus limit their capacity to fulfil their essential functions, which include ensuring the safety of people, assets, and infrastructure [1]. According to the United Nations, 55 percent of the world’s population lived in urban areas in 2018, and this figure is expected to reach 60 per cent by 2030 [2]. Along with other key pillars, tourism is a principal component of the economy, social life, and geography of many of the world’s cities and is therefore a key element of urban development policies [3].

In the area of cultural/heritage tourism in particular, this tourism has a significant impact on cities and their centres, as the mass influx of tourists tends to be concentrated in urban centres, which overlap in an uneven manner with historic centres. There is a significant flow of tourists and day-trippers who are inspired or motivated by cultural factors and are interested in historical heritage and/or contemporary culture. During their visit, tourists and visitors make extensive use of historic centres which overlap with the occupations of both residents and residents from the rest of the urban area [4].

Cultural/heritage tourism, one of the oldest leisure travel practices, is an important sector of the tourism industry and undoubtedly contributes to global exchange and intercultural understanding. Furthermore, heritage tourism places economic and political value on recognized resources and assets of cultural heritage, providing additional reasons for its preservation [5]. Besides, “whenever tourism promotes cultural heritage, the economic gains are immediate and visible. When tourism is effectively managed and respects the environment (natural and human), it acts as a positive influence on the region” [6]. Cultural/heritage tourism can also have negative impacts due to the massification and overuse, and commercialization of local culture, as well as the uncontrolled consumption of natural resources, the increase in air and sea pollution, and the degradation of the natural habitat, mainly due to the reduction of natural areas in order to build the necessary infrastructure [6].

To reduce the risk and impact of these threats, cities and communities must be more resilient and prepared to deal with them head-on. If they are not, their urban communities will be constantly threatened and will become increasingly vulnerable to risk [7]. According to the definition provided by the 100 RC Network, urban resilience is defined as “the capacity of cities, individuals, communities, institutions, businesses and systems to survive, adapt and thrive regardless of the type of chronic pressures or acute shocks they encounter” [8]. Furthermore, cities should consider sustainability when planning their strategies. Picket et al. argue that “sustainability is the ability to support the quality of life of the current generation without impairing the ability of future generations to meet their needs for well-being. Sustainability is not a fixed state, but a trajectory that can be continually improved upon and balanced” [9].

Some previous research on cultural/heritage tourism has focused on the positive or negative impacts on historic city centers [4], or social cultural impacts of tourism on residents [10], on community livelihoods [11], or economic impact [12], the role of cultural tourism in the socio—economic development of urban areas with emphasis on marketing principles and practices [13], or the relationship between cultural/heritage tourism and the environment [6]. Furthermore, it has been documented that cultural/heritage tourism has a significant impact on urban regeneration [14–16], while other study explains how investments in cultural tourism a favorable impact on residents’ quality of life has [17]. There is also research that focus on overtourism that is related to cultural/heritage tourism [18,19]. Therefore, this research aims to focus on resilience and sustainability and conducts an analysis of the relationship between cultural/heritage tourism and urban resilience and sustainable development. The primary objective is to determine whether cultural/heritage tourism can serve as a catalyst for building urban resilience and secondly, whether it can contribute to the sustainability of cities.

For this purpose, Athens and Rome were selected as case studies due to their prominence as leading destinations for cultural/heritage tourism. Athens is a city “steeped in an ancient and storied past, the cradle of democracy and western civilization” [20], while Rome “is an extraordinary city of history, art and culture that has been in the forefront of humanity’s greatest transformations and changes” [21] and both have developed urban resilience strategies as members of the Network of 100 Resilient Cities. This Network was pioneered by the Rockefeller Foundation in 2013 as a non-profit organization with the commitment to helping cities from all over the world to strengthen their urban resilience at the spatial, social, and economic levels. It consists of 100 cities from five geographical areas of the world: Europe and the Middle East, Asia and the Pacific, Africa, North America, Latin America, and the Caribbean. The Rockefeller Foundation initially committed to contributing 100 million dollars, which was then increased to 160 million dollars to support the implementation of the 100 Resilient Cities Networks goals and on the 8th of July 2019, the Rockefeller Foundation announced a commitment of 8 million dollars to sustainably support the efforts of Chief Resilience Officers and member cities within the 100 Resilient Cities Network [22]. Cities also received five significant offerings: (a) a Chief Resilience Officer (CRO) to lead the city’s resilience efforts; (b) access to an innovative platform of partners and support to develop the resilience strategy; (c) technical support to develop a holistic Resilience Strategy and (d) inclusion in 100 RC’s global Network for mutual exchange of knowledge and best practices [23].

The paper commences with a literature review of the concepts of resilience and sustainable development, as well as cultural/heritage tourism. Then, we present the program and tools of the Network of 100 Resilient Cities. Using a combined methodology, we study the resilience strategies of the cities of Athens and Rome and describe their vision, objectives, and planned actions, compare their resilience strategies; answer the research questions; and finally, in the last section we summarize the conclusions of the study.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Sustainable development, a concept that emerged amid a growing awareness of an imminent ecological crisis, appears to have been one of the driving forces of global history during the period around the end of the 20th century. As per “Brundtland Report” titled “Our common future”, Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs [24]. sustainability is defined by Leach et al. as “the capability of maintaining over indefinite periods of time specified qualities of human well-being, social equity, and environmental integrity”, while Lew et al. describe the main goals of sustainable development as “protecting and maintaining natural and cultural resources for the future and mitigating change” and highlight some tangible efforts of sustainability such as “reduce[ing] the consumption of carbon and other natural resources, increase[ing] biodiversity, protect[ing] tangible heritage artifacts, and revitalize[ing] intangible cultural traditions”[25].

The word “sustainability” derives from the Latin sustinere, which means to “hold up”. Sustainability should not be viewed as an effort to achieve a singular good. It requires an integrated and balanced response to ecological health, economic welfare, and social empowerment. Sustainability within a developmental context refers to the apparent contradiction between development, which necessitates environmental modification and intervention in nature and which exhausts natural resources, and sustainability, which is a characteristic of a process or state that can be sustained for an indefinite period [26]. Development, as a concept, has been associated with various meanings, interpretations, and theories from various scholars. Development is defined as an evolutionary process in which the human capacity increases in terms of initiating new structures, coping with problems, adapting to continuous change, and striving purposefully and creatively to attain new goals [27].

Sustainable development is based on three fundamental conceptual pillars: (1) Economic sustainability, which implies a production system that meets present consumption levels, without compromising future needs. (2) Social sustainability refers to the link between social conditions (poverty) and environmental degradation. It is acknowledged that social sustainability involves the concepts of equity, empowerment, accessibility, participation, cultural identity, and institutional stability. Therefore, the optimal use and equitable distribution of resources among human communities is a necessary condition for achieving social sustainability, and (3) Environmental sustainability, which is about the environment and how it remains resilient to support human life. It requires that the resources of the environment be used in a balanced way, which means that they should not be captured faster than they can be replenished, and that waste should not be emitted faster than they can be absorbed by the environment [27].

Over the past decade, culture has been viewed as the fourth pillar of sustainability and has been seen as an essential foundation for achieving the objectives of sustainable development research and practices in many sectors, including tourism. Culture has commonly been identified as the sector most susceptible to the adverse impacts and effects of tourism, and numerous studies conducted in recent years have demonstrated that tourism has the potential to revitalize, enhance, preserve, and/or further develop destination cultures. From the perspective of ‘economic sustainability’, culture, specifically cultural heritage, is viewed as a resource for economic sustainability and local and regional development, particularly through the form of tourism [28].

The notion of resilience is regarded as one of the most significant research topics in the context of achieving sustainability [29]. Resilience, as a concept, was established by Holling in 1973. Holling defines ecosystem resilience as “the measure of the persistence of systems and their ability to absorb change and disturbance and maintain the same relationships among populations or state variables”, while in terms of system equilibrium, resilience is defined as “the amount of disturbance that can be absorbed before the system changes its structure by altering the variables and processes that control behavior”. Resilience, however, according to Folke, does not only mean being persistent or resistant to disturbances. It is also about the opportunities that the disorder opens in terms of recombining evolved structures and processes, renewing the system, and emerging new trajectories [30]. According to the Network of 100 Resilient Cities, resilience is defined as “the capacity of individuals, communities, institutions, businesses, and systems within a city to survive, adapt, and grow regardless of what kinds of chronic stresses and acute shocks they experience” [30]. Initiatives such as 100 Resilient Cities emphasize resilience as a process of change and adaptation in response to both ‘acute shocks’ and, also, ‘chronic stresses’. Stresses are understood as challenges that occur on a day-to-day or cyclical basis and incrementally disturb urban socio-ecological and sociotechnical systems (e.g., energy, food, water, green space, health, housing affordability, consequences of climate change, shortage and accessibility of public transport, and social and cultural disadvantages) [31]. Equally significant are the stresses imposed upon cities possessing historic resources, as such stresses and acute shocks have the potential to endanger the historic resources of cities. As per Appler et al. “the emergence of resilience as a key goal for planning is an opportunity to better integrate historic preservation and disaster mitigation” [32].

In tourism, resilience has mostly been discussed as a theoretical concept, focusing on complex adaptive systems, approaches on vulnerability as Farrell and Twining-Ward remarked, lends itself to an integrative, interdisciplinary, and non-linear approach to interpreting the world, which is fundamental to resilience theory. When applied to tourism, the concept of resilience explains the deeper forces underlying Butler’s “Tourism Area Lifecycle”, proposed in 1980, when the development of tourist destinations was thought to progress in a linear fashion. Later versions of this model proposed a “rejuvenation” stage, but the concept of resilience goes further in explaining the cyclical and complex nature of such systems. Such resilience is based on recovery from perturbations and the accumulation of various forms of capital which enable faster renewal and stronger structures” [33,34].

Heritage tourism is one of the oldest forms of travel. and, in fact, heritage tourism is among the fastest growing tourism sectors in recent decades, being the most notable and widespread. Scholars of cultural heritage and tourism use the terms ‘cultural tourism’ and ‘heritage tourism’ sometimes as separate, but often as very related and overlapping phenomena [19] “Cultural tourism is a type of tourism activity in which the visitor’s essential motivation is to learn, discover, experience and consume the tangible and intangible cultural attractions/products in a tourism destination”. These attractions products relate to a set of distinctive material, intellectual, spiritual, and emotional features of a society that encompasses arts and architecture, historical and cultural heritage, culinary heritage, literature, music, creative industries and the living cultures with their lifestyles, value systems, beliefs, and traditions [35].

Cultural tourism has long had an important economic dimension, especially since the income from tourism is argued to help support the preservation of cultural heritage. Furthermore, creative economy approaches to tourism possess the ability to enhance value by generating engaging creative content and experiences, fostering innovation, and enhancing the distinctiveness and appeal of destinations [36]. From a macroeconomic perspective, great attention is given to the potential beneficial economic effects of tourism on economic growth, measured both in terms of income and employment. Nonetheless, these outcomes cannot be regarded as a given, as they are crucially contingent on the connections established between the tourism sector and the local economy, thereby facilitating the multiplier effects of tourist expenditure [37].

However, the exhaustive promotion of tourism to generate economic profits may affect cultural heritage negatively and lead to problems such as the commercialization of traditional folk festivals, the illegal trade of historical artifacts, illegal archaeological excavations, degradation, and, in some cases the elimination of traditional crafts. Moreover, from an environmental point of view, the effects may be as severe in areas with cultural heritage, as out-of-control consumption of natural resources increases in transportation and construction result in increased air and sea pollution as well as the degradation of the natural habitat. Additionally, another big problem is the decrease of natural areas to construct the necessary infrastructure for tourist development, such as the construction of hotels, roads, shops, etc., which, when extended into the natural habitat, results in the destruction of forests and farmlands, which are then converted into a built environment. However, tourism may also have positive effects on the local environment of a tourist area. That can be achieved through the conservation of significant natural resources, the protection of archaeological and historical sites, and the improvement of infrastructure. For Shaw et al., cultural tourism adds value to the area by promoting the existing ethnic and cultural identity. Cultural tourism’s role in promoting urban ethnic and cultural identities [6,10].

METHODS AND MATERIALS

The methodological approach employed in this document is a combined approach. Initially, a case study is employed. A case study is a research strategy that seeks to understand the dynamics present in a single setting. They typically use data collection techniques such as archives, interviews, questionnaires, and observations. This data may be either qualitative, such as words, or quantitative, such as numbers, or a combination of both [38]. Case studies are used to investigate one or more cases (bounded areas of interest) comprehensively within their contexts to identify their uniqueness, complexity, or/and similarities, and to arrive at a broad, in-depth understanding of the case(s) [39]. The second method is content analysis. As Prasad states, “Content analysis may be seen as a method where the content of the message forms the basis for drawing inferences and conclusions about the content […] Like any other research method, content analysis confronts three basic principles of the scientific method. They consist of (1) Objectivity: it means that the analysis is pursued based on explicit rules, which allow different researchers to obtain the same results from the same documents or messages. (2) Systematic: The inclusion or exclusion of content is done according to certain consistently applied rules, which eliminate the possibility of including only materials that support the researcher’s ideas. And (3) Generalizability: The researcher’s findings have the potential to be applied to other similar circumstances” [40].

Finally, a comparative analysis is conducted. According to Goodrick, comparative case studies encompass two or more cases in a manner that yields a more generalizable understanding of causal inquiries about the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of programs or policies. Comparative case studies involve the analysis and synthesis of the similarities, differences, and patterns between two or more cases that share a common focus or goal. To be able to accomplish this well, the specific features of each case should be described in depth at the beginning of the study. The rationale for selecting the specific cases is related to the key evaluation questions (KEQs) and, thus, to what needs to be investigated. An understanding of each case is important in establishing the foundation for the analytic framework that will be used in the cross-case comparison [41].

This study employs the cases of Athens (Greece) and Rome (Italy), and they have been selected as they are members of the 100 RC Network and European cities with a long and remarkable history. Their distinct monuments and historical sites attract a considerable number of tourists and visitors annually. Being members of the 100 RC initiative, they had started an intensive strategic planning process involving all stakeholders from the private and public sectors, experts, and various organisations to develop and implement a holistic and realistic strategy focusing on objectives and actions related to the cultural/heritage tourism sector.

This research to be conducted utilizes the 100 RC Network tool, which was developed in collaboration with ARUP, a global association of technical experts dedicated to shaping a more sustainable world. The toolkit comprises of two tools, namely the City Resilience Framework (CRF) and the City Resilience Index (CRI), which facilitate an ongoing process of engagement with cities and aid in comprehending their vulnerabilities. The City Resilience Framework comprises four dimensions (the inner ring) and twelve indicators (the outer ring) These dimensions are as follows: health and well-being, economy and society, infrastructure and environment, and leadership and strategy. These dimensions, with twelve indicators, are important for cities to address shocks and pressures, and to describe the fundamental characteristics of cities (Table 1) [42].

TABLE 1

Table 1. The four (4) dimensions and the twelve (12) drivers of the CRF.

Thus, content, and comparative analysis is conducted based on (1) Vision, (2) Goals oriented to cultural/heritage tourism, (3) actions and sub-actions and (4) the resilience value. To conduct this study, we posed the following research questions:

RQ1: Could cultural/heritage tourism be a catalyst of urban resilience?

RQ2: Is cultural/heritage tourism promoting or hindering urban sustainable development?

RQ3: Has cultural/heritage tourism positive or negative impacts to historical cities?

THE CONTEXT OF URBAN AREAS, COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS, AND OUTCOMES

Both cities encounter challenges and must enhance their resilience. Some of the prevalent challenges include the aging populations, crises linked to climate change, transportation and environmental issues, housing crises, governance issues, economic and employment concerns, and issues arising from the substantial and illegal influx of refugees and migrants. In this context, they must develop policies, find solutions that consider their historical origins and culture, and adopt changes that focus on their historical center and archaeological sites [20,21]. In this initial stage of the process of formulating resilience strategies, they first explored the challenges and threats they face and through a participatory process of many stakeholders, administration, and residents they shaped the vision for their city and set the resilience goals and priorities. Many meetings, conferences, workshops, and collaborations with other member cities of the network were needed to shape the final document of the resilience strategy.

When Athens was developing its resilience strategy, it was confronted with a fiscal crisis, unemployment, and economic austerity. At the same time, Athens experiences a large influx of migrants and refugees, most of whom enter the city illegally. Over the last decade, the economic crisis has exposed all the city’s weaknesses and pathogens at every level. At the same time, it has revealed its strengths, hidden resources, and talents. However, the only sectors of the economy that have continued to prosper during this time of crisis are tourism and culture, with the city welcoming four million tourists every year. Tourists are beginning to be interested in new attractions, such as the new National Museum of Contemporary Art and the Stavros Niarchos Cultural Centre. Another noteworthy aspect is that the creative economy sector is also growing. Despite the current crisis, the cultural and creative economy sector is exhibiting signs of recovery, contributing approximately 5% to the GDP of the Region of Attica [20].

Rome, on the other side, faces additional problems beyond those mentioned above. More specifically, “the fact that it is a very large region with complex governance, scarce acceptance of new ways of living and working, difficulty in accepting and introducing a culture of innovation, the enormous differences between one Municipality and another, and the fact that most Roman citizens prefer to use their own transport” [21]. Nonetheless, Rome remains a city of exceptional beauty, endowed with one of the most significant historical legacies in the world and a vast array of archaeological treasures, including 25,000 individual monuments of historical, artistic, and archaeological interest within a radius of 15 km², and has witnessed a 19% increase in visitor numbers between 2012 and 2015. However, statistics on tourist arrivals indicate that the average tourist stay is lower than in other metropolitan cities. The city where tourists spend the longest is Venice, with an average stay of 4.1 days. The average stay in Naples is 3.9 days, while the average stay in Rome is 2.8 days. Finally, another major challenge that Rome intends to address is the fact that it is not competitive in tourism and in private investment in comparison with other European capitals. This is due to the city’s poor infrastructure, its inadequate transport network and accommodation system, the decadence of the urban landscape, and unauthorized trade. Despite the aforementioned factors, Rome, through the resilience strategy it has developed as a member of the 100 Resilient Cities Network, aspires to enhance its urban resilience. Furthermore, it will take measures to protect municipal buildings and archaeological sites from stress and shocks [21].

As members of the 100 RC Network, both cities have designed a strategy to enhance their cities’ resilience and sustainability. Prioritizing the development and enhancement of cultural tourism, which is the foundation of the cities, they established objectives and devised planned actions and sub-actions to accomplish their vision (Table 2).

TABLE 2

Table 2. Content analysis of the resilient strategies of Athens [20] and Rome [21].

As the table above indicates, Athens has developed a tool to evaluate and assess the cultural events it organizes to promote these activities effectively. It intends to create a cultural network and a network of small museums in the city, as well as further cultural events in the public space, with the aim of identifying itself as a destination for cultural production, creative entrepreneurship, and social integration. Furthermore, Athens aspires to transform the ‘Eleonas’ region with the objective of revitalizing and transforming the entire region in terms of environmental sustainability. The objective is to create areas within the region that can accommodate the creative economy, innovation, and clean technology. This ambitious project will have an entrepreneurial, urban, and environmental focus, and it will result in the upgrading of the urban landscape and the development of business and economic development. Another flagship project that Athens is working on is a comprehensive regional plan for bicycles, with the construction of bicycle lanes and parking areas in the historic and commercial centre, to be included in the city’s tourism development. It will also enhance pavements and design streets that are friendly to citizens, especially people with disabilities, and adopt sustainable transport technologies, with the aim of linking these interventions to the most important cultural and historical landmarks in the city centre. An especially important initiative is the “Green and Cultural Urban Streets” initiative, which will connect important green spaces with cultural institutions and monuments in Athens, by constructing green, urban, and pedestrian walkways and roads. Such interventions are designed to revitalize the historic and cultural centre of Athens, as “the historic centre as a whole is configured as an ‘open and extended museum’ that includes a number of archaeological sites, monuments, museums and cultural centres as well as more ephemeral cultural events of everyday life” [20]. With the “Triangle” project, it intends to redevelop public spaces, old railway stations and buildings, with the aim of revitalizing the historic and commercial centre to enhance the city’s identity. Lastly, another initiative of Athens pertaining to the revitalization of public space is the so-called “Culture drives out the darkness”, which facilitates and promotes cultural activities (such as theatrical performances and various other cultural events), in collaboration with cultural institutions of the city in areas that are severely underprivileged. This project aims to rejuvenate the public spaces through a productive partnership between the municipality and the cultural institutions of the city. Meanwhile, it is also establishing community intercultural centres for the migrants and refugees, with the objective of integrating them into the Athenian community through such intercultural initiatives.

Additionally, Athens is developing sustainable and resilient food systems. The promotion of a sustainable food model will enhance the city’s identity and contribute to the spread of Greek cuisine among tourists and visitors. Moreover, it will also again the support of the vulnerable economically, boost local products, promote local culture, and generate incentives for economic development. The Central Varvakeios Market and the surrounding area could be converted into a cultural and tourist centre, which would rejuvenate the entire district, by combining the diverse economy of food with its multiple cultural dimensions. Athens’ cultural heritage and the creative economy will be supported and promoted to empower the creative communities by releasing available buildings, boosting new businesses, and supporting the organization of cultural events in the city. There is an integrated Strategic Project for the creative economy by financing the cultural business, with the aspiration of uplifting the city’s world position and attracting new investment and new tourists, which will also contribute to the creation of new jobs. Furthermore, Athens will establish two developing enterprises, the “Athens Development and Tourism Promotion Company” and “Technopolis”, which will promote tourism and culture, two areas in which Athens is flourishing despite the economic crisis it is experiencing. In the meantime, these institutions will also contribute to increasing employment and the economic recovery in Athens.

Rome, in response to the threat of losing its cultural heritage, has developed its own strategy centered on revitalizing its historical city centre and maintaining its cultural tourist sector. In its Resilience Strategy, it intends to introduce and execute legislation to enhance the capacity for autonomous governance of archaeological sites and reorganize the administration of the cultural sectors. Moreover, it will upgrade the Wi-Fi hotspot network to provide services to the tourists via smartphones and tablets, thereby facilitating their stay in the city. Furthermore, it also formulates policies by arranging cultural events, festivals, and seasonal programs of cultural events throughout the city, with the aim of enhancing its global brand name and image. Meanwhile, Rome has also set the objective of achieving sustainable tourism, and to do so, it is launching measures to revive the former fashion industry, which was regarded as the jewel of the city’s reputation. It is estimated that strengthening the cultural and youth tourism industries will have a favorable impact on the cultural life of the city by making the historical, cultural, and environmental legacy of the city more accessible to a greater number of tourists. It is possible for the city to contribute to the development of sustainable tourism and enhance its competitiveness with the other European capitals. Another important objective of its strategy is to foster urban regeneration through projects and interventions in abandoned buildings and old train stations, with the gentrification of several areas and the upgrade of the River Tiber. The urban and natural environment revitalization of the city will also be expanded to include the renovation and re-organization of the historic parks, the buildings, and sites of high touristic interest, to increase the attractiveness of the city and to foster a feeling of city safety. Furthermore, it will take measures to protect municipal buildings and archaeological sites from stress and shocks. Rome will create a network of sustainable mobility with green public transport, walking paths and a network of cycle paths. These paths will connect the historic center and all the archaeological and touristic monuments with the rest of the municipal departments. This will contribute to reducing harmful emissions and atmospheric pollution. Rome should consider implementing legislation to safeguard crafts and business activities in the historic center, which will encompass a comprehensive list of compatible products and protected services based on the quality, principles, and distinctive characteristics of Rome as a historical city. Furthermore, these businesses will be strengthened and protected financially. Finally, Rome considers that for its touristic and cultural development, it should undertake actions that include its residents. This is why it plans cultural actions for the city’s children and their families and aims to include unaccompanied refugee children in the local community through cultural programs [21].

OUTCOMES OF THE COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS

The answers to the research questions we have posed are provided by the comparative analysis of the resilience strategies of Athens and Rome that preceded and the analysis of the individual objectives, actions, and sub-actions.

Both cities have established as a primary objective of their strategy to capitalize on cultural tourism, which is a valuable resource for both cities and an essential component of their overall development. The study revealed that the objectives and actions planned correspond to four dimensions of the CR, as illustrated in Figure 1.

FIGURE 1

Figure 1. The CRFs of Athens and Rome.

Athens and Rome have prioritized the development and promotion of cultural/heritage tourism, utilizing, and promoting their distinct advantages and distinctiveness. Both cities have been motivated by cultural/heritage tourism to implement policies that are vital for building urban resilience. Figure 1 demonstrates that the priorities established, and measures taken by both cities align with all four dimensions of the City Resilience Framework.

In the “Health and well-being” dimension, both cities have plans to improve the cultural life of their residents, communities, and refugees. In the “Economy and society” dimension, both emphasized the importance of strengthening the economic and social lives of their residents. Athens strategically planned the gentrification of numerous abandoned neighborhoods to foster the growth of entrepreneurship. Furthermore, it opted to exploit and support the creative industry and further promote the cultural product through various actions such as museums, festivals, and other cultural events, as a means of resolving the economic crisis it was currently facing. From the other side, Rome promoted the revitalization of old and abandoned buildings, the renovation of old hotels, and chose to re-energize the fashion industry, businesses operating in the tourism services sector, and crafts to produce tourist goods.

In the “Leadership and Strategy” dimension, Athens and Rome stressed the upgrading of data and internet services in their tourist centre to serve tourists and visitors. Furthermore, Athens made administrative changes and created bodies to organize events and festivals, while Rome enacted laws to better manage its cultural monuments. In the Environment and Infrastructure dimension, both cities planned to create pedestrian walkways, cycle paths, and various green interventions in their historic centres to make them easily accessible to visitors and to protect their historical and archaeological monuments. Athens has also devised extensive interventions in its urban landscape, specifically in abandoned and degraded areas. These interventions include the revitalization of abandoned and degraded areas, the creation of public green spaces, and the restoration of buildings and railway stations, whereas Rome intends to enhance abandoned areas and link them to the city’s neighborhoods, as well as the renovation of outdated hotels, to attract young tourists. Furthermore, Rome is considering adopting electric transport to address environmental pollution issues and ensure the protection of its historical monuments.

The above-mentioned objectives set by both cities and the actions they planned to implement to support and enhance cultural/heritage tourism correspond to all four dimensions of the City Resilience Framework (Figure 1). The objective was to develop and strengthen cultural/heritage tourism, but the implementation of the actions will help the cities strengthen all four pillars of urban resilience, which will make them able to respond to any future shock and stress, effectively manage any crisis and be ready for rapid recovery. In short, to be more resilient cities.

As previously discussed, both cities have established objectives and planned strategies to enhance cultural/heritage tourism and strengthen their brand name and identity, thereby enabling them to compete with other European cities. Their strategies encompass all the pillars of sustainable development, including economic, social, and environmental sustainability. These policies ensure that resources are used in a balanced way to meet the cities’ current needs without compromising future needs. The cultural/heritage tourism strategy adopted by Athens and Rome contributes to the regeneration of their public spaces, guarantees the preservation of cultural heritage and monuments, enhances, and protects the natural environment and creates conditions for economic sustainability for businesses, residents, and the city’s economy in general. These interventions also contribute to social cohesion and the social well-being of their inhabitants. Hence, cultural/heritage tourism has the potential to contribute to an integrated and long-term planning that will enhance the urban sustainability of Athens and Rome. Both cities have effectively capitalized on the advantages of cultural/heritage tourism while simultaneously addressing its negative impacts for the benefit of their cities. For instance, they have implemented measures to safeguard their monuments, implemented green solutions in the historic centre, and adopted measures for the economy, bolstering the employment of residents and supporting the city’s commercial enterprises. In conclusion, cultural/heritage tourism can be a catalyst, providing opportunities for both cities to develop in a multifaceted and sustainable way.

To assess whether cultural/heritage tourism has a positive and/or negative impact on cities and historical and archaeological sites, we will consider the findings of the comparative research, as illustrated in Table 2 and Figure 1.

Both cities have developed actions and policies to promote the conservation of historic and archaeological sites with soft measures and a sustainable and green approach. The regeneration of public spaces and abandoned buildings, the reorganization of governance and the strengthening of tourism businesses and cultural/creative industries could provide the city with sustainable development and create conditions for building urban resilience. Therefore, it is possible to argue that the exploitation of cultural/inheritance tourism by Athens and Rome proves that such tourism can have positive effects on cities. This is because both cities exploited the potential of cultural/heritage tourism in the most positive way (e.g., Athens exploiting culture and the creative economy, Rome promoting the fashion industry) and have set objectives and planned actions that will benefit the cities not only in the field of tourism, but also in facilitating the daily life of citizens and businesses, developing the economy, empowering their vulnerable inhabitants, upgrading infrastructure and the environment, and improving administration for the benefit of their citizens. It may be argued that whether cultural/heritage tourism has a positive or negative impact on cities depends on how cities harness the benefits of cultural/heritage tourism rather than on tourism itself.

CONCLUSIONS

This paper focused on resilience and sustainability research, especially the relationship between cultural/heritage tourism and urban resilience and sustainability. To achieve this, three research questions were posed to determine whether cultural/heritage tourism could serve as a catalyst for building urban resilience and whether it could contribute to urban sustainability. Athens and Rome were selected as case studies as they are prominent destinations for cultural/heritage tourism and have developed urban resilience strategies as members of the 100 Resilient Cities Network. However, the research is also subject to limitations, as the resilience strategies have an implementation horizon of 2030. This suggests that it may be necessary to review the planned objectives and actions. The limited timeframe for implementation of resilience strategies raises concerns and doubts about the ability of cities to launch and complete the actions they have planned, especially those that require sufficient time, significant structural changes, and are costly, such as the gentrification of the “Elaionas” area and other urban resilience interventions in Athens, or the regeneration of the Ostiense Marconi district, or the development of electric transportation in Rome, or finally the construction of pedestrian walkways and green corridors at the historic centres of both cities, in order to evaluate their usefulness, and specifically to assess whether their planning finally serves the real needs of the cities or whether it was a necessary choice due to their participation in the Network of 100 Resilient Cities.

This study used critical documents for content analysis, including the city resilience framework and the resilience strategies of each city from the network of 100 resilient cities. We conducted a combined comparative study of the resilience strategies of Athens and Rome to answer our research questions. The comparison and analysis of the resilience strategies of the two cities demonstrated that cultural/heritage tourism could be a motivating and driving force for cities to build their urban resilience and sustainability.

This study is significant both on a theoretical and empirical level. On a theoretical level, it has been demonstrated that cultural/heritage tourism has a direct correlation with urban resilience. This form of tourism holds the potential to strengthen cities, enabling them to develop resilience and be prepared to respond to any disruption or threat. Furthermore, research has shown that cultural/heritage tourism can contribute to comprehensive and long-term resilience planning if cities effectively harness the benefits of cultural/heritage tourism and transform potential negative impacts into advantages for the cities.

At the empirical level, the comparative study of resilience strategies has revealed that both cities have devised strategies to safeguard their monuments, enhance their public services to both tourists and residents, implement measures in the natural and built environment with a green orientation for the enhancement of historical centers, and implement measures for the economy aimed at boosting local employment and supporting local businesses. Hence, cultural/heritage tourism proves to be advantageous for Athens and Rome, as both aim to promote its further advancement, effectively utilizing its comparative advantages, resulting in the adoption of policies that enhance urban resilience and sustainable development in both cities.

In conclusion, our study supports the view that cultural/heritage tourism and sustainable development are interconnected concepts, and that cultural tourism can serve as a catalyst for enhancing the resilience and sustainability of a city.

DATA AVAILABILITY

All data generated from the study are available in the manuscript.

AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS

Conceptualization, MK; Methodology, MK and TM; Validation, MK; Investigation, MK; Resources, MK and TM; Formal Analysis, TM; Writing Draft Preparation, MK; Editing, TM; Supervision, TM.

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.