Building Information Modelling (BIM) Driven Sustainable Cultural Heritage Tourism

Abstract

At present, incorrect or aggressive conservation efforts harm not only the building heritage, but also its cultural significance and authenticity. There is an urgent need to investigate existing studies that utilise proper methods and processes of the digital economy and technology to promote sustainable architecture and building heritage conservation and heritage tourism development and management to achieve the United Nations sustainable development goals (SDGs). Hence, this paper aims to explore the role of digital economy technology, i.e., building information modelling (BIM), in promoting the harmonious development of cultural architectural and building heritage conservation and sustainable cultural heritage tourism, as well as to reveal the current state of the research and hotspots in BIM-driven cultural heritage conservation for sustainable cultural heritage tourism. A mix of a macro-quantitative bibliometric method and a follow-up micro-qualitative content analysis method has been employed to highlight the significance and promise of the interdisciplinary domains of BIM, cultural heritage conservation, and sustainable cultural heritage tourism to the attainment of SDG 11 (sustainable cities and communities) focused on three specific goals, i.e., enhance inclusive and sustainable urbanisation (SDG 11.3), strengthen efforts to protect and safeguard the world’s cultural and natural heritage (SDG 11.4), and reduce the adverse per capita environmental impact of cities (SDG 11.6); and SDG 17 (partnerships) regarding four issues, i.e., stakeholder relationships, public participation, heritage conservation experts, and management. Additionally, three categories of research themes have been identified: cultural heritage conservation, heritage and tourism management, and support of emerging technology. Furthermore, the relationships between BIM and sustainable cultural heritage tourism from the last 26 years (1997 to 2022) have been revealed with visualisations of future research trends in BIM, cultural heritage conservation, and sustainable cultural heritage tourism.

1. Introduction

The United Nations (UN) incorporated cultural heritage into the sustainable development agenda in 2015, making indirect or direct references to its targets [1]. The United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) emphasises that culture is at the heart of sustainable development policies [2]. Architectural heritage is part of the cultural heritage and provides a sense of identity and belonging for future generations [3]. The conservation of architectural and building heritage in an urban context is about making cities more livable and sustainable [4]. In addition, architectural and building heritage is an important resource that supports the development of tourism in cities and generates economic returns [5]. At the same time, heritage tourism is considered the most important and fastest-growing tourism niche market [6], making both tourism and heritage important drivers for sustainable regional development [7].

In the context of heritage conservation, ‘conservation’ refers to measures and actions to protect cultural heritage, respect its historical significance, and maintain its accessibility for future generations [8]. The architectural and building legacy is a tangible heritage, and conservation activity encompasses not only the care and repair of its physical dimensions but also the practice of adaptive reuse to activate its economic potential [4,8,9]. However, heritage sites are presently under threat from a variety of factors, including degradation of the built fabric [10], development disputes [11], tourism development [12], and natural catastrophes [13], all of which impede the accomplishment of sustainable development goals [11], particularly sustainable tourism. The digital transformation of heritage conservation has been identified by UNESCO as a priority for the future of conservation [14]. The inventiveness of digital tools provides a solution to the conflict between the growth of cultural heritage tourism and conservation, by which digitisation of heritage helps with modernising of heritage tourism to some extent [15].

Building information modelling (BIM) is considered as a viable approach for the long-term development of architectural and building heritage [16]. It is a digital tool that supports the creation, storage, management, and analysis of information throughout the life cycle of the built heritage [17,18], simulating and optimising the performance of buildings [19], thus supporting the conservation activities of the built heritage. Simultaneously, BIM is utilised as a communication tool to assist stakeholders in heritage conservation and heritage tourism in achieving more effective information sharing and collaboration, resulting in reduced disputes [18]. Interestingly, BIM was set as a tool for built heritage conservation as heritage BIM (HBIM) in 2009, which has different geometric accuracy to expand the capacity for sustainable management and diverse applications for the built heritage, such as restoration and structural assessment [18,20,21].

The focus of heritage conservation has gradually shifted as the perception of the value of built heritage has changed [22]. In the early stages, studies focused on the conservation of the physical form of the building, with attention paid to the impact of physical external forces [23] and aspects such as structure [24]. Later, more attention has been paid to the commercial potential of architectural heritage and its impact on the surrounding community and even the city [7,25,26], concerning stakeholders [27], adaptive reuse [8], and environmental impacts [28] associated with the development of architectural heritage. Currently, in the era of globalisation and integration, cultural characteristics have become an important factor of differentiation for cities to compete. Heritage tourism has become an important channel for tourists to learn about the culture of the city [3], in which culture is an important credential for reuniting communities and enhancing the identity of future generations, for which is vital to integrate architectural conservation, development, and cultural transmission [29].

Indeed, architectural and building heritage is a powerful engine for economic growth and a vital resource for urban regeneration [30], which serves as a fundamental resource and competitive advantage in heritage tourism [5,31], where architectural and building heritage protection is becoming increasingly crucial [32]. However, for a variety of reasons, such as natural disasters [10,33] and other human impacts [34], architectural and building heritage can be fragile or even irrevocably destroyed [17], and the heritage itself can deteriorate with time [5,35]. Hence, heritage conservation is a critical way to effectively address building deterioration [5,19]. However, incorrect or aggressive conservation efforts harm not only the buildings, but also their cultural significance and authenticity [36]. There is an urgent need to investigate existing studies that utilise proper methods and processes of the digital economy and technology to promote sustainable architectural and building heritage conservation and heritage tourism development and management to achieve the United Nation’s sustainable development goals (SDGs).

However, few studies have systematically investigated the contribution of the fields of BIM, cultural heritage conservation, and cultural heritage tourism to the SDGs and the relationship between them. As such, the aim of this paper is to explore the relationship between cultural heritage preservation enhanced by digital economy technology, i.e., BIM, and the coordinated development of sustainable tourism for cultural heritage sites, for providing a reference to address challenges of development and conservation in cultural heritage tourism as well as to reveal the current state of research and hotspots in BIM-driven cultural heritage conservation for sustainable cultural heritage tourism. Hence, this paper investigates the following five research questions:

• What is the research context for the development of the BIM, cultural heritage conservation, and sustainable cultural heritage tourism?
• What are the research status of BIM, cultural heritage conservation, and sustainable cultural heritage tourism?
• What are the research themes of BIM and sustainable development of cultural heritage tourism?
• What are the key themes/hotspots and future trends in BIM, cultural heritage conservation, and sustainable cultural heritage tourism?
• What is the key contribution and relationship of BIM, cultural heritage conservation, and sustainable cultural heritage tourism to SDGs?

2. Materials and Methods

A mixed research method has been adopted in this study, which includes a macro-quantitative approach based on bibliometrics and a follow-up micro-qualitative content analysis to investigate BIM-driven cultural heritage conservation for sustainable cultural heritage tourism. Bibliometrics is based on the statistical science of analysing information, such as keywords and citations, of the literature to obtain objective results [37]. However, due to the multifaceted and multilevel complexity of the research problem, it is necessary to refer to the results of quantitative analyses, such as keywords, and analyse the content of the literature from a microscopic point of view using qualitative methods. The bibliometrics [38] approach, invented by Pritchard, is used to graphically expose the structure of knowledge in a certain study field when integrated with scientific mapping techniques [39], and to highlight major research themes [40]. Bibliometric tools include VOSviewer, CiteSpace, Bibexcel, and Citenet, of which VOSviewer is a widely used tool for creating and visualising bibliometric networks, offering a clear visual representation [41]. Additionally, the clustering in the VOSviewer software clusters the nodes on the map with colours, which means that nodes in the same colour represent groups of terms that are more interrelated assisting in identifying trends and hotspots [42]. In addition, the CiteSpace software provides a way for systematic examination of numerous topic areas, which can clearly illustrate the evolution of hotspots and trends in interrelated subject areas better than other visualisation tools [43]. Thus, this paper adopts a combination of the VOSviewer and CiteSpace software packages to assist with providing a comprehensive understanding of the current state of the research and hotspots in BIM, cultural heritage, and sustainable cultural heritage tourism.

As shown in Figure 1, a flow chart of the research methodology with its data collection and analysis process has five phases. The first phase is to choose the source database for data collection. The Web of Science (WOS) created by Thomson Reuters is widely regarded as the most significant source of data for objective bibliometric analysis [44], in which the literature spans the majority of scientific knowledge disciplines [45]. Hence, the WOS core collection (WOSCC) database has been adopted as the data source for the data collection. The second phase is sampling of the data collection with search steps that involve identifying appropriate search words and search formulae as well as conducting a bibliometric search in the WOSCC database, which uses the key words ‘building information model’, ‘cultural heritage’, ‘heritage tourism’, ‘culture tourism’, and ‘sustainability’, as well as their synonyms with the flexible usage of ‘and’ and ‘or’ to form a search formula, as shown in Figure 1. The third phase is data sorting of the data collection, in which only the type of “article” and “review article” data have been chosen to assure the quality of the sample for the macro-quantitative analysis, resulting in a total of 524 articles. The fourth phase is a macro-quantitative data analysis that addresses four research objectives (RO) aligning the above-mentioned four research questions: (1) Descriptive statistics of research background from two perspectives: distribution of studies and journal sources (RO1); (2) a keyword co-occurrence network visualisation via the VOSviewer software to reflect the present status in BIM, cultural heritage conservation, and sustainable cultural heritage tourism (RO2); (3) a keyword co-occurrence overlay visualisation through the VOSviewer software to present the integration of BIM and cultural heritage tourism for investigating the contribution of BIM to sustainable cultural heritage tourism from three themes, i.e., common research, conservation, and management (RO3); and (4) a keyword burst detection via the CiteSpace software incorporated the obtained 524 articles, displaying changes in research hotspots and current significant research issues for revealing key themes and future trends (RO4). The fifth phase is to use micro-qualitative content analysis to address the fifth objective (RO5), aligning the fifth research question by investigating content such as the topic of SDGs, authors, year, research method, and topic, to determine the contributions and relationships of BIM, cultural heritage conservation, and sustainable cultural heritage tourism to SDG 11 (sustainable cities and communities) and SDG 17 (partnerships).

3. Results

3.1. Results of Macro-Quantitative Bibliometric Analysis

3.1.1. Descriptive Statistics

• Number of Publications

As shown in Figure 2, the number of published articles on BIM-driven cultural heritage conservation for sustainable cultural heritage tourism is increasing year by year. The first study in the field appeared in the WOSCC database in 1997, followed by a gradual increase over several years until 2016 when the number of articles per year increased to 20. It maintained a rapid growth trend reaching its peak in 2022 with 108 articles, with the number of annual publications exceeding 90 since 2020, indicating that attention currently is being paid to the development of BIM to facilitate cultural heritage conservation for sustainable cultural heritage tourism.

• Sources of Publications

In the WOSCC database over the last 26 years (1997 to 2022), a total of 146 journals have published articles related to BIM-driven cultural heritage conservation for sustainable development in cultural heritage tourism. In Figure 3, the top 10 journals along with their percentages have been listed, which account for more than half (53%) of all the publications that dominate the current research status. Sustainability, with 116 published articles, has the most publications, accounting for 22% of all the published articles, followed by the Journal of Sustainable Tourism (7%) with 35 articles, Applied Sciences-Basel (5%) with 27 articles, the International Journal of Architectural Heritage (3%) with 17 articles, Remote Sensing (3%) with 17 articles, Automation in Construction (3%) with 15 articles, the ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information (3%) with 15 articles, Buildings (3%) with 13 articles, the Journal of Tourism and Cultural Change (2%) with 12 articles, and the Journal of Cultural Heritage (2%) with 11 articles.

3.1.2. Network Analysis

• Keyword network visualisation

A total of 524 publications on BIM-driven cultural heritage conservation and sustainable cultural heritage tourism published between 1997 and 2022 (26 years) were imported into the VOSviewer software (version 1.6.18) for keyword co-occurrence analysis, resulting in a network visualisation. In order to assure the correctness of the co-occurrence network, synonyms have been combined, as well as other forms of keywords, such as single, plural, and abbreviations. The unit of analysis has been set as “all keywords”, and the counting method as “full counting”, resulting in a total of 2527 keywords via the keyword co-occurrence. Due to the large number of keywords, the threshold value for presenting keywords has been set to ‘5’, which means that the keywords have to appear more than five times before being displayed on the map [39,46], resulting in a total of 142 listed keywords forming four clusters in different colours, as shown in Figure 4.

The network visualisation diagram provides keyword labels, nodes, linkages, and various coloured areas. The size of the circular nodes and label fonts are proportional to the number of times the keyword appears; the more occurrences of a keyword the larger the node. The distance between two keyword nodes and the thickness of the connection lines suggest their degree of relevance; the closer the distance, the more relevant, and the farther the distance, the less relevant. Various coloured areas represent different clusters, while terms inside the same cluster represent the same or closely related study topics [41]. The keyword co-occurrence network diagram clearly shows the relationships between the various keywords cluster groups.

As shown in Figure 4, the keywords on BIM-driven cultural heritage conservation and sustainable cultural heritage tourism over the last 26 years (1997 to 2022) co-occur in the network visualisation diagram. Cluster 1 (red) features the theme of BIM for sustainable cultural heritage development including “point clouds”, “documentation”, “photogrammetry”, “3D model”, and another 56 keywords, which indicate that BIM has been widely used in the field of cultural heritage conservation. The theme of cluster 2 (green) is related to sustainable tourism development, with the main keywords “sustainable tourism”, “sustainable development”, “performance”, and another 35 keywords. Cluster 3 (blue) is about heritage management and conservation, with 35 keywords such as “management”, “conservation”, and “attitudes”. Cluster 4 (yellow) focuses on the stakeholders, with keywords such as “authenticity”, “experience”, and “satisfaction”. Clusters 2, 3, and 4 are involved in the content in relation with cultural heritage tourism, whereas cluster 1 is focused on material regarding BIM. However, there is less research that is relevant to the development of two clusters with proper integration. “Sustainability” is a keyword in cluster 1 and closely related to cluster 2 and cluster 3, which suggests that sustainability is an important theme in the relationship between BIM and cultural heritage tourism, development, and management. In addition, the co-occurrence of several keywords regarding sustainable cultural heritage tourism and BIM are revealed in Figure 4, which shows that the application of BIM helps to promote sustainable cultural heritage tourism.

In order to present a clearer picture of the relationship between BIM and the sustainable development of cultural heritage tourism, only keywords that co-occur in both domains in Figure 4, located exactly in the centre of Figure 4, have been further highlighted, as shown in Figure 5. In terms of frequency of occurrence, keywords such as “culture heritage”, “conservation”, “management “, “model”, “tourism”, “technology”, and other research themes build up the relationship between BIM and cultural heritage tourism, which have been further classified into the following three categories: (1) cultural heritage conservation, where technology has been used to maintain the physical state of the heritage in a scientific way [23], providing the basis for subsequent adaptive use of the heritage [8] through conservation plans [23], and risk management; (2) heritage and tourism management, that is concerned with balancing conservation and development in heritage tourism [9]; and (3) support of emerging technology, through which BIM in particular aids in the promotion of efficient management techniques [47] and the rational implementation of conservation policies [48]. New applications that integrate BIM with immersive technologies, such as augmented reality (AR) and virtual reality (VR), to improve the visualisation of digital heritage data [13] can benefit both professional and non-professional users by facilitating collaboration among specialists in various sectors as well as instructional or entertainment dissemination to the general public [49]. As such, the potential relationships between BIM and the sustainable development of cultural heritage tourism have been identified using the VOSviewer software.

• Co-occurrence overlay visualisation

Moreover, “conservation” is a key node in the centre of Figure 4 and has been further highlighted in an overlay visualisation map of keyword co-occurrence, as shown in Figure 6, where the theme is the main medium connecting cultural heritage tourism and BIM, with the yellow–orange–red theme in the view representing the main research themes since 2019. There are strong connections among “conservation” and cultural heritage management, technical support such as heritage building information models, stakeholder engagement, visitor experience, and tourism development, with the themes of technical support, tourism experience, and tourism management showing an orange-red colour, indicating that they have recently received attention.

Furthermore, an overlay view of the keyword network with the theme “management” in Figure 4, has been further illustrated, as shown in Figure 7. The management theme is mostly related to tourist management and cultural heritage management, which has co-occurrence with “stakeholders”, “visitors”, and “governance” showing that the management theme is closely related to project stakeholders.

3.1.3. Keyword Burst Detection

Keyword burst detection in the CiteSpace software presents keywords that have been in the spotlight for a time period, which can provide clues to explore trends, important themes, and frontiers in the field. Figure 8 depicts the top 16 keywords with the highest burst values from 1997 to 2022 (26 years), in which “year” denotes the year when the keyword first appeared and it is also shown in dark green in the graph “strong” stands for the explosive strength, “begin” and “end” represent the years when the keyword outbreak began and finished, and the duration is shown by a red line for the time period.

As shown in Figure 8, the keyword “ecotourism” exploded in 2007 lasting for ten years, which is the longest-lasting keyword among all the top 16 strongest citation burst keywords. Both “corporate social responsibility” and “attitudes” have time durations greater than six years, expressing the perspectives of various stakeholders. “community” and “community involvement” highlight the significance of community development and participation in fostering sustainable tourism development. In addition, the keywords “strategy”, “destination image”, and “world heritage site” all first appeared in 2018, gaining in popularity from then. These keywords have begun to get expanded and blasted since 2018, signaling that they are hot issues for current study. “Destination image” refers to the impact of technological advancements on tourism’s authenticity. Further, the keywords “strategy” and “world heritage site” emphasise the policies pursued by organisations of the United Nations (UN) to protect cultural heritage sites that are important for human development, which is the official organisational level of policy protection for the sustainable development of heritage sites. “Experience” and “policy” are keywords that are still in a state of explosion, of which experience is closely related to tourist loyalty and is an important indicator of the sustainability of the tourism industry, and “policy” places greater emphasis on the decisions made by relevant bodies, from heritage site managers to government departments, to promote the development of the area. Despite the fact that “sustainable tourism” only lasted for two years, from 2016 to 2017, it had the highest blast intensity of 4.96, demonstrating the importance of sustainable tourism.

3.2. Results of the Micro-Qualitative Content Analysis

According to the above-mentioned results of the macro analysis, sustainability is a shared aim sought by both the cultural heritage tourism and the cultural heritage conservation. In order to better show the development of the cultural heritage sector, alleviate the contradictions between tourism development and heritage conservation [9,50,51], and contribute to the achievement of the 2030 SDGs set by the United Nations, a micro-qualitative analysis is, therefore, conducted to reveal the current and future trends in the development of BIM and sustainable cultural heritage tourism. As shown in Figure 6, the keyword ‘conservation’ encompasses elements of cultural heritage protection in line with one of the goals of SDG 11 (sustainable cities and communities), which specifically addresses further efforts to protect and safeguard the world’s cultural and natural heritage. Several studies have underlined that constructed heritage is a significant aspect of cities, carrying their distinctive characters, and has an important role in cities’ and communities’ long-term social and economic vitality and growth [52,53]. In addition, as shown in Figure 7, the keyword ‘management’ not only relates to the planning and management of heritage sites, but also provides advice to managers on how to develop more sustainable policies from the perspective of different stakeholders. In addition, as shown in Figure 8, a number of site stakeholders are involved, such as enterprises, visitors, communities, and managers, indicating that the stakeholders’ interests have being increasing. As such, SDG 17 (partnerships) could be further encouraged and promoted in a good partnership of the stakeholders. Hence, the following micro-qualitative analysis is conducted to further investigate how BIM and sustainable cultural heritage tourism might assist in the accomplishment of the SDGs, i.e., sustainable cities and communities (SDG 11) and partnerships (SDG 17).

3.2.1. Sustainable Cities and Communities

The purpose of sustainable cities and communities is to create cities that are inclusive, safe, disaster-resilient, and sustainable [54]. Cities are key social and economic growth engines, where urban development is accomplished via planning and administration to promote livability and safety [55]. Globalisation and technological advancement have caused enormous changes in cities, posing both difficulties and possibilities for sustainable urban development [56]. Among the 2030 SDGs set by the United Nations on sustainable urban and community development targets (SDG 11), those that are closely related to sustainable cultural heritage tourism are strengthening inclusive and sustainable cities, as well as enhancing capacities for participatory, integrated, and sustainable human settlements in planning and management across all countries by year 2030 (SDG 11.3), further efforts to maintain and safeguard the world’s cultural and natural assets (SDG 11.4), and reducing negative environmental impacts per capita in cities by year 2030 (SDG 11.6) [54]. A total of 59 studies closely related to SDG 11 were screened from the results of the micro-qualitative analysis, of which 27 studies related to the specific goal of SDG 11.3 regarding tourism management and facilities management, 27 studies were associated with SDG 11.4, dealing with cultural heritage risk management, cultural heritage conservation tools, and adaptive tourism development of heritage, and fewer concern SDG 11.6, with only six studies on reducing the environmental impacts of built heritage. As shown in

Table 1. Current research status on BIM-driven cultural heritage conservation for sustainable development in cultural heritage tourism for the United Nations’ sustainable development goals (SDGs) SDG 11 (sustainable cities and communities) (generated by the authors).

Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)	Authors	Year	Research Method	Topic
11.3	Millan-Millan et al. [57]	2022	Case study	HBIM strikes a balance between heritage conservation and housing
11.3	Jia et al. [58]	2022		Heritage conservation and management
11.3	de la Plata et al. [50]	2022		Heritage conservation and sustainable tourism management
11.3	Bazan et al. [59]	2021		BIM-based heritage management
11.3	Banuelos, et al. [47]	2021		Cultural heritage information management
11.3	Jimenez-Medina et al. [60]	2021		Adaptive reuse of heritage
11.3	Giuffrida et al. [26]	2021		Heritage digitisation
11.3	Salvador-Garcia et al. [61]	2020		HBIM for public use management
11.3	Sestras et al. [62]	2020		BIM for tourism potential analysis
11.3	Lai [63]	2020		Heritage conservation and sustainable management of tourism
11.3	Arias et al. [3]	2020		A virtual-technology-based model of historical and cultural communication
11.3	Acici et al. [31]	2018		Heritage conservation and sustainable management of tourism
11.3	Wickham et al. [64]	2015		Sustainable management of heritage tourism
11.3	Xu et al. [65]	2012		Sustainable policies for heritage site development
11.3	Al-hagla [9]	2010		Sustainable management of heritage tourism
11.3	Khan et al. [33]	2022	Modelling	HBIM-based legacy management
11.3	Barnes [7]	2022		Heritage conservation and sustainable tourism management
11.3	Ma [21]	2022		Interaction between BIM models of historic buildings and game engine platforms
11.3	Piaia et al. [80]	2021		BIM for cultural heritage asset management
11.3	Sroda-Murawska et al. [6]	2021	Interview	Sustainability assessment of heritage tourism
11.3	Luo et al. [34]	2021		Heritage conservation and sustainable tourism management
11.3	Prabowo et al. [90]	2021	Literature review	Urban heritage facility management
11.3	Chong et al. [25]	2019		Heritage management and adaptive reuse
11.3	Cai et al. [15]	2021	Case study and modelling	Heritage conservation and sustainable tourism management
11.3	Zubiaga et al. [85]	2019		Visitor flow monitoring
11.3	Elabd et al. [8]	2021	Literature review, analysis of examples, interview, modelling	HBIM and IOT integration to resilient protection
11.3	Tam et al. [86]	2016	Literature review and case study	Adaptive reuse of architectural heritage
11.4	Aguilar et al. [23]	2022	Case study	Seismic vulnerability assessment
11.4	Al-Bayari et al. [16]	2022		Mapping techniques for the conservation and restoration of historic buildings
11.4	Palcak et al. [66]	2022		TLS and photogrammetry to generate 3D models
11.4	Acar et al. [52]	2022		AR mobile applications for inspection and exploration
11.4	Bouzas et al. [35]	2022		Structural health assessment
11.4	Santini et al. [67]	2022		BIM for recovery and reconstruction
11.4	Sevieri et al. [10]	2021		Risk assessment
11.4	Ponte et al. [68]	2021		Seismic vulnerability assessment
11.4	Caciora et al. [69]	2021		VR for sustainable tourism
11.4	Garavaglia et al. [70]	2020		Seismic vulnerability assessment
11.4	Colucci et al. [71]	2020		Seismic vulnerability assessment
11.4	Tsilimantou et al. [72]	2020		GIS and BIM integration for structural assessment of historic buildings
11.4	Tahmasebinia et al. [73]	2019		BIM and the digital twin for detecting and documenting heritage
11.4	Raffaelli et al. [74]	2016		Maintenance and restoration of historical monuments
11.4	Di Re et al. [81]	2021	Modelling	Structural health assessment
11.4	Solla et al. [82]	2020		Non-destructive testing technology
11.4	Abd ElWahab et al. [5]	2019		BIM for rehabilitation and reconstruction
11.4	Bec et al. [83]	2019		AR and VR create heritage tourism experiences
11.4	Hess et al. [84]	2018		Structural health assessment
11.4	Santos et al. [91]	2022	Literature review	BIM for wood structure evaluation
11.4	Zhang et al. [14]	2022		Application levels of HBIM
11.4	Eudave et al. [92]	2021		Seismic vulnerability assessment
11.4	Dai et al. [36]	2021	Interview	Heritage conservation and heritage tourism authenticity
11.4	Tan et al. [87]	2022	Literature review and case study	BIM and digital twins for archaeological research
11.4	Mammoli et al. [88]	2021	Case study, quantification, qualitative	Risk management
11.4	Lee et al. [89]	2019	Modelling, questionnaire, focus groups	Risk management
11.4	Fadli et al. [4]	2019	Modelling and interview	Application of digital archives for historic buildings
11.6	Meoni et al. [75]	2022	Case study	HBIM for energy retrofit and building conservation
11.6	Diana et al. [76]	2022		BIM for energy retrofit and adaptive reuse
11.6	Silva et al. [77]	2021		Conservation and impact of tourists on cultural heritage
11.6	Piselli et al. [28]	2020		HBIM for historic building energy retrofit
11.6	Piselli et al. [78]	2020		HBIM for facility energy management
11.6	Shehata et al. [19]	2022	Modelling	BIM for green renovation of architectural heritage

, the case study [3,9,16,23,26,28,31,35,47,50,52,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72,73,74,75,76,77,78] is the most often utilised research method for exploring BIM-driven cultural heritage conservation for sustainable development in cultural heritage tourism for SDG 11, since heritage conservation and planning management typically necessitate specialised sustainable measures [79], followed by modelling [5,7,19,21,33,80,81,82,83,84], mixed research [4,8,15,85,86,87,88,89], literature review [14,25,90,91,92], and expert interviews [6,34,36].

• Enhance inclusive and sustainable urbanisation (SDG 11.3)

The preservation and revitalisation of architectural building history is a component of urban renewal and construction [93]. Cultural heritage conservation is a key driver of urban regeneration [8] and a top priority in the context of sustainable urban development [9]. As shown in Table 1, the research often employs case studies [3,9,26,31,47,50,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65]. The most sustainable approach to maintain heritage is through adaptive reuse [25,90,93], focused on developing cultural heritage tourism [25], adapting urban public areas [86,94], and adapting housing [57]. The tourist sector is one of the primary sources of revenue and economic value that may be created by enhancing the commercial potential of built heritage [7]. Tourism development and refurbishment are labor-intensive activities that create jobs [60], adapt to the demands of the local community, and improve the quality of life of the residents, resulting in boosting their well-being [60]. Good conservation is essential to promote the reuse of architectural heritage [4], which requires a significant investment of money, time, and effort [14], and the drive for long-term heritage protection stems primarily from its economic value [65]. Actually, parts of the constructed legacy are irreparably deteriorated or even lost owing to a lack of finance, and inappropriate remedies, which is undeniably a loss of the city’s cultural values and a hindrance to the growth of cultural heritage tourism [52].

Moreover, the constraints of developing adaptive tourism for architectural heritage have been raised from both internal and external obstacles. Internal obstacles stem mostly from the complexity of maintaining architectural knowledge [80], the balance of interests and decisions among stakeholders [8,25], and the physical status of the built heritage [76]. External obstacles originate from factors such as economic viability [65], environmental effects or future environmental quality [6], and community development requirements [60]. The complexity of the challenge is associated with conflict between tourist development and heritage protection, which is the primary issue affecting the sustainability of cultural heritage tourism. Since tourism is an essential route for converting heritage cultural value into financial value [95], heritage may offer tourism appeal to impoverished regions or towns, which is an important instrument for developing countries’ economic revitalisation [6]. Unfortunately, the surge in tourism to cultural heritage has harmed the legacy and its culture [9], resulting in the over-commercialisation of heritage or the loss of traditional culture [34]. Additionally, overcrowding is not only a threat to the preservation of the built heritage, but reduces the quality of tourism for visitors [64], which is one of the factors that threaten the quality of the environment surrounding the heritage [6].

Furthermore, since the competition between development and conservation will become a vicious spiral if no progress is made, it is critical to improve tourism management and historical conservation. However, increased spending on heritage conservation does not always result in an increase in tourism revenue [7]. Sustainable strategic planning for built heritage must be tailored and cannot rely solely on conservation investment, which must also incorporate technology as well as innovative and management practices [7]. The digitalisation of heritage provides a potential approach to balance internal and external conflicts, via technologies such as the internet of things (IoT) [8], big data [96] and BIM [33], helping to transform tourism management of heritage. Building sustainability without compromising the value of the built heritage requires a high level of information management complexity [97], in which BIM serves as a decision support system for managers by integrating structural information, monitoring information, and heritage management information in a 3D environment. Information on cultural, social, environmental, and historical maintenance can be stored in the BIM through metric 3D modelling, allowing for the integration of relevant data in a database that can be continuously modified, exported, and updated during subsequent restoration, operation, and maintenance (CRM) phases [33]. In addition, optimising BIM applications for urban heritage management and facilities management has been proposed to facilitate efficient historic building maintenance as well as urban tourism planning and development [26]. The impact of tourism on cities is of concern, with the scale of tourism as a significant factor contributing to uncertainty and risk [6]. Although short-term visitor growth generates short-term economic dividends, a lack of innovative management solutions can lead to increased conflict between the development and conservation. Interestingly, the IoT allows everything to be connected via sensors for building monitoring and space management [98]. By deploying sensors to monitor visitor traffic [8], integrating IoT and HBIM improves the ability to intelligently monitor hazards as well as the efficiency of managing tourist traffic [85]. Further, heritage digitisation has helped to modernise heritage tourism by integrating information of virtual tourism, visitor flows, and environmental monitoring into an integrated tourism platform, resulting in an “all-in-one” system for comprehensive tourism management [15].

However, BIM platforms with protocol standards can bring architectural heritage into VR, AR, or MR environments [99], or develop online access platforms for cultural heritage, which helps to distribute and popularise heritage history [87] and is more favourable to the marketing of a city’s tourism brand. The significance of innovative technologies is to provide greater inclusiveness in virtual tours of cultural heritage, being free from physical conditions and time constraints, especially for people with limited mobility, which reduces inequalities to some extent [3,50] and broadens the audience for tourism. Hence, achieving conservation improvements in heritage requires encouraging innovation. For instance, pairing BIM platforms with immersive reality systems produces interactive museums that can be easily accessed by tourists via the web or mobile terminals and can also be utilised for tourism promotion [26].

• Strengthen efforts to protect and safeguard the world’s cultural and natural heritage (SDG 11.4)

The strategy of preservation of heritage sites should be combined with a long-term perspective on development [4], because cultural heritage is an important asset for regional development [47], preserving cities’ unique characters and tourism appeal in the face of globalisation [8], and encouraging healthy competition among cities [4]. Cultural heritage protection necessitates whole-life management [8,58,84], as it includes the needs to maintain the current state of cultural heritage, such as physical identity [81,100], integrity [75,101,102], and the cultural and social values that underpin it [16,90], as well as the ability to pass it on intact to future generations [5,103]. Heritage conservation using BIM technology is an important approach to address building degradation [24].

As shown in Table 1, the case study [10,16,23,35,52,66,67,68,69,70,71,72,73,74] is the most employed research method, which reveal that the main architectural heritage conservation measures are prevention, treatment, restoration, revitalisation, and reconstruction. Preventive conservation is the most effective conservation measure [59] since it prevents or reduces the occurrence of damage [47], lowering the cost of keeping the built heritage [81]. Risk management [89] and structural evaluation [10] are critical measures for conservation and intervention, in which BIM assists in assessing the vulnerability of built heritage to natural disasters such as earthquakes, typhoons, and floods, thereby assisting in the development of risk mitigation strategies [10,23]. For instance, the importance of model updating in damage management is exemplified by the integration of inspection data with 3D models in a BIM environment to develop a HBIM framework for preventive protection to support the monitoring of decay and anomalies [104]. At the same time, preventive conservation requires systematic management and continuous efforts. HBIM also supports multidimensional coordination management, allowing a spatiotemporal database to be created to reveal the evolution of buildings over time, supporting the long-term management of heritage [88]. In addition, preserving historical data associated with BIM improves visitors’ understanding of the origins, changes, and present state of built heritage, increases the authenticity of heritage tourism, and helps to raise public consciousness of conservation [36]. However, there are limitations to using HBIM for risk management, such as information sharing [89], a dearth of geographical data [71], and a lack of interoperability [17]. Potentially, integrating BIM with a variety of modern technologies improves sustainable heritage conservation. VR-enhanced HBIM applications have been used to incorporate contextual information to ensure effective information presentation, retrieval, and sharing [89]. Similarly, HBIM and AR mobile applications have been integrated for historic building structural evaluation and seismic vulnerability assessment [23]. Further, geographic information systems (GIS) has been utilised to map data linked to natural hazards or risks [105], with which HBIM can be used to develop an integrated strategy and methodology for assessing earthquake vulnerability [92]. Hence, in a BIM environment, accessing information on building safety vulnerabilities [70], their severity, and mitigation is required to ensure the sustainability of important tourism resources and visitor safety [31,106].

In addition, additional protection methods for architectural heritage cannot be isolated from heritage digitalisation. Since technologies have evolved into powerful instruments for promoting and enhancing cultural heritage conservation [4], documenting the current state of the heritage and informing and advising on subsequent conservation plans and tourism developments in relation to the use of the buildings [5] can minimise the negative impact of conservation practices and tourism developments on the state of the built heritage. BIM technology helps to manage the built heritage life cycle, from digital documentation [4,16] to simulated building performance analysis [72,73] and conservation planning tools [5], as well as integrating with other digital technologies for entertainment [87] and used as a communication vehicle to promote the built heritage [69]. While, the high degree of irregularity and historical damage to historic building elements leads to a high level of complexity in the modelling process [107]. Building digital documentation of architectural heritage requires the use of non-intrusive scanning techniques such as terrestrial laser scanning (TSL) [66,82], photogrammetry [4,87], and unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) [66] to collect building-based data and process point cloud data in order to create accurate 3D digital models [16]. The point cloud data from the scan are cleaned and registered to produce a HBIM for future study and planning. Depending on the purpose of the use, different levels of details (LODs) are required [108] and, where necessary, information such as materials, restoration data, historical texts, architectural information, archaeological data, and previous photographs and drawings need to be included in the HBIM model. Further, the incorporation of interdisciplinary databases into the HBIM system simplifies approaches for sustainable cultural building conservation [14], such as structural stability [35], modelling or optimisation of building performance [73], and damage detection [72].

Further, because of the perishable nature of buildings, the digital and visual virtual environment clearly presents the original state of the building and facilitates site inspection and learning tours [52,66]. Architectural building heritage is a means of representation of culture, for which BIM-enhanced digital technology, to conserve its physical elements, can be transposed to the VR environment for virtual tours [69], demonstrations, and heritage education [50], which is another means of preserving and passing on heritage monuments, since virtual tours can help to reduce disruption to heritage sites [83] while also increasing accessibility to conservation activities. Virtual heritage assists conservation efforts by emphasising the authenticity and dependability of digital material, in which the tours frequently are involved in an exaggerated or dramatised staging of reality to catch tourists’ attention. Hence, the importance of correctly balancing the display of heritage information with authenticity in virtual tours has been emphasised [83].

• Reduce the adverse per capita environmental impact of cities (SDG 11.6)

As shown in Table 1, the case study [28,75,76,77,78] is the favourite research method. Historic heritage is seen as an important component of urban systems [76], although old buildings are frequently regarded as low-performing structures [28]. As such, they have a strong potential to increase environmental performance [109], although associated elements have received insufficient attention in the field. Recent studies on the environmental effect of architectural heritage focus on energy efficiency improvements, since historic buildings are extremely popular with tourists [7], moisture and CO2 emissions from tourist visits are also a source of unsustainable impact [77]. Increasing building energy efficiency, and thus, consideration of the cultural and social aspects of the architectural heritage, have to be addressed, which covers the upkeep of the building’s aesthetic [28], the demands of the tenants [75], and the comfort and health of visitors [77]. Sustainable methods, i.e., energy retrofitting [76] and performance testing [19] supported by BIM technology improves the energy efficiency and environmental management of historic buildings, promoting them as green and sustainable buildings while retaining their unique aesthetic value. Moreover, BIM obtains multidisciplinary information to support the implementation of integrated management in an integrated manner [97], which includes the management and control of the building’s internal temperature and humidity, ventilation systems, indoor air quality, and lighting systems to promote occupant comfort, ensuring the wellbeing of visitors [19,75,90], as well as the operational control of renewable energy systems such as geothermal [78] and solar energy [76]. Furthermore, when compared to modern buildings, the challenges of retrofitting historic buildings are mainly from structural fragility and the preservation of the building’s structural integrity and exterior character [109], which often require a customised and comprehensive retrofitting program for historic buildings [19]. Thus, HBIM is regarded as a powerful instrument for protecting cultural assets in a balanced and comprehensive approach to the built environment [28,76,78], in which retrofitting impacts are often quantified using quantitative measures such as energy efficiency [110], total energy consumption [109], and economic expenses [28].

3.2.2. Partnerships (SDG 17)

Revitalising the global partnership for sustainable development (SDG 17) serves as a foundation for other sustainable development goals [111]. It recognises that stakeholders provide various types of value, that interactions with one another can stimulate innovation and potential, in which partnerships will be an important tool for achieving sustainable development [112]. Planning and developing sustainable cultural heritage tourism is complex and difficult. Since the tourism industry is typically closely associated with multi-stakeholders [113], who are regarded as an important factor in any viable tourism development [114], new conflicts between stakeholders and changes in inter-subjective relationships are unavoidable in the process of sustainable transformation and quality development of tourism [113]. As shown in

Table 2. Current research status on BIM-driven cultural heritage conservation for sustainable development in cultural heritage tourism for SDG 17 (partnerships) (generated by the authors).

Content	Authors	Year	Research Method
Stakeholder Relations	Li et al. [113]	2020	Case study
Stakeholder Relations	Gocer et al. [115]	2015
Stakeholder Relations	Szromek et al. [131]	2019	Interviews
Stakeholder Relations	Jordan-Palomar et al. [124]	2018	Case study, design science research
Public Participation	Jia et al. [58]	2022	Case study
Public Participation	Qu et al. [121]	2022
Public Participation	Banuelos et al. [47]	2021
Public Participation	Beal et al. [29]	2019
Public Participation	Paddison et al. [122]	2017
Public Participation	Dai et al. [36]	2021	Interviews
Public Participation	Su et al. [132]	2016
Public Participation	Prabowo et al. [90]	2021	Literature review
Public Participation	Gursoy et al. [27]	2019	Case study and modelling
Public Participation	Chiabai et al. [126]	2013
Public Participation	Garcia-Delgado et al. [127]	2020	Case study and interviews
Public Participation	Zhang et al. [128]	2019
Public Participation	Elabd et al. [8]	2021	Case study, modelling, interviews
Public Participation	Alazaizeh et al. [129]	2020	Case study and questionnaire
Public Participation	Shih et al. [130]	2019	Quantification and qualitative
Experts	Oostwegel et al. [18]	2022	Case study
Experts	Sanchez et al. [49]	2022
Experts	Bienvenido-Huertas et al. [116]	2020
Experts	Previtali et al. [117]	2020
Experts	Prizeman et al. [118]	2020
Experts	Rodrigues et al. [119]	2019
Experts	Tomasi et al. [123]	2015
Experts	Rebec et al. [17]	2022	Modelling
Experts	Khan et al. [33]	2022
Experts	Diara et al. [133]	2021
Experts	Lee et al. [89]	2019	Modelling and interviews
Managers	de la Plata et al. [50]	2022	Case study
Managers	Baraldi, et al. [120]	2014
Managers	Sroda-Murawska et al. [6]	2021	Interviews
Managers	Zhao et al. [125]	2021	Case study, interviews, content analysis

, the case study [18,29,47,49,50,58,113,115,116,117,118,119,120,121,122,123] is a commonly used research method to examine stakeholder relationships in sustainable cultural heritage tourism, followed by mixed research [8,27,89,124,125,126,127,128,129,130], interviews [6,36,131,132], modelling [17,33,133], and literature reviews [90]. Current studies on BIM-driven cultural heritage conservation and sustainable cultural heritage tourism concern the following groups of people or organisations: heritage residents, community organisations, tourists, managers (including heritage planning managers including local governments, heritage management), and industry experts (e.g., heritage conservation experts and tourism planning experts). As shown in Table 2, there are 35 studies related to BIM, cultural heritage conservation, and sustainable cultural heritage tourism promoting SDG 17 (partnerships) associated with examining stakeholder relationships (4 studies), public participation (15 studies), heritage conservation experts (11 studies), and management (4 studies).

• Cooperation and conflict management of stakeholder relation

Since the potential stakeholders in each tourism project are numerous and diverse [113], cooperation and conflict management of stakeholders are recurring themes. When a strategy is harmful to the stakeholders, it can easily lead to disagreement or even social strife [29], for which effective stakeholder collaboration can help to address such problems [113]. In addition, in the field of heritage tourism, buildings are frequently not commodities but public property owned, used, cared for, planned, and managed by a diverse group of stakeholders [115]. Collaboration between stakeholders can fulfil the commercial role of built heritage while preventing its destruction [131]. Strong collaborations are critical to ensuring sustainable cultural heritage tourism, which is one of the current tourist planning aspects [113]. By contrast, causes of conflict among stakeholders include manager centralised power, stakeholder rights imbalance [113], inefficient information management [124], and neglect of the public interest [128]. The existing response measures include the use of new technologies such as BIM and information and communication technologies to facilitate stakeholder dialogue and interaction [130], the empowerment of stakeholders and the delegation of responsibilities [129], the establishment of ‘bottom-up’ management policies [126], and the promotion of public participation in decision making [128]. Sometimes, specific stakeholder groups can help with addressing practical issues in the development of cultural heritage tourism [126], which must be examined in relation to the various stakeholders’ interest groups.

• Promoting public participation

Communities and residents are non-professional stakeholder groups of sustainable heritage tourism, who are important drivers and ultimate beneficiaries of sustainable development [8,27]. Cultural tourism development can generate income, increase employment, improve the attractiveness of the area, and thus retain residents [127]. At the same time, it has a significant and long-term role to play in the sustainable development of cultural heritage tourism by taking on responsibility for heritage conservation [8] and being under tourism pressure [27,29]. However, the important role of communities is often overlooked and marginalised by local authorities [121], which leads to problems of social equity [134], and thus hinders the advancement of cultural strategies [135].

The public is often a passive participant in a ‘top-down’ management structure, meaning they simply receive information passively [126]. Public participation is the most crucial component of sustainable tourist development [9], yet research into participatory heritage protection and planning is currently limited. Innovative ways to promote participatory processes are needed on how to facilitate people’s participation in decision making, particularly in the setting of increasingly complicated stakeholder interactions [126]. A study has emphasised the importance of including non-specialists in the BIM system, which uses an online platform to allow public access and education on heritage [124]. Similarly, innovation in BIM technology makes architectural heritage restoration work accessible to the public, which will help to increase public interest in heritage conservation, strengthen the community’s collective sense of belonging, and reduce inappropriate use and looting [47]. BIM is a tool for technical professionals, but technical information concerning heritage should be presented in a way non-specialists can understand. Optimising BIM and integrating it with modern technologies creates a unique instrument for public participation that may enable experts, managers, and communities to agree on heritage planning [90]. In addition, HBIM can be used to fully document the origins, progressive changes, and status of heritage [88]. Dai et al. [36] argue that presenting heritage information to the public is compatible with conservation and development needs since it helps the public to understand the cultural value and authenticity of the heritage. Further, information and communication technology (ICT) models help to place the public at the centre of urban planning with social media and networks, not only empowering ability of the public to participate in conservation decisions and practices through adopting data technology [58,90,126], but also allowing residents to voice their opinions and demands, which is a powerful means of promoting heritage [134].

• Protection from experts

In the stakeholder-driven cultural heritage tourism system, the relationship of interest revolves around two objectives, conservation and development, where conservation experts ensure the sustainability of the heritage through the protection and maintenance of the built heritage throughout its life cycle [17]. As shown in Table 2, studies in this section prefer to use the case study [18,49,116,117,118,119,123] method to investigate. The making of a conservation plan is required with the participation of multidisciplinary experts, including restoration specialists, historians, archaeologists, structural engineers, architects, tourism planners, and construction workers [117,124]. Since the experts have distinct disciplinary perspectives and conservation values, they will frequently hold opposing opinions on decision making [116]. These expert stakeholders often work separately and the data they produce on heritage is fragmented [124], which may lead to duplication of effort or an inability to understand the entire range of information, resulting in poor decision making [33,136]. Additionally, the exchange of information between participants is complicated, since experts use different software tools or technologies to express the specific needs of different construction areas [18], from which differentiated data formats it is hard to achieve data conversion, resulting in an interoperability problem [117]. A lack of standardisation of information prevents data sharing, making collaboration between teams of experts difficult and information management inefficient, leading to difficulties in making key decisions [33].

Fortunately, there is a growing use of interdisciplinary data sharing and information exchange between software tools, which is the current method of achieving multidisciplinary expert collaboration [18]. BIM is a multidisciplinary technology [119] that enhances traditional collaboration by allowing for more efficient and streamlined coordination and information sharing [115,123]. Data sharing can be accomplished through standardisation. The Industry Foundation Class (IFC) is a non-proprietary format supported by the International Organisation for Standardisation (ISO) [137] that enables data sharing and exchange between heterogeneous software [119]. The IFC format is widely used in BIM programs [119] to improve project party interoperability by incorporating semantics into the BIM ontology model [18] and providing project information in a hierarchical manner, which could help to inform the key trade-offs involved in decisions about architectural heritage [118].

Moreover, HBIM assists with various levels of heritage management and facilitates the creation of complete and comprehensive databases where data can be available, searched, and updated in real time, offering a workspace for stakeholders to share data [33,124,138]. The use of the IFC model in conjunction with a BIM platform has been developed to help build a heritage management system for architectural heritage buildings, providing a platform for integration, collaboration, and communication to support experts in different fields to facilitate heritage restoration planning [33]. HBIM provides parallel workflows to accommodate numerous specialists working at the same time, which assists in the integration of open-source IFC data carriers to simplify operations and reduce friction [17]. Although developing an HBIM model requires more time and resources up front, it provides a consistent workflow for heritage management, enhancing time and cost efficiency and generating economic benefits in a long-term perspective [124]. In addition, online access systems associated with BIM offer options for real-time access and collaboration, as well as distant access, which improves productivity through facilitating comprehension of stakeholders’ work [133]. BIM-based web applications enable data communication to manage all project-related information as a digital platform, eliminating information fragmentation and increasing the participation of stakeholders in the management [119]. There is a need of a visual online platform that not only allows cooperation between professional teams but may also encourage non-technical stakeholders to participate in the BIM workflow through a visual interface and from ease of use, which would help to promote the broad use of BIM technology [124]. The BIM platform not only serves as an effective interdisciplinary management tool, but also allows for the integration of AR and VR platforms for virtual tours of heritage sites, allowing for user interaction with the heritage that is more effective than on-site diagnostics, while decreasing staff frustration [89].

• Management

The management refers to the central administration, local governments, and cultural tourism management in this paper. Government policy and regulation are considered as one of the most important factors in promoting sustainable tourism development [125]. The public sector is the driving force behind the development of heritage conservation plans, tourism development plans, and investment promotion [85,125]. It also serves as a facilitator of dialogue and communication among various stakeholders, particularly in the promotion of public participation [125,126]. The way to improve tourism’s sustainability is through culture heritage managers and other stakeholders maintaining stable and long-term collaborations [139]. Importantly, government departments must be involved in infrastructure improvements [6], heritage promotion, and the development of local brands [90]. BIM platforms enable information sharing and communication between various participants [49]. However, BIM has not been frequently implemented in the management process of culture heritage. The administration is a key driver in the implementation of BIM in the heritage sector, which enables opening up standards and improving the synergy and interoperability of various BIM software packages that requires considering the importance of administration in decision making and adequate and effective communication with technical staff [140]. To ensure efficient and correct management, it is necessary to establish a communication infrastructure for the transfer of data, documentation, and data on heritage conservation and management between professional teams and the public administration [50].

4. Discussion

4.1. Future Trends

This paper presents the current status of the field as well as contributing by presenting the coordinated development of BIM-driven cultural heritage conservation and sustainable cultural heritage tourism (RO1, RO2, and RO3). Current research hotspots such as architectural heritage conservation, heritage tourism management, sustainable city building, and stakeholder management, have been investigated, and future trends have been identified such as the integration of conservation and tourism, cultural values of architectural heritage, and multiple forms of public participation (RO4).

The results in Section 3.2.1 and Section 3.2.2 suggest that cultural heritage conservation and sustainable cultural heritage tourism with the help of multi-stakeholder groups contributes to sustainable city building and reducing the negative impacts of the development for SDGs such as SDG 11 and SDG 17. However, current research is less concerned with the integration of heritage conservation and tourism development [15], and there is a dearth of research on holistic planning and development. The development of smart management helps cultural heritage tourism to develop sustainably. By incorporating the carrying capacity of the built heritage, the flow of visitors, and the level of congestion into an intelligent management system, a good visitor experience can be created while taking into account the carrying capacity of the heritage tour [141]. In addition, there is still a scarcity of standardised tools and techniques to aid in the overall management and internal use of architectural heritage. However, with the help of city information modelling (CIM) technology, it is possible to integrate urban information such as traffic and land with dynamic data provided by internet of things (IoT) technology to create a database for the agile management and refined governance of heritage tourism [142]. As such, it has also been emphasised that integrating sustainable development goals into urban planning and management is beneficial in stimulating the potential of urban development [143,144].

The results in Figure 4, Figure 6, and Figure 7 indicate that culture is a recurrent keyword and co-occurs with management and conservation. However, a number of studies have focused on the physical conservation [67], risk prediction [23], and engineering modifications of architectural heritage [28], with less emphasis on the cultural values that underpin them. Reconstruction of the site is easy, but restoring the true cultural heritage is the challenge [16]. Current conservation focuses on the physical and external aspects of heritage, often overlooking the cultural depth of the city. Therefore, there is a need in the future to gain a deeper understanding of the city’s culture and activate its history and culture, which is an important factor in the development of tourism [145,146]. In addition, several studies have recognised the importance of incorporating culture into the sustainable development process [147] as it not only helps the vitality of cities and communities, but also improves the quality of life in society [148]. Hence, more emphasis should be placed on the contribution of culture to achieving SDGs.

Moreover, the results of Section 3.1.3 show that specific considerations of the stakeholders have been the focus of attention in the development of BIM-driven cultural heritage conservation for sustainable cultural heritage tourism. The stakeholders are the most essential aspect in development [8]. There will be a need in the future for better awareness of stakeholders’ aims, interests, and values in order to lessen the obstacles of maintaining cultural sites [129]. Cultural policies implemented by government sectors are critical for equitable development, since they include not only equal cost–benefit distribution, but also inclusive planning and decision making [134]. In addition, attention must be paid to vulnerable groups of stakeholders. For example, municipal heritage institutions in Turkey invest in social projects around historic heritage sites to promote policies and sustainable development of the area, such as providing rehabilitation and training for drug-addicted children, educational programs for rural migrant women, and job creation [120]. Public investment measures for disadvantaged groups are essential for equitable development, and accessibility to sightseeing, visiting, and learning through BIM technology is an expression of inclusiveness. Immersive technologies such as AR and VR help with making heritage more accessible and allowing people with limited mobility to enjoy a positive travel experience [3]. Further, future studies involving wider public engagement must include the possibilities of e-participation. Immersive technologies are a vehicle for the integration and development of culture, heritage, and tourism, as well as the development of interactive and participatory technologies to facilitate communication among stakeholders. This will allow citizens to monitor decision-makers’ actions, and improve accountability of the participation process to strengthen democracy [126]. Thus, this paper potentially helps to accelerate the accomplishment of SDG 10 (reducing inequality) and SDG 16 (peace, justice, and strong institutions) in the future.

Furthermore, the results in Table 1 and Table 2 reveal that most of the studies explore specific individual stakeholders, while there is less exploration of the logic and models behind the integrated development of architectural heritage tourism. This may be due to the fact that historic buildings have their own characteristics, but a focus on common issues is conducive to reusing successful experiences and helping more built heritage to realise its cultural, social, and economic potential. This paper clearly demonstrates the importance of BIM in architectural heritage conservation and sustainable cultural heritage tourism in promoting SDG 11 (sustainable cities and communities) and SDG 17 (partnerships), such as city building, architectural heritage conservation, environmental impacts of buildings, and stakeholder conflict and management (RO5).

4.2. The Challenges

This paper facilitates expanding the depth and breadth of BIM-driven cultural heritage conservation for sustainable cultural heritage tourism by revealing the challenges of BIM in promoting the sustainable development of architectural heritage. The results of Section 3.2.1 and Section 3.2.2 emphasise BIM as a vital technology for built heritage conservation, although it is still not extensively employed for addressing SDGs such as SDG 11 and SDG 17, since BIM began as a tool for new construction [16,24]. There are still a number of barriers to the application of BIM technology in heritage conservation, such as time and cost efficiency [117], software availability [124], and BIM’s relevance to historic buildings [24]. Since the object elements in historic structures are frequently irregular [24], the present object library for modelling historic buildings is quite restricted, and rigorous modelling with the assistance of other scanning technologies is required to support a more accurate analysis [149]. This process leads to more time and energy being consumed upfront [150]. Interestingly, rapid automated modelling and damage detection via BIM can be performed with the use of technologies such as automation and artificial intelligence to enhance efficiency, saving substantial time and labour expenses [151]. The mechatronic system in BIM not only saves time and cost by eliminating time-consuming and costly human activities, but it also allows measurement and modelling procedures to be performed when the location is dangerous or inaccessible to workers [152]. Intelligent management system integrated with BIM includes the diagnosis of lesions in historical buildings, which typically requires a professional visual inspection, combined with artificial intelligence and deep algorithms capable of automating the diagnosis, completing the initial analysis and identification, and reducing the workload of the maintenance process [14]. Hence, the international HBIM library needs to be improved in the future [49], with further research into innovative ways of representing sculptural and artistic elements in HBIM models that have deteriorated [124], improving the accuracy of virtual reconstructions, and enhancing the potential of HBIM use.

In addition, the results in Section 3.2.2 suggest that enhancing stakeholder engagement and dispute resolution necessitates improved ICT software interoperability as well as information sharing and exchange capabilities, contributing to address SDG 17. Although, the IFC is a common standard in the AEC industry, stakeholders in the heritage conservation field are not familiar with it [33]. This may be due to a lack of awareness of the usability of BIM or a need for additional training time to master the new technology [17]. As such, non-expert groups of stakeholders require education and training in order to become active participants in the HBIM model and platform [124]. To ensure the information can be shared by unskilled users in the future, it is important to increase the ease of use for stakeholders through user-friendly measures such as interface visualisation and streamlined operation [14]. This will not only facilitate public participation in heritage planning and tourism development decisions, but will also serve as a foundation for developing virtual tour platforms via online access, cloud platforms, and ICT [133,153], opening up new channels for education, dissemination, and cultural transmission of heritage. Moreover, the results of Figure 4 indicate that how to make cultural heritage accessible to all is a key part of BIM for the long-term growth of cultural heritage tourism. For example, the potential to extend the user’s contact with historic structures through mobile phones or gadgets such as mixed reality and AR, such as offering real-time interaction and feedback [7]. The integration of BIM models and game engines improves the operation and presentation of the historic building environment, uses game technology for easy and intuitive interaction, reduces management difficulty for professionals with the help of a friendly interface, enables the transfer of models and information across different platforms, and provides a channel for the diverse application of cultural heritage [21]. Thus, understanding the restrictions and obstacles can help to improve BIM implementation in the sustainable development of architectural heritage and contribute to meeting SDGs.

5. Conclusions

This paper addresses the current position, difficulties, and future prospects in BIM-driven cultural heritage conservation for sustainable cultural heritage tourism from both quantitative and qualitative perspectives, by using a mixed research method. The paper conducts an investigation of the five research objectives, including an examination of the present status of the research on the subject, pertinent correlation, and prospective contributions to the SDGs, which contributes as follows. (1) In terms of research method: it is the first attempt to investigate the relationship between BIM, cultural heritage conservation, and sustainable cultural heritage conservation in the context of SDGs using a mix of a macro-quantitative bibliometric method and a follow-up micro-qualitative content analysis method to the attainment of SDG 11 (sustainable cities and communities) focused on three specific goals, i.e., enhance inclusive and sustainable urbanisation (SDG 11.3), strengthen efforts to protect and safeguard the world’s cultural and natural heritage (SDG 11.4), and reduce the adverse per capital environmental impact of cities (SDG 11.6), and SDG 17 (partnerships) regarding four issues, i.e., stakeholder relationships, public participation, heritage conservation experts, and management. (2) In terms of research techniques: Network visualisation and overlay visualisation of keyword co-occurrence, and keyword burst detection, have been conducted using bibliometric analysis software packages such as VOSviewer and CiteSpace, from which three categories of research themes have been identified, cultural heritage conservation, heritage and tourism management, and support of emerging technology, and the relationships between BIM and sustainable cultural heritage tourism from the last 26 years (1997 to 2022) have been revealed with visualisations of future research trends in BIM, cultural heritage conservation, and sustainable cultural heritage tourism. (3) In terms of research results: This paper is the first systematic survey of the development of this multidisciplinary field, namely, BIM-driven cultural heritage conservation for sustainable cultural heritage tourism, incorporating studies from the last 26 years (1997 to 2022), which provides a panoramic view of research in this multidisciplinary field, showing details of research on the development in relation to SDG 11 (sustainable cities and communities) and 17 (partnerships), including specific goals such as sustainable city building, protecting and safeguarding the world’s cultural and natural heritage, reducing negative environmental impacts of cities, and promoting good partnerships. The findings of this paper are useful to BIM researchers, architectural heritage personnel, historians and conservation specialists, tourist management and tourism planning practitioners, and other stakeholders. In addition, it provides new managerial and technological research insights into the contradictions of heritage tourism conservation and development. For example, BIM technology can be used to promote public participation, disseminate cultural heritage, and facilitate collaborations between experts and management. Further, this paper raises the issue that further research is needed on how digital technologies can be used to completely preserve and disseminate architectural and cultural values in the process of architectural heritage conservation and adaptive reuse, and how to make architectural and cultural heritage equally accessible to everyone. However, regarding limitations of the methodology, this paper uses bibliometrics as a quantitative analysis method that excludes factors such as the quality of the articles, the impact factor, and linguistic differences. For example, some of the keywords that may be of interest in the future were not identified due to their low frequency of occurrence. The same keyword may also evolve different names at various phases of its development, and the use of bibliometrics does not help with capturing this change sensitively, which may result in losing information. As such, this paper adopts a mixed research approach in order to explore and analyse the data sources obtained in a multi-perspective approach to ensure the quantity and quality of the data collection and analysis, as shown in Figure 1. In addition, this paper has limitations in that it adopts the WOSCC database, from which ‘article’ and ‘review’ data types have been selected to help with ensuring the quality of the data, as the database for bibliometric analysis without extending to other databases. Hence, various databases such as Scopus and ScienceDirect, as well as data types such as ‘conference paper’ and ‘degree dissertation’, could be incorporated into the analysis with experimental studies for future research, which will allow for a more in-depth investigation of how BIM may assist in achieving sustainable cultural heritage tourism in the context of SDGs.