Culture and Sustainable Tourism: Does the Pair Pay in Medium-Sized Cities?

Abstract

Undoubtedly, one of the greatest challenges to civilisation today is the need to fulfil commitments to build a just and caring global society. These commitments also apply to the tourism sector. The aim of the article was to determine how to identify opportunities for sustainable tourism development based on cultural heritage in medium-sized cities whose tourism assets can hardly be considered outstanding. This is an even more significant problem, as even in conditions of relatively low tourist traffic cultural tourism may have an unsustainable character if the relevant policy is pursued and the attitude of the inhabitants are inappropriate. The authors proposed to complement the Triple Bottom Line used to assess the sustainability of a destination with the assessment of the local authority’s attitude towards cultural development and characteristics regarding the involvement of the inhabitants. The study has shown that even if the cultural assets of medium-sized cities are not outstanding, they can play a role in tourism development. It is important to remember that their advantage lies in their locality, and that expecting too much of an economic effect of developing tourism can deprive them of this advantage permanently.

1. Introduction

Undoubtedly, one of the greatest challenges to civilisation today is the need to fulfil commitments to build a just and caring global society [1]. It ascribes dignity to every human being and the actions of societies are directed towards strengthening the foundations of sustainable development in its economic, social, and environmental dimensions. Importantly, this development is carried out from the local scale, through the scale of individual regions and countries, to the global scale [2]. The strategies of sustainable development understood in this way have also been transferred to the tourism industry for several decades [3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14]. This may be evidenced, e.g., by the 1992 Rio Declaration on Environment or the first World Conference on Sustainable Tourism organised in 1995. This seems understandable and necessary given the problems resulting from the dynamic development of tourism, including the destruction of the natural and cultural environment due to tourism overload or the loss of cultural identity. In addition to the environmental dimension of sustainable tourism development, its socio-cultural facet has also been recognised over time [15,16,17]. This approach is reflected in European Union (EU) policy and is articulated in the London Declaration of the EC Conference on Sustainable Europe’s Cultural Heritage, Council conclusions of 21 May 2014 on cultural heritage as a strategic resource for a sustainable Europe, or other EU documents [18]. Each of these documents stresses that cultural heritage has a significant impact on many areas of economic and regional development, including sustainable tourism, job creation, education, and environment [18].

Cultural heritage tourism is related to both cultural tourism and heritage tourism. It is therefore clear that there is an overlap in the meaning of the terms ‘cultural tourism’ and ‘heritage tourism’, as [19] pointed out in their research.

However, the ongoing debate has clearly shown that “cultural tourism and heritage tourism are not the same thing, even if they share the same assets (historical, artistic and cultural)” [20] (p. 95). The terms “cultural tourism, heritage tourism, arts tourism, ethnic tourism and a host of other terms seem to be almost interchangeable in their usage, but it is rarely clear whether people are talking about the same thing” [21] (p. 7). The importance of the problem undertaken is confirmed by the lack of a clear definition of either “cultural tourism” or “heritage tourism”.

The difficulties in defining the first term, i.e., “cultural tourism”, stem mainly from the fact that the concept of culture itself has many meanings [22,23,24]. At the same time, as [25] pointed out, it is one of the most complicated English words. It is an extremely complex phenomenon, covering a wide range of topics. In principle, it is always necessary to clarify which type of definition (e.g., historical, descriptive, structuralist, psychological, genetic) we use to describe “culture” [24]. Additionally, the “democratisation of culture and the increasing convergence of culture and everyday life” [21] (p. 7) reinforce the definitional problems. However, the definitions proposed in the literature can be classified in the four categories proposed by [26]: tourism-derived, motivational, experiential, and operational. Therefore, assuming that “cultural tourism as a name means many things to many people and herein lies its strength and its weakness” [27] (p. 17), this study adopts the conceptual definition proposed by the Association for Tourism and Leisure Education and Research (ATLAS) in 1991. Cultural tourism is a “movement of persons to cultural attractions away from their normal place of residence, with the intention to gather new information and experiences to satisfy their cultural needs” [28] (p. 37).

At the same time, “heritage tourism” is used interchangeably with “cultural tourism” [21,29]. The reason for using both terms correspondently may be the authors’ intention [29]. It may also stem from the fact that the literature is dominated by fragmentary case studies lacking theoretical underpinnings, as pointed out by [30,31,32]. Here again, therefore, there are no clear and generally accepted definitions [33]. “Heritage tourism” is also indicated as a component of cultural tourism [34,35,36]. That said, the literature discusses different approaches to the definition of “heritage tourism” [33,37]. Regardless of the dominant approach, the definitions assume that heritage tourism is considered strictly in connection with the past [33,36]. For example, the International Cultural Tourism Charter. Managing Tourism at Places of Heritage Significance [38] explains that cultural heritage includes all intangible and tangible resources that are developed by a community and transmitted to future generations, including practices, customs, and artistic expression. Furthermore, [39] also agreed that intangible cultural heritage is the existing expression of culture, communication, identity, nutrition, ancestry, and customs, while tangible cultural heritage consists of historical buildings, urban and rural lifestyles, galleries, and archives. This article takes a broad approach that considers both of these spheres.

2. Research Objective

In a broad perspective, what distinguishes cities and makes them attractive is related to cultural values in general [24,40]. Of course, in the case of cities, the tourist asset may consist in the location or the natural conditions. Attractiveness may also be determined by tourist and non-tourist development and the organisation of tourist traffic connected with tourist promotion and service [41]. However, cultural values still play a prominent role (Figure 1). This view of the problem was also adopted in this study, with an appreciation and full awareness of the value of comprehensive approaches. They are certainly of great importance, but they do not always allow us to get to the heart of the problem.

The aim of the article is to determine how to identify opportunities for sustainable tourism development based on cultural heritage in medium-sized cities whose tourism assets can hardly be considered outstanding. It is assumed here that a prerequisite for achieving the expected results is the appropriate activity and objectives pursued by local actors responsible for creating, developing, making available, disseminating, promoting, and consuming cultural products. The perspective set by local communities is so important that it should be considered as a predictor of how effectively sustainable cultural tourism is developed. Notably, even in conditions of relatively low tourist traffic, cultural tourism may have an unsustainable character if the relevant policy pursued and the attitude of the inhabitants are inappropriate, e.g., focused on economic effects. The question of opportunities for the proper development of tourism certainly concerns a great many entities, and although the conclusions refer to Polish cities, it can be assumed with a certain degree of probability that they are of a more universal nature.

Thus, the article complements the previous research devoted to cultural tourism in cities with a new look at cultural assets and the potential they generate through the prism of the local community, i.e., local authorities and inhabitants responsible for the creation of these assets and their preservation for future generations. This focus on a narrow fragment of reality is imperative to learn and understand perhaps the most important element that can affect the tourist attractiveness of a city, not only as the most creative element, but also as a potentially dangerous one if actions taken in a wrong direction bring disastrous results.

The category of cultural values was filtered to single out components referring to members of the local community (local authorities, representatives of NGOs, inhabitants). They were ascribed various functional characteristics responsible for influencing the shape of the culture in a given place. This element was taken as the primary area of reference.

Other cultural assets that testify to the attractiveness of a city, i.e., facilities and events, are much more often perceived and assessed in terms of their compatibility with the concept of sustainable tourism. In the studies conducted so far [19,42,43,44], the authors collated indicators to assess the sustainability of the direction of tourism development, including cultural tourism in cities. Their juxtaposition in a single scheme allowed for a quick diagnosis of potential areas with undesirable characteristics from the perspective of this development direction. The proposed approach attempts to synthesise the previously used TBL approach that considers the direction of development for the economic, socio-ethical, and environmental spheres with the local community perspective. The opinions from this type of cities (collected in the course of the research) are a decisive gauge for assessing the direction in which sustainable cultural tourism develops. The key opinions relate to:

• The awareness of the existence and importance of cultural heritage (CH);

• The perception of CH as a potential for tourism development;

• The focus on measurable, tangible results:

  • ○. Economic effect (jobs, income),

  • ○. Image effect (renovations, investment in fixed assets);

• Linking CH with sustainable development (support for local producers);

• Involvement of residents:

  • ○. Interest in culture,

  • ○. Involvement in the creation of culture,

  • ○. Establishment of local cultural action groups,

  • ○. Involvement in NGOs.

The starting point for research is the conviction that locally generated culture affects the development of sustainable tourism. It is necessary to clarify one matter at this point. Indicators traditionally understood as measures of success, e.g., income growth, scale of tourist inflows, etc., cannot be used to evaluate the observed changes. This is because we assess sustainable tourism, which cannot be quantified in this way. Are we therefore able to propose another way of observing the phenomenon that can help in assessing the situation? In the research undertaken so far, a well-known measuring instrument for sustainable tourism is the Triple Bottom Line (TBL), which was first developed by John Elkington and was later used by businesses and governments [45]. In the tourism industry, the search for a suitable method to determine sustainability at all stages of tourism has made TBL one of the most widely used tools [44]. All components and indicators collected can be used to assess the potential of sustainable cultural heritage tourism (SCHT) destinations. However, some of these indicators are specific and may not be appropriate for use in other types of tourism and contexts, especially when the considerations concern not so much the level of sustainability of cultural tourism itself but rather its potential, analysed in terms of factors determining the direction of development consistent or not with SCHT.

Observing contemporary trends in tourism, it seems necessary to pay attention to places whose tourist attractiveness is not explicitly perceived as high. Paradoxically, in contemporary (post-COVID-19) tourism, they can play a role, perhaps even a significant one. A look from this slightly different perspective shows that the TBL approach is still valid—it was expanded by [42] to measure sustainable tourism in three dimensions (i.e., environmental, economic, and ethical) and further applied in the study by [43] to measure and develop SCHT along four dimensions (i.e., economic activity, social support, management of heritage sites, and the surrounding environment of heritage sites). However, it is definitely necessary, in line with the context mentioned by [19], to redefine individual indicators when research tackles units such as in the present analysis. In the case of a medium-sized city with limited tourist attractiveness, the important elements are those which condition the development of culture in a given place and, by influencing its position, may also determine the development of tourism. Here, the TBL for assessing the destination to determine the degree of sustainability should be supplemented by an assessment of:

• the attitude of local authorities to the development of culture—how its role is perceived and what actions follow it—realised and planned (included in development strategies, declared during interviews, cooperation with the environment, e.g., NGOs, and actions taken);

• characteristics concerning the involvement of residents (including, among others, in the creation of culture, although also the attitude to culture itself and the level of civic activity).

By juxtaposing the observations gathered from these several perspectives, the question of the grounds for the development of sustainable cultural tourism in a given place can be answered. By verifying the tool through interviews and questionnaires (more on this in the section on research methodology), the study additionally generalised the findings from the field research. This allowed the authors to identify some trends, both positive and negative, related to inappropriate or potentially harmful perceptions, understanding, and implementation of the role of cultural tourism.

A proper approach to the problem of the role, activities, and attitudes of the local community, which, through its behaviour and needs, develops culture in its place of residence, requires clarification of several issues described below but is primarily related to the scale of the settlement unit. Therefore, despite the assumption of universality of the research results, they were considered representative for small towns and medium-sized cities, as empirical research confirming the validity of the adopted approach was conducted in settlement units of those sizes.

3. Theoretical Background

3.1. Research Area—Medium-Sized City—City Scale in the Face of Challenges Arising from Globalisation (First Pillar)

The spatial context associated with the choice of medium-sized cities is the determining factor. The size of the settlement unit translates directly to the problems encountered but also raises certain solutions. Although it is generally the larger cities that have a greater stock of cultural assets [46,47,48,49,50], thus deriving more profit from tourism, smaller cities are perhaps more promising destinations in terms of tourism development trends [51,52]. This is due, e.g., to the sheer impact of the globalisation process on modern tourism [53]. Despite the fact that it affects many different spheres, in tourism it causes a particular problem through the trend towards cultural unification driven by McDonaldisation and artificially generated demand in line with marketing trends. Large cities, which derive huge revenues from tourism and often treat it as a fundamental industry determining the success or failure of their development, seem particularly exposed to this issue. Smaller cities are often paradoxically more likely to have their own small (scale-appropriate) success. It concerns places with individual character, characterised by competitive advantage due to their uniqueness, which is well illustrated by the following quotation: “Globalisation and mass culture have—paradoxically—triggered a demand for different local and individual identities on an unprecedented scale” [54] (p. 156).

Of course, not all medium-sized cities are able to achieve this success. Some cities are likely to succeed, but some are doomed to failure. What seems to determine this difference is their social fabric and the maturity of the inhabitants, consisting in the involvement of the local community and the effort put into creating and supporting local culture. It is worth mentioning at this point a question that, on the surface, concerns the future of the Cittaslow idea and network [55], but is much broader and refers in a universal way to the perspectives of smaller towns in which local culture is an important factor of development. It seems that in the future there are two developmental paths for them: the first is the success of places with an individual character, characterised by a competitive advantage due to their uniqueness, while the second is the emergence of cities very similar to others which have been absorbed by the global trend, universal solutions, and unreflectively adopted patterns. Both these trends will exist in parallel, but those smaller cities that not only consume culture, but above all create it using local resources and the potential of the inhabitants involved, will follow the path of sustainable development.

It is worth recalling Rifkin’s observations: “Our globally unsustainable way of life means living in a culture of unsustainability, which is not just about the ecological dimension. We are now turning cultural resources into paid experiences and entertainment. Culture, like nature, can be exploited until the resources are exhausted. When we exploit all the wealth of world culture for quick profits in the commercial sphere and do not allow culture to regenerate and renew itself, then the economy will lose the resources of human experience from which the production of cultural goods draws” [56] (p. 14).

3.2. Urban and Cultural Tourism (Second Pillar)

The second issue, which also requires closer examination, is related to the understanding of the term ‘urban tourism’. It is referred to in the literature in many different aspects. First of all, according to [57], it should be considered as a complex phenomenon—not only as a set of different forms of activity realised in a specific space, but also as an element shaping the function of a city. The title deliberately mentions this term, which is not only understood as the sum of forms of tourism resulting from tourist assets and development in urban areas, but predominantly as learning about and exploring a place created by people, which is full of meanings and symbols and requires the understanding of various contexts and a certain sensitivity [41]. Such understanding of urban tourism brings us much closer to looking at it through the lens of cultural tourism. This is also confirmed by the results of the research conducted by [58] in New York, which showed that as many as 56% of the visitors to the city were attracted by the desire to learn about its specificity, a specific genius loci built on cultural diversity and a rich cultural offer.

Social changes translating into transformations in the model of contemporary consumption [59,60] have resulted, among other things, in the interesting phenomenon of a blurring of the boundaries between the behaviour of inhabitants and visitors to the city [41]. This indicates that cultural assets can be elements that both groups reach for. Locally created culture (with the inhabitants and their needs in mind) has the value of authenticity which the modern tourist is looking for.

3.3. Sustainable Urban Tourism and Cultural Tourism (Sustainable Tourism—Third Pillar)

The third element, which is very much intertwined with urban and cultural tourism, sets the conceptual framework for the analysis (see Figure 2).

Given that tourism encompasses economic, ecological, and socio-cultural aspects, sustainable development shifts attention to making tourism economically viable (including for the host community), ecologically neutral, and socially just in the long term [15]. These aspects of sustainability have an impact on the tourist economy, tourism participants (tourists and host communities), and tourist destinations. Therefore, they should be treated as one coherent whole, as only their sensible combination can result in the creation and development of sustainable tourism. Ethics that results from the principles of sustainable development means the recognition that every human being has the same rights in the use of space, both natural and cultural [56].

Symptomatically, the state of research in sustainable urban tourism still refers, as [61] pointed out, to the effects of anthropopressure resulting from tourism intensity. Significant tourist pressure, especially in large cities, has a significant impact on services directly related to tourism (accommodation, cultural, retail), which displace and compete with services geared to serving residents [62,63]. It also affects public services (e.g., waste recovery) and the exploitation of infrastructure (water, energy, telecommunications, public transport, public spaces). The latter are strongly linked to the production of waste (plastic, food, energy, water, etc.) by tourists and the tourism and tourism-related industries, as well as increased demand for water and electricity [64,65]. The high tourist pressure in cities also affects property prices, which soar due to their location in tourist-attractive areas [66,67,68]. Finally, the anthropopressure associated with tourism is not without its impact on air quality, due to gas emissions mainly from modes of transport (coaches, private cars, vans, aviation, cruise ships) [69].

This confirms the observation by [56] that sustainable tourism is mainly perceived as an ecological dimension. However, it is important to treat sustainable tourism also in socio-cultural terms on an equal footing with ecological and economic approaches. The need for a comprehensive view of the problem, including the contribution of culture to sustainable tourism development was raised by [36,70,71,72,73]. As they pointed out, the development of sustainable tourism must also be based on sustainable heritage.

Elsewhere, ref. [74] believed that heritage tourism was the most important and fastest growing tourism niche. Moreover, as noted by [29], “heritage has become a key tool to bring tourism to declining urban and rural areas and to revive neglected industrial regions” (p. 11).

A similar opinion was represented by [75], who acknowledged the occasional problem of overlooking cultural heritage in the sustainable development of cities. If it occurs, it should be considered an important factor in this development. His work also referred to the New Urban Agenda in which culture and cultural heritage occupy an important place in sustainable urban development from the perspective of implementing sustainable consumption and production, as well as urban regeneration. It also emphasises the role of cultural heritage in developing dynamic, sustainable, and inclusive urban economies and in sustaining and supporting them in their gradual transition to higher productivity (paragraphs 45 and 60). The importance of the issue was underlined by many authors who pointed to the rate of growth of this segment of world tourism [76,77,78,79,80,81,82,83,84,85]. In view of the dynamic development of urban tourism, it seems justified to refer to the concept of sustainable development. At the same time, intensified research in this area may contribute to increasing the effectiveness of urban tourism (and cultural tourism) management as well as enhancing the quality of experience of tourists visiting cities [86].

With this in mind, this research focused on establishing the following:

• Does culture in the city contribute to the creation of new jobs in other sectors (e.g., tourism, trade)?

• Has there been any major renovation or revitalisation work done to venues hosting cultural events in the last decade or so?

• Were activities related to investments in the field of culture combined with active acquisition of external funds for this purpose? What was the scale of beneficiary involvement?

• What was the level of involvement of local communities in participating in activities related to the cultural sector (consumption and creation of culture)?

4. Research Methodology

The study covered medium-sized cities defined as settlement units with a population between 20,000 and 100,000. The size category adopted may be debatable [87], especially in the perspective of temporal and spatial reference points. For example, over 100 years ago in Poland, the adjective ‘small’ was attributed to a town with a population of less than 10,000, whereas today it is less than 20,000. In the spatial context, the use of the term ‘small’ is conditioned by the nature of the existing settlement network of a given country. In relation to Poland, the group of cities with 20,000 to 100,000 inhabitants are referred to as medium-sized, but as mentioned above, the limit value separating large cities from medium-sized cities is debatable [24,88,89].

Research on the broadly-understood cultural sector in relation to sustainable tourism, among other things, began in 2015, which was related to the implementation of the project “Development of small cities in Poland based on the cultural sector” funded by the National Science Centre. The survey covered all medium-sized cities in Poland, i.e., 181 units. Due to the limited availability of some of the data on which this study was based, this figure was accordingly lower.

The first stage of the study focused on establishing the directions for the development of cultural policies in individual cities. The main source of data comprised strategic documents. They were analysed on the assumption that development strategies, as documents outlining directions for action and setting out priority and rational development areas for the future, can be an indicator of both the pursued and planned cultural policy. It should be added here that strategic documents, as opposed to planning documents, are not obligatory at the municipality level in Poland, but each of the examined cities had such a document. Strategic documents were collected and analysed in the context of cultural policy and tourism for all 181 Polish medium-sized cities. The systematic analysis of strategic documents for such a set of cities was the first of its kind in Poland.

In the next stage of the study, a CATI (Computer-Assisted Telephone Interviewing) survey was conducted. This survey covered 177 out of 181 medium-sized cities as four cities (Legionowo, Skierniewice, Świętochłowice, Zamość) did not agree to participate. The interviews were conducted in person and each lasted on average between 30 and 40 min. Responses were coded in an MS Excel form prepared by the authors. The persons interviewed were the directors of the respective departments responsible for culture in the municipal offices. In cases where such an interview was not possible, the interview was conducted with the following officials:

• vice-president (or deputy mayor) in charge of cultural affairs in the municipal office;

• an employee of the cultural affairs department of the municipal office;

• the city secretary.

During each of the interviews, information was obtained on how cultural heritage, the revitalisation or modernisation of cultural facilities are financed and sponsored, and on the significance of cultural events organised in the city and their scope (international, national, regional). The data collected in this way allowed the authors to determine the importance of cultural heritage in each city and the plans for its use for purposes such as tourism. It is also worth mentioning that, as in the case of strategic documents, this was the largest study on the importance of cultural heritage and tourism in Poland in the set of medium-sized cities.

In-depth interviews, designed to complement the CATI survey, were another source of information. Due to the fact that it is a tool for obtaining data of a qualitative nature, it is extremely important here to carry out the procedure of selecting the studied units. Due to the range of data to be collected, the number of such units is usually limited. It was initially assumed that the qualitative research would cover institutions, organisations, and companies related to culture. However, in order to select them for the study, the first focus was to classify the medium-sized cities themselves so that the institutions, organisations, and companies would reflect the broader cultural context in which the cities operate. The classification referred to the CATI survey. Responses to basic two questions (asked also as research questions numbered 1 and 2, see chapter 3) were expressed on a five-point Likert scale, with ‘no opinion’ in both cases being the basis for excluding a particular city from further analysis. This reduced the number of cities studied to 97. Thus, 53% of all medium-sized cities in Poland were included in this procedure. Such a value was considered sufficient in the context of the multi-stage analysis. The medium-sized cities selected for further analysis depending on their answers to the two questions posed were assigned to one of three categories according to their capability for culture-based development: medium, high, and outstanding.

Given the importance of culture for socio-economic development in its broadest sense, the classification of cities according to their capability for culture-based development was confronted with the actual assessment of this development in the cities under consideration. This level was estimated based on the development benchmark method proposed by [90]. It is one of the methods of numerical taxonomy in which the linear ordering of multidimensional objects relates to a binary relation. It allows the researcher to assess which of the objects in the set is better or worse and to what extent the objects under consideration are similar.

Data for this procedure were obtained from the Local Data Bank of Statistics Poland. The following variables relating to the population, social, and economic situation were taken into account: X1—income per capita in PLN; X2—availability of supermarkets; X3—share of working-age people in the total population; X4—birth rate (‰); X5—net internal migration (‰); X6—number of national economy entities entered in the REGON register per 1000 working-age people; X7—number of people working per 1000 residents; X8—share of people of pre-working age in the total population; and X9—number of national economy entities employing less than 9 persons per 10,000 working-age residents. Considering the correlations between the variables, X8 and X9 were eliminated as highly correlated with the other variables and were replicating information. All variables were treated as stimulants due to the nature of the phenomenon analysed.

The variables left in the matrix were transformed according to the statistical procedure of Hellwig’s development benchmark method. Therefore, zero unitisation was first carried out as a normalisation transformation according to the formula:

$z_{ij}=\frac{x_{ij}-\min x_{ij}}{O_j}$

where:

$z_{ij}$—the value of the j-th characteristic for the i-th unit after normalisation;

$x_{ij}$—the value of the j-th characteristic for the i-th unit;

$\min x_{ij}$—minimum value of the j-th characteristic;

$O_j$—the range of the j-th characteristic calculated as the difference between the maximum and minimum values of the characteristic.

Proceeding in this way, the original values of the variables were transformed so that their new values were in the range $0\le z_{ij}\le 1$.

A hypothetical development benchmark was then constructed against which the distances of the actual points were determined. It should be added here that the development benchmark is established on the basis of the values of the normalised variables in such a way that it takes maximum and minimum values for stimulants and destimulants, respectively. The hypothetical development benchmark was determined by the formula:

$z_0=\left[z_{01}, z_{02}, z_{03}\cdots z_{0j}\right] j=1, 2, 3\dots ,n$

where:

$z_{0j}=\max z_{ij}$, if the characteristic is a stimulant;

$z_{0j}=\min z_{ij}$, if the characteristic is a destimulant.

Next, the taxonomic distances of individual elements, i.e., the analysed cities, from the benchmark object were calculated using the following Euclidean metric:

$d_{i0}=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \sum }_{j=1}^m\left(z_{ij}-z_{0j}\right){}^2} i=1,2, \dots , n$

and a synthetic measure:

$s_i=1-\frac{d_{i0}}{d_0} i=1,2, \dots , n$

where:

$d_0={\overline{d}}_0+2S_0$

where:

$s_i$—the synthetic measure of the distance of the i-th administrative unit from the theoretically determined benchmark;

$d_{i0}$—the taxonomic distance of the i-th administrative unit from the development benchmark;

${\overline{d}}_0$—arithmetic mean of the sequence $d_{i0}$;

$S_0$—standard deviation of the sequence $d_{i0}$;

m—the size of the set of characteristics;

n—the size of the set of assessed administrative units.

Based on the value of the synthetic indicator $s_i$, the medium-sized cities considered were ordered linearly starting from those with the best score to those with the lowest score. Ultimately, the cities were divided taking into account the arithmetic mean ($\overline{s_i}$) and the standard deviation ($S_{si})$. Proceeding in this way, three classes were separated:

• class c (higher level) $s_i>\overline{s_i}+S_{si}$ (cities whose distance from the benchmark exceeds $\overline{s_i}+S_{si}$;

• class b (medium level) $\overline{s_i}-S_{si}<s_i\le \overline{s_i}+S_{si}$ (cities for which the distance from the benchmark is in the range $\overline{s_i}-S_{si},\overline{s_i}+S_{si}$);

• class a (lower level) $s_i\le \overline{s_i}-S_{si}$ (cities whose distance from the benchmark does not exceed $\overline{s_i}-S_{si}$).

The cities were then divided along two classification procedures, i.e., the assessment of the capability for culture-based development and the level of socio-economic development (Table 1). Nine types were identified, with one type—Ic—not represented by any of the cities analysed (Table 2).

The procedure of classifying and then topologizing the cities was necessary in order to identify one city from each type for the in-depth interviews. The following cities were drawn for in-depth research with representatives of municipal authorities, cultural institutions, NGOs, and companies: Starachowice (Ia), Mielec (Ib), Chełmno (IIa), Pruszków (IIb), Leszno (IIc), Bełchatów (IIIa), Oleśnica (IIIb), Suwałki (IIIc). The main study was preceded by a pilot study conducted in the city of Rumia (IIIb). A total of 40 in-depth interviews were conducted, recorded, and then transcribed for further analysis.

Another valuable source of information was the www.mapadotacji.gov.pl (accessed on 15 January 2019) website, which lists projects co-financed by European Funds. The data included there come from the Central IT System (SL 2014) and the Project Settlement System (data for 2004–2006). Using this portal, data was obtained on cultural heritage investments made with the support of the European Social Fund (ESF) for all analysed Polish medium-sized cities. When considering the projects placed on the portal, the main focus was on the expenditures qualified by the beneficiaries as ‘culture and arts’ and partly ‘revitalisation’ if the measures included investments in cultural institutions.

Data for the assessment of the attitudes and views of residents (representatives of the local community) were collected during surveys designed and carried out in 2018 in Nowe Miasto Lubawskie. The focus was on the way and extent of participation of representatives of Generation Z in activities related to the cultural sector.

The study used an original survey questionnaire consisting of 16 questions answered by high school students. The survey was part of a pilot study within a National Science Centre project “Development of small cities in Poland based on the cultural sector” (grant no. 2015/19/D/HS4/02572). The research sample was 248 people and included 16- to 19-year-olds (the questionnaire was addressed to all students). Assuming a confidence level of 95% and a maximum error of 5%, as well as the number of inhabitants of Nowe Miasto Lubawskie, the minimum sample size was met.

5. Results

The originality of the adopted research approach stems from the fact of searching for universal solutions in the results of the research conducted on a large sample of objects (medium-sized cities), and not, as usually done, in relation to a selected case study [19,43]. This is due to the assumption that the development of cultural tourism should not only refer to places with attractive anthropogenic values. The potential for the development of cultural tourism is not only shown by well-known places that attract many tourists but also by all places with creations of human civilisation, which can become the subject of exploration by tourists even if they are niche in nature. The low volume of tourist traffic does not exempt those locations from the obligation to design tourism development in a direction consistent with the principles of sustainable and responsible tourism and to analyse the potential for developing cultural tourism in the most desirable form.

The starting point for the conducted research was the assumption that in the case of medium-sized cities with average potential for cultural tourism development, the important factor is the position of culture in a given place. If it is perceived as an important element stimulating development, it has a chance to be properly exhibited, promoted, supported, and thus can play a role in attracting tourists. This ‘local climate’ is taken as a basic indicator to determine to what extent the potential of a place can be used for the development of cultural tourism. The essence of the research problem is to properly diagnose this ‘local climate’, which it is worth overlaying on TBL to indicate whether we have the foundations for sustainable tourism development.

Inference about the role attributed to cultural heritage for the development of sustainable tourism was grounded firstly in the analysis of the views, actions, decisions, and opinions expressed by decision makers. This information came from the analysis of strategic documents (visions expressed in the formulated directions of development) and opinions of local authorities that were gathered during interviews, and it concerned the structure of investments, including those co-financed from EU projects. It should be mentioned here that the direct responsibility of local self-governments for the development of culture in Poland began only after 1989. At the same time, the basic elements and shape of the cultural infrastructure network had mostly been created by 1989. The social and economic transformation in Poland, which began in the late 1980s, led to the introduction of market economy mechanisms and the decentralisation of power, as well as of the economy itself. On a local scale, this meant that a new model of development management emerged after decades of no local government structures. It was characterised by decentralisation in the administration of cultural institutions, an increase in their autonomy, the development of acts of law on patronage in the area of culture, and the inclusion of private entities in the performance of tasks in the area of culture and art [91]. This is a very significant change resulting in the inclusion of the local community in the activities in this area, which was accepted as a key element to ensure the possibility of developing sustainable tourism on the basis of culture.

Thus, referring to the analysis of strategic documents, it should be noted that cultural heritage in medium-sized cities in Poland is perceived mainly in terms of its utilitarian significance for tourism development. As the vast majority of strategies show, the promotion of cultural heritage in individual cities is linked to the expectation of an influx of tourists and therefore to profit generation. Such a perspective is highlighted, among others, in the Development Strategy of the Municipality of Andrychów: “The strategy envisages, first of all, further development of recreational and tourist infrastructure and the implementation of original cultural projects which, on the one hand, should translate into increased interest in the Municipality among potential visitors (residents of the Kraków and Upper Silesian agglomerations, foreign tourists, qualified tourists—interested in original natural, cultural, and recreational values, etc.), and, on the other hand, contribute to an increase in the wealth of residents and, consequently, create internal market demand” [92] (p. 73).

Similarly, the development strategy for Skarżysko-Kamienna points to the potential of culture to attract tourists or investors: Cultural promotion of the city shapes its positive external image, attracts not only tourists and participants of cultural events, but also investors [93] (p. 76).

The need to support and promote culture is also recognised by the authors of the development strategy for Racibórz. Based on their experience with the functioning of the cultural sector, they point out that: “Sentimental tourism has a special place in the development of Racibórz. Thanks to its rich cultural and historical traditions, the interest of tourists from the Czech Republic and Germany has been growing significantly year by year. However, this is the generation of older people, who are connected with the town, so it must be assumed that without appropriate promotion there will be a decline in interest in this type of tourism in the future” [94] (p. 13).

Similar expectations and assigned objectives also appear in other development strategies developed for, e.g., Brodnica, Ciechanów, Kluczbork, Tarnobrzeg, Wągrowiec, and Żyrardów. Elsewhere, the development strategy of Chełmno emphasises that “An important development potential for the city is entrepreneurship related to tourism and exploitation of cultural heritage and the so-called creative industries” [95] (p. 30).

Direct references linking culture, tourism, and sustainable development can be found, for example, in the development strategy of Bielawa, where strategic objective no. 4 reads: “Culture as a new potential for the sustainable development of Bielawa”. The study argues that “Territorial units striving for sustainable development place emphasis not only on specialisation to ensure competitiveness, but also on the even development of all spheres of activity. This approach guarantees a high degree of flexibility and rapid response in a constantly changing economic and social environment. One of the areas of interest of the city authorities is broadly understood cultural activity …” [96] (p. 107).

There were also strategies that included proposals for specific investments based on culture and creating tourist interest that could be used to promote the city. An example of this is the construction of the Trade Factory in Pruszcz Gdański that relates to the amber route and trade with the provinces of the Roman Empire. This investment was completed in 2011. Undoubtedly, it is a unique tourist and archaeological undertaking which is now a tourist destination.

An analysis of the frequency of individual references of cultural heritage to tourism development showed that as many as 112 out of 181 analysed city strategies directly linked these two topics. The need for the development and preservation of cultural heritage was emphasised, with the ultimate aim of boosting tourism.

Unfortunately, in most strategies the emphasis is on developing tourism based on cultural potential because of the projected profits. Investment in culture is not always seen as important to residents and safeguarding their needs. The assumption is that residents will only benefit from the profits generated by cultural tourism. The value of culture as an integrating factor is not perceived, the inhabitants are hardly involved in the creation of culture. Sustainable development is understood as a form of diversifying activities that provides security, mainly economic (labour market flexibility).

Similar results were obtained during the CATI interviews. In this case, municipal representatives were asked how the role of cultural heritage was perceived in their cities, including in relation to tourism. The research revealed that as many as 54.6% of representatives considered cultural heritage in their cities to be important for tourism development, with one in five cities stating ‘strongly agree’ and one in three stating ‘rather agree’. Moreover, based on the answers given, it was found that most frequently (as much as 40%), new jobs in cities related directly or indirectly to cultural heritage were created in the broadly defined tourism sector (Figure 3). A strong relationship between CH and the development of tourism was indicated above all by the representatives of those cities which for a long time have been important tourist destinations on the map of Poland. These included Augustów (an important tourist and leisure centre of northeastern Poland, a health resort), Inowrocław (a health resort), Wejherowo (the cultural centre of Kashubia; in 2013, the seat of the Kashubian Philharmonic was built there—a unique investment), Zakopane, and Żywiec (mountain tourism centres).

Almost 40% of the responses indicated that cultural heritage is influencing tourism development and is expected to continue to do so in the future. In terms of tourism, it was also pointed out that each event organised in the urban space increased the demand for catering services. These would ‘incidentally’ appear near the location of such event. Some cities indicated specific experiences in generating new jobs based on direct investment in the cultural sector in conjunction with tourism development. One such example is the city of Grajewo, which by “launching the Milk Museum as part of a cultural institution made it possible to establish a restaurant serving tourists in this museum” (interview with a representative of the Grajewo Municipal Office). Specific experience of the impact of the cultural sector on the development of new jobs is provided by the city of Jarocin where the creation of “a school youth hostel by the Regional Museum in Jarocin in the historic Radoliński Palace gave employment to two people” (interview with a representative of the city of Jarocin). In terms of supporting local artists, city representatives also pointed out the importance of cultural heritage for the organisation of, e.g., fairs during which local handicrafts are promoted or craftsmen can offer the fruits of their labour.

The question regarding the material sphere related to culture was also significant. Respondents indicated whether major renovation or revitalisation work had been carried out on venues hosting cultural events in the past several years. It should be stressed at this point that in the case of medium-sized cities, as well as other cities in Poland, there is a noticeable neglect of the renovation of buildings, housing cultural institutions, and cultural heritage objects themselves, which results from the priority of other needs in post-industrial and post-socialist cities. These cultural infrastructure facilities, as well as monuments, are experiencing almost 20 years of backwardness in conservation care. Despite the signalled problems, the study found that major renovation and revitalisation works related to cultural heritage were carried out in more than 85% of the cities analysed. These renovations focused mainly on the renovation of community and cultural centres (>30%) and other cultural heritage sites (Figure 4).

In second place (19.1% of indications) was the investments in buildings and structures such as theatres, cinemas, auditoria, amphitheatres, etc. Interestingly, the third indication (15.5%) concerned the refurbishment of libraries. Libraries (similar to museums) can create new spaces and organise new activities through which social interaction is possible, and thus they can act as so-called ‘third places’ [97]. This type of investment, as indicated by research, also increases the number of tourists [98], e.g., coming from the region for various cultural events organised by libraries located in interesting, historic places. One example in the group of analysed cities is the investment connected with the library in Rumia which, according to previous research, is visited by people from other Polish cities who participate in organised events, e.g., meetings with writers [98]. The same applies to the “Preteksty Literary Festival” organised by the Gniezno City Public Library or the “Beautiful Book Festival” held in Piaseczno and co-organised by the Piaseczno Public Library.

With regard to the long-standing neglect of cultural heritage objects and sites in Polish cities in general, there was considerable interest on the part of local authorities in seeking additional resources for CH-related infrastructural investments. Assuming that the budgets of medium-sized cities may have been insufficient for these purposes, the research asked city representatives whether they obtained funding for the development of cultural activities from external sources, including from the EU. As it was shown, in 86% of all cities, external funds were applied for and used in the implementation of tasks in the cultural sector. These funds came from the Marshall Offices of the individual voivodeships, from the Ministry of Culture and National Heritage, from operational programmes under the European Regional Development Fund, the State Film Institute, Norwegian Funds, the Visegrad Fund, and others. Of these external sources, EU funds are a great support for the cultural sector. To emphasise the scale of this support, it should be underlined that between the years 2004 and 2018, Polish medium-sized cities invested PLN 2,614,775,262.53 in the broadly defined culture and national heritage sector, 49.9% of which was obtained from EU funds. Moreover, since the first programming period in which Poland participated, 2004–2006, a dynamic increase in the number of projects in the cultural sector, their total amount, and the share of EU support has been observed (Figure 5).

While in the 2004–2006 period medium-sized cities invested just over PLN 563 million in the development of the broadly defined cultural sector, including 27% from the EU, in the period from 2007–2013, the cultural sector already invested almost PLN 1.221 million, half of which came from the EU, and as of 30 September 2018, the website recorded projects totalling PLN 831 million (with EU co-financing at 61.8%) from the 2014–2020 perspective. The level of co-financing of individual projects varied from 10.7% in the case of Sopot (“Construction of a multifunctional sports and entertainment hall on the border of Gdańsk and Sopot—phase I” in the 2004–2006 period) to 85.8% (“Our Heritage—Ełk Narrow Gauge Railway” implemented in Ełk in the 2007–2013 period) (Table 3).

Within the framework of projects co-financed by the European Funds, the investments related to activities in the CH area were primarily directed at:

• the construction of new or the renovation of existing concert halls, open-air stages, etc.;

• tasks aimed at strengthening the cultural potential of the city for the development of tourism;

• the organisation of cultural events;

• works related to saving cultural heritage; all kinds of works related to the revitalisation of historic districts or individual buildings are also included here, if at least part of the works included improving the provision of cultural services;

• the revitalisation or construction of new facilities in which community centres or cultural centres are already located or will be located;

• the revitalisation, construction, or adaptation of buildings for library purposes;

• the revitalisation of theatre buildings;

• the revitalisation or adaptation of buildings for museums or art galleries;

• the revitalisation or modernisation of cinemas;

• any work within green areas—such as parks—associated with the construction or renovation of amphitheatres;

• using the Internet to promote or publicise the cultural resources of cities.

The analysis of the types of projects co-financed from European Funds in the culture and cultural heritage sector in medium-sized cities shows that the largest number of projects in each period was dedicated to preserving cultural heritage (Figure 6). An example of the impact this type of investment exerts on the development of the cultural sector, and thus on tourism development, is the project implemented in Łowicz, whose direct objective was to develop the cultural base grounded in cultural heritage. The assumed tasks were primarily connected with the organisation of cultural events and the creation of new products, services, and cultural spaces. Next in line were investments combining the protection of heritage with the development of culture and tourism. A fitting example is the conservation and restoration work on the Malbork city wall complex, the aim of which is to give new functions in connection with the creation of the Outdoor Museum of Fortifications.

Third place in each funding period was taken by investments related to strengthening cultural potential for tourism development. This included tasks relating to construction and installation works and the supply of equipment in historic buildings and areas of the city. Lębork is one of many examples where such works were carried out on numerous buildings and streets (including the Water Tower, the Blessed Virgin Mary Church, the Sanctuary of St. James, Waryńskiego, Młynarska, Długosza and Armii Krajowej Streets, a fragment of the town walls, the square in Przymurna Street). As a result of the works, the city’s tourist attractiveness was increased by, among other things, making buildings accessible to tourists, creating museum rooms, and preparing exhibitions in churches. The vast majority of funds were invested in work focused on the construction or revitalisation of buildings housing museums.

As many as 23 cities applied for and received support from the EU to organise important cultural events, such as the Ada Sari International Vocal Arts Festival and Competition in Nowy Sącz, the Festival of Brass Orchestras in Września, or the Youth Festival organised for the tenth time in Stargard. Major investments, thanks to EU support, also included the restoration of parks. During the renovation works, amphitheatres and spaces for artistic activities were built anew or restored, such as in Sopot where a historic villa and park complex at 1–3 Jakub Goyka Street and part of Park Północny (Northern Park) were adapted for the needs of the ArtIncubator and the public library.

In general, the following centres stand out among the analysed cities in terms of the number of most important investments in the cultural sector as indicated by representatives of local governments during the CATI survey:

• Chełm (the renovations concerned: the Chełm Culture Centre, the Zorza Film Culture Centre, the M. P. Orsetti Chełm Public Library);

• Zgierz (investments related to: Children Culture Centre, “Weaver City” Cultural Park, the new building of the branch of the Municipal and District Public Library);

• Przemyśl (“renovation of the Kazimierz Castle (seat of a city cultural institution), revitalisation of a historic post-military facility (seat of the city library), renovation of a voivodeship cultural institution, major renovation of the new seat of the Archdiocesan Museum”);

• Będzin (“revitalisation of Castle Hill, renovation and opening of the Będzin Underground, renovation work on the medieval castle, which is the seat of the Zagłębie Museum, modernisation work on the Jan Dorman Zagłębie Children’s Theatre and the Cultural Centre, thermal modernisation of the Municipal and District Public Library”);

• Wejherowo (“Renovation of Wejherowo Calvary in 2008 and restoring its former splendour from the times of Jakub Wejher, the founder of the Calvary, construction of the Kashubian Philharmonic, restoration of the Museum of Kashubian-Pomeranian Literature and Music with the discovery of old frescoes, restoration of the Town Park adjacent to the Museum, former seat of Wejherowo’s owners, extension of the Music School with a concert hall, restoration of historic churches including the parish church and the Franciscan church founded by Jakub Wejher, founder of Wejherowo and the crypts of the town founder and other Wejherowo’s owners in the basements”).

The selected examples confirm the information obtained during the interviews. Municipal offices and other institutions, including NGOs, apply for and obtain funding for the development of the cultural sector. The thematic diversity of the projects themselves, as well as the scale of their value, makes it only partially possible to assess the impact of this type of co-financing on the possibilities of developing sustainable tourism, but the very fact of applying for funds and undertaking investments should be considered significant. However, it should be noted that the particularly popular activities are those with a material dimension. This, on the one hand, results from the imposed nature of the projects which were the source of funding and, on the other hand, perhaps from the desire of local authorities to implement investments which are relatively easy to plan (compared to soft projects), do not arouse controversy and build a positive image (also of local decision-makers). This is also confirmed by analyses of the impact of investments in cultural and tourism infrastructure co-financed from structural funds on socio-economic development carried out in Poland [99].

In accordance with the adopted assumption, the analysis also covered issues related to the involvement of residents (including, among others, in the creation of culture, although the attitude to culture itself and the level of civic activity are also important) [100]. The survey was therefore designed to answer two questions: (1) about the level of interest in culture and its daily perception and (2) about the involvement in the creation of culture. The study therefore examined whether there was a relationship between the frequency of using the indicated forms of contact with culture and involvement in the creation of cultural events. A cross-analysis of the responses indicates that the relationship studied is weak, revealing itself only in the case of reading (Figure 7) and attending the theatre (Figure 8). Respondents who actively participate in culture undertake these activities slightly more often.

Additionally, the frequency of use of the indicated institutions was linked to the declaration concerning involvement in the creation of cultural events in the city (Figure 9). The relationship is found primarily with the community centre. As many as 75% of the respondents who create culture visit this facility, while only 50% of the others do so. In the former group, the frequency with which the cultural centre is attended is definitely higher—answers at least once a month or more often were indicated by 46%, with only 7% in the latter group of respondents. To a small extent, this relationship also applies to museums and art galleries (Figure 10)—young people who are actively involved in the cultural life of the city visit these institutions slightly more often. It is difficult to unambiguously assess the culture-forming role of the considered institutions on this basis; however, the cultural centre seems to fulfil its statutory task by attracting young people willing to engage in cultural activities.

Among the cultural institutions that are most important to the respondents, two should be mentioned. The first of these is the Municipal Public Library, which is attended by as many as 87% of respondents. It is important to note that respondents rate the way the library works very high, which indicates that it meets needs and is a meeting place. However, no relationship was found for this institution between frequency of use and involvement in the creation of culture in the city. Such a relationship applies in principle only to one establishment, i.e., the Municipal Cultural Centre (referred to as a community centre in the survey). The key point, however, is that the Centre attracts people interested in becoming active in the cultural field. Among the respondents, Generation Z is coping with meeting cultural needs thanks to technological skills that allow them to eliminate the limitations from lack of offering suiting their needs.

The compilation of data collected during the research allowed the authors to assess the possibilities of developing sustainable tourism in medium-sized cities in Poland. The result is a tabular set of assessments verified in the study which are important in determining the potential opportunities for the successful introduction of the principles of sustainable tourism related to CH (Table 4).

The collected data show that local authorities feel a particularly strong sense of responsibility for planning and implementing activities aimed at a visible economic impact, such as new jobs or support for local entrepreneurs. They are keen to undertake investments that produce tangible results and that residents associate with the achievements of the authorities (‘the authorities built/renovated this’). Such activities are a valuable showcase for the city, but also for individual decision makers seeking re-election. The association of tourism development with CH in accordance with the principle of sustainable development must relate to the sphere of economic satisfaction—this is in no way undermined. However, the research results seem to indicate an overemphasis on this area compared to the others when it comes to the attitudes of some decision-makers. Residents are somewhat less concentrated on economic effects, while those who engage in social activities, e.g., within NGOs, are focused on perceiving the effects of activities from the perspective of social and environmental impact.

6. Discussion: Why Does a City Need Sustainable Cultural Tourism?

The question posed in the title of the subsection seems uncontroversial and fairly obvious. In a way, it is, because we can quite easily list the obvious benefits:

• Heritage tourism is considered the most important and fastest growing tourism niche [74,81]. In view of the very dynamic nature of the phenomenon, it is necessary to manage its direction carefully in order to reduce or eliminate potential losses and risks.

• Any form of tourism that we introduce should be sustainable in order to avoid negative effects. If we are dealing with tourism in the city, then cultural tourism must also be included in the sustainable dimension. Despite the different approaches to sustainable tourism, it is most important to have a comprehensive view of the problem, also regarding the contribution of culture to the development of sustainable tourism.

• Urban cultural tourism gained worldwide recognition in the 1990s as a powerful factor in the revitalisation of cities and regions. In times of economic hardship, when some countries, regions, and communities were cutting back on spending, cities and regions such as Barcelona, Osaka, Glasgow, Rotterdam, and Manchester invested in creative economy paradigms in which heritage-based development strategies played a central role [81]. Culture and cultural heritage (both tangible and intangible) are important for tourism and for the attractiveness and competitiveness of cities because heritage has become a key tool to bring tourism to declining urban and rural areas and to revive neglected industrial regions [74].

• The production of culture has become central to many development strategies around the world [101,102,103]: many regions and cities now actively use their tangible and intangible cultural resources as means of a comparative advantage to support development strategies and to create local distinctiveness in the face of globalisation [81].

Doubts arise when we are not sure that the urban cultural tourism under consideration is sustainable. Where do they come from? Above all, the observed dynamics of the phenomenon are cause for caution. Indeed, cultural tourism is the fastest growing segment of global tourism [76,77,78,79,80,81,82,83,84,85]. It also provides many positive effects resulting from its development, including economic ones. It generates ever-increasing profits, while requiring professional management and marketing. The production of culture is becoming central to many development strategies [101]. Cities and regions use their cultural resources instrumentally to gain a competitive advantage based on unique selling points, which on the one hand is supposed to create local distinctiveness in the face of globalisation, but on the other tends towards profit maximisation and can ultimately threaten the integrity of a community.

As ref. [104] rightly point out, “it is often—and sometimes uncritically—taken for granted that cultural tourism (…) offers a positive contribution to sustainable development of cities and regions, in contrast, for example, with beach tourism or sports tourism. Whether or not cultural tourism offers a positive or negative contribution to local sustainable development remains to be seen and cannot be answered affirmatively beforehand” (p. 4).

Certainly, if we aim to make cultural tourism sustainable, it is necessary to ensure that its impact on the city is constantly monitored. The impact on intangible capital, including social and symbolic capital, is particularly important. These actions should be undertaken in order to be able to assess tourism in relation to urban cultural heritage. They will also help ensure that, at local level, and therefore from the point of view of individual cities, this assessment is not limited to the economic dimension, but that it takes into account guidelines for sustainable development [104].

Joining this discussion, the authors would like to stress once again that in many approaches we see a tendency to limit sustainable development to environmental or ecological issues. This is the case even when the essential accents are related to cultural heritage. Therefore, successful cities are above all those that are able to ensure synergy between culture and tourism. However, working out such synergy is not an easy task. This is because it needs to be developed, planned, shaped, and managed properly. This seems to be particularly difficult in relation to intangible heritage, which is often overlooked in tourism and urban marketing studies. However, in a global world where it is so important to respect the principles of sustainability and create an authentic tourism product, each city must take into account its local resources, especially its cultural heritage, in order to build its image.

7. Summary

The results of the research carried out bring us closer to answering the question of how to preserve the synergies mentioned in the discussion. First of all, it is crucial to state that the opportunities for developing sustainable tourism based on cultural heritage depend on local communities. Two issues in particular are important: the activity of local actors and the objectives set and pursued—these issues will bring tourism development to the desired point from the perspective of sustainability.

In addition, it should be remembered that the scale of tourism is an important element that can make it easier or more difficult to maintain the desired direction, but if we analyse a large set of cities whose tourist attractiveness in terms of cultural resources is average, the potential risks are distributed differently. In such a case, a more important problem is the wrong policy, the focus of the local community on quick profit, the image effect, or the passivity of the inhabitants (both as recipients and creators of culture).

Of course, full altruism or full knowledge and awareness cannot be expected from all members of the local community, but from the perspective of the TBL method in which the economic, socio-ethical, and environmental spheres were juxtaposed with the opinions of local authorities, residents and NGOs, we can see that each group places different emphasis on individual areas (Table 4). This means that each actor has slightly different priorities and thus each sphere remains in focus. In order to achieve success in developing sustainable tourism, it is important to ensure that there is a balance of influence from these three groups. Their subjectivity and cooperation seem to provide an answer to the question of opportunities for the development of sustainable tourism based on cultural heritage.

In this context, the analysed medium-sized cities in Poland are in a special situation as they were arguably underinvested in the sphere of broadly understood culture due to the country’s affiliation to the socialist bloc between 1945 and 1989. In contrast to the cities of Western Europe, whose tourist market for decades was subject to the laws of the market, i.e., obtaining the highest profit and remaining under the strong influence of globalisation, post-socialist cities, including in Poland, may now properly create their tourist products by undertaking their delayed investments in culture. They also have the opportunity to steer the target size of tourist streams, tourist capacity, and implement other sustainable tourism principles. Even if their cultural assets are not outstanding, they can play a role in the development of tourism. It is important to remember that their advantage is their locality, and that expecting too much of an economic effect of developing tourism can deprive them of this advantage permanently.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, S.Ś.-M., E.G.-K., J.B. and L.S.D.; methodology, S.Ś.-M., E.G.-K. and J.B.; formal analysis, E.G.-K. and J.B.; data curation, S.Ś.-M. and L.S.D.; writing—original draft preparation, S.Ś.-M., E.G.-K., J.B. and L.S.D.; writing—review and editing, S.Ś.-M., E.G.-K., J.B. and L.S.D.; visualization, S.Ś.-M., J.B. and L.S.D.; funding acquisition, S.Ś.-M. and J.B. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This paper is based on data obtained during the research project No. 2015/19/D/HS4/02572 funded by the National Science Centre (Poland). The publication of the paper was also co-financed by the Nicolaus Copernicus University in Toruń (Poland).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Figures and Tables

Figure 1. Factors contributing to the tourist attractiveness of a city. Source: Own elaboration based on [41] and modified.

Figure 2. Sustainable urban tourism in the context of cultural tourism—conceptual scope. Source: Own elaboration.

Figure 3. Industry structure of potential new jobs identified during the CATI survey in medium-sized cities. Source: Own elaboration based on CATI survey results.

Figure 4. Structure of renovation and revitalisation works according to the dominant activity of a given facility indicated during the CATI survey in medium-sized cities. Source: Own elaboration based on CATI survey results.

Figure 5. Total value of projects co-financed by European Funds in the culture and cultural heritage sector in medium-sized cities. Source: Own elaboration based on www.mapadotacji.gov.pl (accessed on 15 January 2019).

Figure 6. Type structure of projects co—financed by European Funds in the culture and cultural heritage sector in medium—sized cities. Source: Own elaboration based on www.mapadotacji.gov.pl (accessed on 15 January 2019).

Figure 7. Readership and involvement in the creation of culture in the city. Note: Yes—I am involved; No—I am not involved in creating cultural events in the city. Source: Own elaboration.

Figure 8. Theatre attendance and involvement in the creation of culture in the city. Note: Yes—I am involved; No—I am not involved in creating cultural events in the city. Source: Own elaboration.

Figure 9. Frequency of attending the cultural centre and involvement in the creation of culture in the city. Note: Yes—I am involved; No—I am not involved in creating cultural events in the city. Source: Own elaboration.

Figure 10. Frequency of attending the museum/art gallery and involvement in the creation of culture in the city. Note: Yes—I am involved; No—I am not involved in creating cultural events in the city. Source: Own elaboration.

Table 1

A typology of cities based on the assessment of the capability for culture-based development and the level of socio-economic development.

		Level of Socio-Economic Development
Assessment of capability for culture-based development		Class a	Class b	Class c
	Average I	Ia	Ib	Ic
	High II	IIa	IIb	IIc
	Outstanding III	IIIa	IIIb	IIIc

Note: class a—lower level, class b—medium level, class c—higher level; Average I—average rating of culture-based development capability; High II—high rating of culture-based development capability; Outstanding III—outstanding rating of culture-based development capability. Source: Own elaboration.

Table 2

Medium-sized cities according to types.

		Level of Socio-Economic Development
Assessment of capability for culture-based development		a	b	c
	I	Sochaczew, Starachowice	Mielec, Kłodzko, Lubań, Lubin, Luboń, Mysłowice	-
	II	Chełmno, Hajnówka, Kraśnik, Ostrowiec Świętokrzyski, Piastów	Bartoszyce, Bielsk Podlaski, Bochnia, Chojnice, Cieszyn, Głogów, Gniezno, Jastrzębie-Zdrój, Józefów, Jawor, Knurów, Kościan, Kościerzyna, Kutno, Lubliniec, Łowicz, Łuków, Mikołów, Piła, Pruszków, Przemyśl, Tarnobrzeg, Wągrowiec, Zambrów	Kołobrzeg, Leszno, Marki, Słupsk, Nowy Targ, Świnoujście
	III	Bełchatów, Będzin, Czeladź, Nowa Ruda, Skarżysko-Kamienna, Zgierz, Zgorzelec	Augustów, Białogard, Bolesławiec, Chełm, Ciechanów, Działdowo, Ełk, Giżycko, Grajewo, Inowrocław, Jasło, Jaworzno, Kętrzyn, Konin, Koło, Lubartów, Malbork, Mińsk Mazowiecki, Mrągowo, Oleśnica, Oława, Oświęcim, Reda, Rumia, Rydułtowy, Sandomierz, Sieradz, Sopot, Szczecinek, Szczytno, Tarnowskie Góry, Tczew, Turek, Wejherowo, Żary, Żory, Żyrardów, Żywiec	Biała Podlaska, Biłgoraj, Brodnica, Ostrów Mazowiecka, Płońsk, Siedlce, Suwałki, Zakopane, Pruszcz Gdański

Source: Own elaboration based on data from the LDB of Statistics Poland and results of the CATI survey.

Table 3

Level of EU co-financing of projects in medium-sized cities.

	Min			Max
	%	City	Project	%	City	Project
2004–2006	10.7	Sopot	Construction of a multifunctional sports and entertainment hall on the border of Gdańsk and Sopot—phase I	80.0	Bolesławiec	Renovation of the museum building in Bolesławiec with the separation of tourist and recreational functions
				80.0	Przemyśl	The centre is our showpiece
2007–2013	19.2		Conversion of the LOT Cinema building into the Cultural Centre in Świdnik	85.8	Ełk	“Our Heritage—Ełk Narrow Gauge Railway”
2014–2020	19.3		Revitalisation of the royal quarter in Olkusz and creation of a multimedia tourist route in the basement of the town hall	85.0	Nowy Targ	Following the trace of technical monuments from Podhale to Liptów Jarosław
				85.0	Ełk	Organ restoration in the Cathedral Church of St. Adalbert
				85.0	Sandomierz	Conservation of the interiors of the nave body of the pearl of early Gothic sacral architecture—the Cathedral Basilica in Sandomierz

Source: Own elaboration based on www.mapadotacji.gov.pl (accessed on 15 January 2019).

Table 4

The importance of CH in the opinion of the local community in relation to TBL.

TBL	Local Authorities 1	Residents 2	NGOs 3
Economic sphere	Very important	Important	Less important
Socio-ethical sphere	Important/less important	Important	Very important
Environmental sphere	Less important	Less important	Important

Note: Data sources for the analysis: ¹ the strategies, descriptions collected in the CATI survey, analysis of investments, including those co-financed by EU projects; ² surveys; ³ CATI interviews.

References

1. World Summit on Sustainable Development. The Johannesburg Declaration on Sustainable Development. 2002; Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/environment/archives/wssd/documents/wssd_pol_declaration.pdf (accessed on 4 May 2021).

2. Jørgensen, S.E.; Fath, B. Encyclopedia of Ecology; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2008.

3. Bramwell, B.; Lane, B. Sustainable Tourism: An Evolving Global Approach. J. Sustain. Tour.; 1993; 1, pp. 1-5. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09669589309450696]

4. Butler, R.W. Sustainable tourism: A state-of-the-art review. Tour. Geogr.; 1999; 1, pp. 7-25. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14616689908721291]

5. Sharpley, R. Tourism and Sustainable Development: Exploring the Theoretical Divide. J. Sustain. Tour.; 2000; 8, pp. 1-19. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09669580008667346]

6. Saarinen, J. Traditions of sustainability in tourism studies. Ann. Tour. Res.; 2006; 33, pp. 1121-1140. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2006.06.007]

7. Bramwell, B. Opening Up New Spaces in the Sustainable Tourism Debate. Tour. Recreat. Res.; 2007; 32, pp. 1-9. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02508281.2007.11081519]

8. Bramwell, B.; Lane, B. Priorities in Sustainable Tourism Research. J. Sustain. Tour.; 2008; 16, pp. 1-4. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.2167/09669580803489612]

9. Buckley, R. Sustainable tourism: Research and reality. Ann. Tour. Res.; 2012; 39, pp. 528-546. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2012.02.003]

10. Saarinen, J. Critical Sustainability: Setting the Limits to Growth and Responsibility in Tourism. Sustainability; 2014; 6, pp. 1-17. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su6010001]

11. Ruhanen, L.; Weiler, B.; Moyle, B.D.; McLennan, C.J. Trends and patterns in sustainable tourism research: A 25-year bibliometric analysis. J. Sustain. Tour.; 2015; 23, pp. 517-535. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2014.978790]

12. Paunović, I.; Jovanović, V. Implementation of Sustainable Tourism in the German Alps: A Case Study. Sustainability; 2017; 9, 226. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su9020226]

13. Couto, G.; Castanho, R.A.; Santos, C.; Pimentel, P.; Sousa, Á.; Faria, S.; Batista, M.d.G. Guidelines for Tourism Sustainability in Ultra-Peripheral Territories: A Research Based on the Azores Region’s Touristic Companies’ Analysis. Sustainability; 2021; 13, 3895. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su13073895]

14. Brauer, R.; Dymitrow, M. The Language of Sustainable Tourism as a Proxy Indicator of Quality. Sustainability; 2021; 13, 25. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su13010025]

15. Cottrell, S.P.; Vaske, J.J.; Roemer, J.M. Resident satisfaction with sustainable tourism: The case of Frankenwald Nature Park, Germany. Tour. Manag. Perspect.; 2013; 8, pp. 42-48. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tmp.2013.05.005]

16. Su, M.M.; Wall, G.; Xu, K. Heritage tourism and livelihood sustainability of a resettled rural community: Mount Sanqingshan World Heritage Site, China. J. Sustain. Tour.; 2016; 24, pp. 735-757. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2015.1085868]

17. Li, P.; Wang, F.; Zheng, X.; Huang, J. Influencing Factors and Mechanism of Urban Community Tourism Development: A Case Study of Beijing. Sustainability; 2020; 12, 2806. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su12072806]

18. Interreg Europe. Sustainable Tourism: An Opportunity for Regions to Benefit from Their Cultural and Natural Heritage; European Union: Brussels, Belgium, 2018.

19. Sangchumnong, A.; Kozak, M. Sustainable cultural heritage tourism at Ban Wangka Village, Thailand. Anatolia; 2018; 29, pp. 183-193. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13032917.2017.1414435]

20. Gilli, M. The establishment of national heritage tourism: Celebrations for the 150th anniversary of the unification of Italy. The Routledge Handbook of Cultural Tourism; Smith, M.; Richards, G. Routledge: London, UK, 2012.

21. Richards, G. The Development of Cultural Tourism in Europe. Cultural Attractions and European Tourism; Richards, G. CABI: Wallingford, UK, 2001.

22. Steinecke, A. Kulturtourismus: Marktstrukturen, Fallstudien, Perspektiven; De Gruyter Oldenbourg: München, Germany, 2007.

23. Karwińska, A. Kultura. Kultura a Rozwój; Hausner, J.; Karwińska, A.; Purchla, J. Narodowe Centrum Kultury: Warsaw, Poland, 2013.

24. Środa-Murawska, S. Rozwój Oparty na Sektorze Kultury—Doświadczenia Średnich Miast w Polsce; Wydawnictwo Naukowe Uniwersytetu Mikołaja Kopernika w Toruniu: Toruń, Poland, 2019.

25. Williams, R. Keywords: A Vocabulary of Culture and Society; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2015.

26. McKercher, B.; Du Cros, H. Cultural Tourism: The Partnership between Tourism and Cultural Heritage Management; The Haworth Hospitality Press: New York, NY, USA, 2002.

27. International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS). Charter on the Protection and Management of Underwater Cultural Heritage; ICOMOS: Sofia, Bulgaria, 1996.

28. Richards, G. The Market for Cultural Attractions. Cultural Attractions and European Tourism; Richards, G. CABI: Wallingford, UK, 2001.

29. Timothy, D.J.; Boyd, S.W. Heritage Tourism; Pearson Education: Harlow, UK, 2003.

30. Garrod, B.; Fyall, A. Heritage Tourism: A Question of Definition. Ann. Tour. Res.; 2001; 28, pp. 1049-1052. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0160-7383(00)00068-2]

31. Timothy, D.J. Making sense of heritage tourism: Research trends in a maturing field of study. Tour. Manag. Perspect.; 2018; 25, pp. 177-180. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tmp.2017.11.018]

32. Ivanova, M.; Buda, D.M. Thinking rhizomatically about communist heritage tourism. Ann. Tour. Res.; 2020; 84, 103000. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2020.103000]

33. Yan, H. Heritage Tourism in China. Modernity, Identity and Sustainability; Channel View Publications: Bristol, UK, 2017.

34. Green, M. Urban Heritage Tourism: Globalization and Localization. Cultural Attractions and European Tourism; Richards, G. CABI: Wallingford, UK, 2001.

35. Richards, G. European Cultural Attractions: Trends and Prospects. Cultural Attractions and European Tourism; Richards, G. CABI: Wallingford, UK, 2001.

36. Smith, M.; MacLeod, N.; Robertson, M.H. Key Concepts in Tourist Studies; SAGE: London, UK, 2010.

37. Poria, Y.; Butler, R.; Airey, D. The core of heritage tourism. Ann. Tour. Res.; 2003; 30, pp. 238-254. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0160-7383(02)00064-6]

38. International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS). International Cultural Tourism Charter: Managing Tourism at Places of Heritage Significance; ICOMOS: Ciudad de México, Mexico, 1999.

39. Datzira-Masip, J. Cultural heritage tourism—Opportunities for product development: The Barcelona Case. Tour. Rev.; 2006; 61, pp. 13-20. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/eb058466]

40. Richards, G. Creativity and tourism in the city. Curr. Issues Tour.; 2014; 17, pp. 119-144. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2013.783794]

41. Kowalczyk, A. Nowe formy turystyki miejskiej. Prace i Studia Geograficzne; 2005; 35, pp. 155-197.

42. Howie, F. Managing the Tourist Destination; Continuum: London, UK, 2003.

43. Ngamsomsuke, W.; Hwang, T.; Huang, C. Sustainable Cultural Heritage Tourism Indicators. Proceedings of the 2011 International Conference on Social Science and Humanity; Singapore, 26–28 February 2011; IACSIT Press: Singapore, 2011; Volume 5.

44. Durovic, M.; Lovrentjev, S. Indicators of sustainability in cultural tourism. Macrotheme Rev.; 2014; 3, pp. 180-189.

45. Tsolakis, D.; Rockliffe, N.; Patrick, S. Triple Bottom Line Evaluation of Transport Proposals; Research Report ARR 359 ARRB Transport Research Ltd.: Melbourne, Australia, 2003.

46. Richards, G.; Wilson, J. The Impact of Cultural Events on City Image: Rotterdam, Cultural Capital of Europe 2001. Urban. Stud.; 2004; 41, pp. 1931-1951. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0042098042000256323]

47. Ebert, R.; Kunzmann, K.R. Kulturwirtschaft, kreative Räume und Stadtentwicklung in Berlin. Disp. Plan. Rev.; 2007; 43, pp. 64-79. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02513625.2007.10556997]

48. Zheng, J. ‘Creative Industry Clusters’ and the ‘Entrepreneurial City’ of Shanghai. Urban. Stud.; 2011; 48, pp. 3561-3582. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0042098011399593]

49. Namyślak, B. Ocena potencjału kulturalnego największych miast Polski. Wiadomości Statystyczne; 2013; 58, pp. 23-38.

50. Kuźnik, F.; Klasik, A. Wehikuły rozwoju dużych miast i zespołów miejskich. Studia KPZK; 2017; 177, pp. 9-28. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.24425/118582]

51. Bell, D.; Jayne, J. Small Cities: Urban Experience beyond the Metropolis; Routledge: London, UK, 2006.

52. Środa-Murawska, S.; Biegańska, J.; Dąbrowski, L. Perception of the role of culture in the development of small cities by local governments in the context of strategic documents—A case study of Poland. Bull. Geogr. Socio Econ. Ser.; 2017; 38, pp. 119-129. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1515/bog-2017-0038]

53. Reisinger, Y. Reflections on globalisation and cultural tourism. The Routledge Handbook of Cultural Tourism; Smith, M.; Richards, G. Routledge: London, UK, 2012.

54. Golka, M. Cywilizacja, Europa, Globalizacja; Wydawnictwo Fundacji Humaniora: Poznań, Poland, 1999.

55. Grzelak-Kostulska, E.; Hołowiecka, B.; Kwiatkowski, G. Cittaslow International Network: An example of a Globalization Idea?. The Scale of Globalization. Think Globally, Act Locally, Change Individually in the 21st Century; Mácha, P.; Drobík, T. University of Ostrava: Ostrava, Czech Republic, 2011.

56. Kazimierczak, M. Jaką aksjologię zakłada idea zrównoważonego rozwoju w turystyce?. Uwarunkowania i Plany Rozwoju turystyki; Tom, V.I.; Turystyka, Z.; Młynarczyk, Z.; Potocka, I.; Zajadacz, A. Bogucki Wydawnictwo Naukowe: Poznań, Poland, 2010.

57. Ashworth, G.J. Is There an Urban Tourism?. Tour. Recreat. Res.; 1992; 17, pp. 3-8. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02508281.1992.11014645]

58. Hughes, J. Arts, Entertainment and Tourism; Butterworth Heinemann: Oxford, UK, 2000.

59. Clark, T.N. A Political Theory of Consumption. The City as an Entertainment Machine; Clark, T.N. Emerald Group Publishing Limited: Bingley, UK, 2003.

60. Barlett, A.; Clark, N.T.; Merritt, D. The New Political Culture and Local Government in England. The City as an Entertainment Machine; Clark, T.N. Emerald Group Publishing Limited: Bingley, UK, 2003.

61. González, A.; Fosse, J.; Santos Lacueva, R. The Integration of Sustainability in Tourism Policies of Major European Cities; Eco-Union: Barcelona, Spain, 2018.

62. Richards, G. Cultural tourism. Routledge Handbook of Leisure Studies; Blackshaw, T. Routledge: Abingdon, UK, 2013.

63. García-Hernández, M.; De la Calle-Vaquero, M.; Yubero, C. Cultural Heritage and Urban Tourism: Historic City Centres under Pressure. Sustainability; 2017; 9, 1346. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su9081346]

64. Pigram, J.J. Waste Management. Encyclopedia of Tourism; Jafari, J. Routledge: London, UK, 2000.

65. Dileep, M.R. Tourism and Waste Management: A Review of Implementation of “Zero Waste” at Kovalam. Asia Pac. J. Tour. Res.; 2007; 12, pp. 377-392. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10941660701823314]

66. Cooper, C.; Morpeth, N. The Impact of Tourism on Residential Experience in Central-eastern Europe: The Development of a New Legitimation Crisis in the Czech Republic. Urban. Stud.; 1998; 35, pp. 2253-2275. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0042098983872]

67. Biagi, B.; Lambiri, D.; Faggian, A. The Effect of Tourism on the Housing Market. Handbook of Tourism and Quality-of-Life Research; Uysal, M.; Perdue, R.R.; Sirgy, M.J. Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2012.

68. Biagi, B.; Brandano, M.G.; Lambiri, D. Does Tourism Affect House Prices? Evidence from Italy. Growth Chang.; 2015; 46, pp. 501-528. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/grow.12094]

69. Sáenz-de-Miera, O.; Rosselló, J. Tropospheric ozone, air pollution and tourism: A case study of Mallorca. J. Sustain. Tour.; 2013; 21, pp. 1232-1243. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2013.776061]

70. Loulanski, T.; Loulanski, V. The sustainable integration of cultural heritage and tourism: A meta-study. J. Sustain. Tour.; 2011; 19, pp. 837-862. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2011.553286]

71. Harrison, R. Dialogical heritage and sustainability. Heritage; Harrison, R. Routledge: London, UK, 2012.

72. Kim, S.; Whitford, M.; Arcodia, C. Development of intangible cultural heritage as a sustainable tourism resource: The intangible cultural heritage practitioners’ perspectives. J. Herit. Tour.; 2019; 14, pp. 422-435. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1743873X.2018.1561703]

73. Kordej-De Villa, Ž.; Šulc, I. Cultural Heritage, Tourism and the UN Sustainable Development Goals: The Case of Croatia. Rethinking Sustainability Towards a Regenerative Economy; Andreucci, M.B.; Marvuglia, A.; Baltov, M.; Hansen, P. Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2021.

74. Francis-Lindsay, J. The Intrinsic Value of Cultural Heritage and its Relationship to Sustainable Tourism Development: The Contrasting Experiences of Jamaica and Japan. Caribb. Q.; 2009; 55, pp. 151-168. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00086495.2009.11829763]

75. Nocca, F. The Role of Cultural Heritage in Sustainable Development: Multidimensional Indicators as Decision-Making Tool. Sustainability; 2017; 9, 1882. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su9101882]

76. Du Cros, H. A New Model to Assist in Planning for Sustainable Cultural Heritage Tourism. Int. J. Tour. Res.; 2001; 3, pp. 165-170. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jtr.297]

77. McCain, G.; Ray, N.M. Legacy tourism: The search for personal meaning in heritage travel. Tour. Manag.; 2003; 24, pp. 713-717. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0261-5177(03)00048-7]

78. Richards, G.; Wilson, J. Developing creativity in tourist experiences: A solution to the serial reproduction of culture?. Tour. Manag.; 2006; 27, pp. 1209-1223. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2005.06.002]

79. Richards, G. Cultural Tourism: Global and Local Perspectives; The Haworth Press: New York, NY, USA, 2007.

80. Russell, D.W. Nostalgic Tourism. J. Travel Tour. Mark.; 2008; 25, pp. 103-116. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10548400802402271]

81. D’Auria, A. Urban cultural tourism: Creative approaches for heritage-based sustainable development. Int. J. Sustain. Dev.; 2009; 12, pp. 275-289. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1504/IJSD.2009.032782]

82. Liu, Y.D. Cultural Events and Cultural Tourism Development: Lessons from the European Capitals of Culture. Eur. Plan. Stud.; 2014; 22, pp. 498-514. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2012.752442]

83. Farid, S.M. Tourism Management in World Heritage Sites and its Impact on Economic Development in Mali and Ethiopia. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci.; 2015; 211, pp. 595-604. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.11.078]

84. Smith, M.K. Issues in Cultural Tourism Studies; 3rd ed. Routledge: London, UK, 2015.

85. Richards, G. Cultural tourism: A review of recent research and trends. J. Hosp. Tour. Manag.; 2018; 36, pp. 12-21. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhtm.2018.03.005]

86. Królikowska-Tomczak, A.; Machnik, A. Zrównoważona turystyka miejska w kontekście turystyki kulturowej. Turystyka Kulturowa; 2019; 5, pp. 76-98.

87. Szmytkowska, M. Kreacje Współczesnego Miasta: Uwarunkowania i Trajektorie Rozwojowe Polskich Miast Średnich; Wydawnictwo UG: Gdańsk, Poland, 2017.

88. Runge, A.; Kwiatek-Sołtys, A. Małe i średnie miasta Polski na osi kontinuum osadniczego. Człowiek w Przestrzeni Zurbanizowanej; Soja, M.; Zborowski, A. Instytut Geografii i Gospodarki Przestrzennej UJ: Kraków, Poland, 2011.

89. Majer, A. Odrodzenie średnich miast. Przegląd Socjologiczny; 2017; 66, pp. 91-112.

90. Hellwig, Z. Zastosowanie metody taksonomicznej do typologicznego podziału krajów ze względu na poziom ich rozwoju i strukturę wykwalifikowanych kadr. Przegląd Statystyczny; 1968; 15, pp. 307-327.

91. Głowacki, J.; Hausner, J.; Jakóbik, K.; Markiel, K.; Mituś, A.; Żabiński, M. Finansowanie Kultury i Zarządzanie Instytucjami Kultury; Uniwersytet Ekonomiczny w Krakowie, Małopolska Szkoła Administracji Publicznej: Kraków, Poland, 2009.

92. Urząd Miejski w Andrychowie. Strategia Rozwoju Gminy Andrychów na lata 2014–2020 (Development Strategy of the Municipality of Andrychów for 2014–2020); Urząd Miejski w Andrychowie: Andrychów, Poland, 2014.

93. Urząd Miasta w Skarżysku-Kamiennej. Strategia Rozwoju Miasta Skarżyska-Kamiennej na lata 2007–2020 (Skarżysko-Kamienna Development Strategy for 2007–2020); Urząd Miasta w Skarżysku-Kamiennej: Skarżysko-Kamienna, Poland, 2007.

94. Urząd Miasta Racibórz. Strategia Rozwoju Miasta Racibórz do roku 2020 (Development Strategy of Racibórz to 2020); Urząd Miasta Racibórz: Racibórz, Poland, 2013.

95. Urząd Miasta Chełmna. Strategia Rozwoju Gminy Miasta Chełmna na lata 2014–2020 (Development Strategy of Chełmno Municipality for 2014–2020); Urząd Miasta Chełmna: Chełmno, Poland, 2014.

96. Urząd Miejski w Bielawie. Strategia Rozwoju Społeczno-Gospodarczego Gminy Bielawa na lata 2014–2020 (Strategy of Social and Economic Development of the Bielawa Municipality for 2014–2020); Urząd Miejski w Bielawie: Bielawa, Poland, 2014.

97. Działek, J.; Murzyn-Kupisz, M. Rola instytucji kultury w budowaniu i wzmacnianiu kapitału społecznego jako czynnika rozwoju społeczno-gospodarczego. Sektor Kreatywny Jako Katalizator Przemian Strukturalnych w Regionie; Klasik, A. Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego w Katowicach: Katowice, Poland, 2014.

98. Środa-Murawska, S. Railway feat. culture–Rumia library effect as an example of the influence of culture-led regeneration in a medium-sized city in Poland. Cities; 2020; 106, 102875. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2020.102875]

99. Murzyn-Kupisz, M.; Gwosdz, K. Analiza Wpływu Inwestycji w Infrastrukturę Kultury i Turystyki Dofinansowanych z Funduszy Strukturalnych na Rozwój Społeczno-Gospodarczy Poszczególnych Gmin/Powiatów Województwa Śląskiego; Urząd Marszałkowski Województwa Śląskiego: Katowice, Poland, 2010.

100. Smoliński, P.; Środa-Murawska, S.; Grzelak-Kostulska, E. Uczestnictwo w kulturze w małym mieście. Perspektywa pokolenia Z. Space Soc. Econ.; 2019; 28, pp. 45-69. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.18778/1733-3180.28.03]

101. McCann, E. The cultural politics of local economic development: Meaning-making, place-making, and the urban policy process. Geoforum; 2002; 33, pp. 385-398. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0016-7185(02)00007-6]

102. Murzyn-Kupisz, M. Using heritage as a vehicle for local development. The perspective of Niepołomice—A little town in southern Poland. Culture as a Tool for Development: Challenges of Analysis and Action; Le Duc, F. Agency for Technical Development and Cooperation: Paris, France, 2009.

103. Murzyn-Kupisz, M. Cultural, economic and social sustainability of heritage tourism: Issues and challenges. Econ. Environ. Stud.; 2012; 12, pp. 113-133.

104. Fusco Girard, L.; Nijkamp, P. Narrow Escapes: Pathways to Sustainable Local Cultural Tourism. Cultural Tourism and Sustainable Local Development; Fusco Girard, L.; Nijkamp, P. Ashgate: Aldershot, UK, 2009.