Augmented Reality in Cultural Heritage: A Review of Emerging Applications and Trends

By Thliviti Chrisanthi

This study provides an overview of recent uses of Augmented Reality (AR) in Cultural Heritage (CH) through a detailed review of scientific papers in the field. Research articles published in Scopus and Clarivate Web of Science databases over the past five years were analyzed. The results revealed eight trending topics of applying AR technology to CH: 3D reconstruction of cultural artifacts, digital heritage, virtual museums, user experience, education, tourism, intangible cultural heritage, and gamification. Each topic is discussed in detail providing insight into existing applications and the challenges encountered. A critical assessment is also provided to guide future developments in user-centered, culturally sensitive, and sustainable AR applications.

Introduction


Augmented Reality (AR) is one of the most advanced areas of technology today.The field of AR applications began in the 1990s [1] and has continuously increased in importance since then, along with technological advancements. While Virtual Reality (VR) refers to the creation of a fully digital world that
reproduces either a real environment or an entirely fictional one, AR provides a framework for adding information to the real-world environment. AR technology allows users to perceive the world in an enhanced way; it improves the users’ experience by overlaying computer-generated information, including graphics, sounds, and sometimes touch feedback, on the real environment [2]. AR has been applied across various fields, such as medicine, education, the automotive industry, healthcare, and tourism [3]. In particular, it was proven to be effective in the management and preservation of Cultural Heritage (CH), improving visitor experience, reconstruction, and exploration [4], as well as conservation and preservation [5] and bringing to life past events [6]. From virtual reconstructions of ancient artifacts to gamified museum tours and immersive educational tools, AR reshapes how individuals interact with history and tradition.

Research Method

The data used for the present study were retrieved from Scopus and Clarivate Web of Science (WoS). These databases were selected because they include an extensive number of scientific publications and provide effective tools for downloading data. The search terms used were “Augmented or Mixed
Reality” and “Cultural Heritage”. The period selected to accomplish the goal of this research was between 2020 and 2025. A search filter was also added to limit the number of articles to only those published in English.

Top Trending Applications of Augmented Reality in Cultural Heritage
Three-Dimensional Reconstruction

Ancient artifacts are essential for the understanding of ancient civilizations. However, their preservation is often threatened by their fragility, size or inaccessibility. It is estimated that over 90% of human CH has been lost over the past ten thousand years [12]. A promising technology solution to this challenge is the integration of 3D reconstruction and AR, enabling digital preservation and wider public access to CH [7]. 3D reconstruction technologies play a crucial role in this process and include photogrammetry, laser scanning (triangulation and time-of-flight), structured light, stereo-calibrated optical sensors, and mobile LiDAR [8-11]. Photogrammetry is widely used due to its accessibility but requires numerous images and huge computational resources to produce accurate models [13,14]. Depth-sensing cameras and laser scanners are more accurate and of high quality, but these methods are often expensive and demand complex data processing [15–18]. One recent balanced option has been mobile LiDAR that provides the
speed and accuracy needed for large CH sites [19]. The 3D reconstruction procedure typically begins with data collection, followed by image and
depth data alignment through the Iterative Closest Point (ICP) algorithm [20]. Multiple views are then combined into a single textured 3D mesh, in order to produce a realistic digital artifact. The optimal reconstruction method remains a significant challenge because of the difficulty of combining low cost, accuracy, and complexity. A hybrid approach, which involves capturing a 3D point cloud of the artifact using a 3D scanner, reconstructing the model with software like MeshLab, and developing AR applications for visualization, has been proposed [21].

In this way, AR provides users—regardless of technical expertise—with the ability to experiencedetailed, full-scale 3D models, enhancing public understanding and engagement through a simple and interactive way [22-26]. Besides visualization, 3D reconstruction and AR enable restoration, particularly for damaged CH objects, by offering accurate digital replicas and enabling correct restoration practices [27-30]. Finally, combining AR with high-quality 3D printing and interactive touchscreens allows contextual understanding as well as intangible experience of CH artifacts [31]. Despite such advancements, challenges, such as the lack of standardized guidelines for AR application and limited user experience, remain [32]. 3.2 Digital Heritage Digital Heritage (DH), as UNESCO defines it, includes materials which are computer-based, have timeless value and require active preservation to ensure their continuity and availability for future
generations [33]. AR, VR, and MR (Mixed Reality) are some of the most vital technologies which play a key role in the accessibility and interactivity of DH. DH sites also benefit from the widespread use of social media. For example, Balduini et al. analyzed data from Twitter in Seoul to develop an AR application that suggests popular locations based on user opinions collected over three years [34]. In addition, AR provides immersive experiences in stage performances using 3D models and multimedia systems, improved with sonic narratives, to create
realistic virtual environments [35,36]. Gamification in AR apps supports historical learning and tourism too [37].

Moreover, digitization efforts in museums, such as those studied in China across 22 sites, show the effects of AR, VR, and multi-touch interfaces on visitor experience and engagement, providing useful information for the optimization of DC applications [38]. Comparing digital replicas (AR/VR) and physical
replicas (3D printing) of cultural artifacts shows varying perceptions among professionals and the general public, in addition to their different applications depending on the context [39]. Enhancing museum collections with additional digital content helps the creation of an ‘animated archive’ of cultural materials, recording objects and their diverse representations [40]. Finally, another innovation includes virtual replicas with live actors performing historical figures, thus enhancing immersive storytelling [41]. 3.3 Virtual Museums Virtual museums are changing beyond traditional audio guides and catalogs by adopting AR to create more attractive and interactive user experiences [42]. AR enables visitors to discover art collections, archaeological sites, and historical buildings in an interactive way, often through features such as AR games or enhanced educational content, improving visitor’s engagement [43–52]. Galleries, libraries, archives, and museums (GLAMs) use AR to provide multisensory experiences that
involve visitors, such as alternating narratives combining real and virtual stories [53], or augmented physical surfaces, such as the Museum Coffee Table, that optimize learning and social interaction [54].

Additionally, AR breaks accessibility barriers offering immersive experiences for people with disabilities, such as sign language storytelling by virtual humans [55,56], or enriches the procedure of
cataloging museum artifacts with augmented descriptions attracting new audiences through multidimensional experiences that connect physical and digital environments [57-59]. Another important application, is digital narrative content in mobile heritage trail apps [60]. Despite encouraging prospects for widespread uses of AR in museums, user experience design issues as well as technical expertise for app development remain serious concerns [61]. 3.4 User Experience The potential of AR technology in CH has been evaluated by several studies from various perspectives, including museum staff, visitors, and community representatives. AR has been appreciated for its positive economic, social, educational, and cultural contributions [62]. User embrace of AR devices – especially smart glasses or other mobile devices- has been studied revealing excitement about innovation and challenges related to usability and environmental factors [63-66]. Such an evaluation framework is the MUSETECH, which examines the impact of AR, VR and mobile technologies on professionals, institutions and visitors [67]. VR museum experiences are categorized into four levels—artifact-related, behavior-related, spiritual, and creative—which are used as guidelines for designing immersive exhibitions [68]. The first category focuses on the object or exhibit itself, providing information or 3D representations that help visitors better understand it. The second category refers to the use or context of the object, allowing the visitor to see how it was used or take part in interactive scenarios. The third category emphasizes symbolism, meanings, or emotions related to the object or its time. Finally, the fourth category highlights the visitor’s creativity and imagination, inviting them to experiment, create something new, or interact with the content in a personal way. Many people visit museums because of these offered AR experiences. In particular, one of the most widespread ways that allows for dynamic exploration and personal engagement with CH is gamification, as demonstrated in virtual tour applications in temples [69].


In terms of user-centered studies, questionnaires and theoretical models have been used to understand and optimize the adoption of AR in CH, with few new model proposals due to the challenges associated with validation and acceptance within the research community. The reports are of medium to high levels of satisfaction; however, further research on how cultural context affects the visitor
experience is needed [70]. Despite technological and usability challenges, case studies from Canada and Dublin have demonstrated that AR applications in cultural tourism increase both participation and the appeal of heritage sites [71–73]. Importantly, studies distinguish between the attraction AR holds for users and the potential distraction the technology can cause, emphasizing that maintaining this balance is essential [74].

Education


With increasing distractions to learning, the integration of digital technologies like AR and VR offers creative ways to improve learning. AR, in particular, promises low-cost, interactive, and collaborative experiences that develop student engagement and knowledge retention [75,76]. Mobile AR applications especially used in fieldwork outperform traditional e-learning and lead to improved student learning outcomes [77]. Serious AR Games promote historical learning and cultural awareness in both indoor and outdoor environments, using various genres and goals—from exploring ancient civilizations to simulating historical battles [78-81]. Studies show the positive educational impact of AR in different settings, such as museums, historical monuments and the natural environment. For example, wearable devices, such as Google Glass, have been tested in galleries (although they may reduce social interaction [82]), while AR applications with dual-display and multi-touch contribute to spatial understanding [83]. The key factors affecting learning effectiveness were identified through the use of the Q-Edutage scale in VR and AR training programs. AR is also beneficial in adult learning, as demonstrated in a literature museum application where the process involved storytelling. The results showed that the application was particularly appealing to older visitors. On the other hand, teachers have generally embraced the use of AR tools. Most of them are open to training and participation in tool creation, even with limited experience in 3D modelling [84]. Finally, AR and VR applications increasingly blend with arts and multimodal technologies, supporting
non-verbal communication, collaboration, and deeper connections to cultural contexts [85,86]. They have transformed many educational fields over the past decade, from industrial training to literature and geography, and their use is expected to increase as their development becomes more affordable. 3.6 Tourism
AR technology has been increasingly used in cultural tourism, thanks to advancements in 3D content creation, visualization and interactive distribution in both public and academic settings. Early AR-based heritage projects such as Rome Reborn [87,88], Ancient Miletus [89], and Archeoguide [90] proved the strong potential of AR for augmenting tourism, especially in Greece. While VR systems typically cause high emotional involvement and visual appeal, studies (e.g., Marasco et al. [91]) show that this is not necessarily followed from a stronger intention to physically visit the monuments. Τheir marketing impact through emotional engagement, however, remains considerable. The shift came with the widespread use of mobile devices, which offered the possibility of
AR replacing more static VR systems with adaptive, user-centric learning processes [92,93]. Various visualization setups—such as CAVE systems [94], head-mounted displays (HMDs) [95], and large museum installations [96]—have been applied, although user satisfaction remains closely related to the cultural value of the experience [97]. Moreover, cultural aesthetics have been identified as
playing an important role in user acceptance, as shown in a study comparing participants from South Korea and Ireland [98], where visual appeal had a significant influence on perceived usefulness, ease of use, and enjoyment. Similar results were reported by another case study from Jeju Island, South Korea
[99], which demonstrated a multimodal VR/AR application combining Google Cardboard, AR artifact interaction, and a virtual assistant. In this case, a user study (n=251) using the Technology Acceptance Model revealed that hedonic factors had a stronger impact than utilitarian ones. Τhus, on-site multimodal navigation tools [100,101] increase cultural understanding by enabling exploration and
digital memory sharing, enriching both tangible and intangible heritage experiences. Finally, MR project at the Ara Pacis Museum in Rome [102] is an example of how the integration of MR elements (sound, video, touch) in museums enhances the educational, social and entertainment dimensions. However, challenges in spatial redesign and integration remain. Wearable AR was explored through the use of Google Glass in a museum context [103], revealing a balancing act: while users accessed more information more quickly, they were often distracted by the technological novelty, which led to slightly lower learning outcomes compared to the control group. Social isolation was also observed. To conclude, another smart glasses-based AR application [104] found that, although users appreciated its novelty and usefulness for cultural tourism, many struggled to interact with it due to their unfamiliarity with wearable devices. 3.7 Gamification The latest advancements in gamification have significantly influenced the use of AR in the field of CH. Gamification is broadly defined as the use of game design elements in non-game contexts [105], with the aim of enhancing user engagement, enjoyment, and loyalty [106]. In CH, gamification contributes to making heritage more engaging and entertaining, often referred to as pervasive games or game-based learning [107]. The two main types of gamification in CH are Serious Games (SGs) and Storytelling. SGs are not
developed just for entertainment, but rather to provide educational or constructive outcomes [108]. In CH, they are considered innovative tools for transmitting historical and cultural knowledge through interactive technologies [109]. SGs focus more on learning outcomes and behavior rather than pure
entertainment and are designed to enhance users’ knowledge and skills. Besides these, they can involve users with cultural content through multi-modal interfaces, providing immersive experiences [110]. For example, a haptic VR system simulating bow shooting [111], with the addition of tactile feedback [112], demonstrates how sensory interaction can create an up-grated user experience. Gamified social spaces have also been developed to promote exploration in CH environments, especially museums, using AR-based interactive systems [113,114], which improve both user satisfaction and learning outcomes [115]. Recent AR experiences often use smartphones and tablets for outdoor exploration [116,117], helping users discover heritage sites [118] and enhance experiential learning [119], while indoor applications are still widespread. A remarkable example is an MR system based on geoinformatics to recreate historical events [120]. The second most popular gamification method is Digital Storytelling (DS), as it merges traditional narrative techniques with modern technology [121]. Extended Reality (XR) has been effectively used for interactive storytelling, allowing users to experience historical narratives or appreciate cultural content, such as classical Chinese poetry [122]. The connection between AR and Storytelling has been explored in applications like literary museum experiences too [123]. Finally, apart from tangible heritage (e.g., artifacts, buildings), AR and gamification also encompass Intangible Cultural Heritage (ICH) (e.g., traditions, social values, and crafts) [124–126]. These technologies are interlinked and share a common goal: enhancing the user experience, facilitating learning, and promoting collaboration.

Intangible Cultural Heritage


Intangible Cultural Heritage (ICH) is a part of a community’s identity, reflecting its past, traditions, and values. According to UNESCO, ICH includes oral traditions, performing arts, social practices, rituals, festive events, traditional knowledge, and craftsmanship skills [127]. Digital technologies, particularly AR, offer innovative tools for preserving and enriching the experience of ICH [128]. AR can be used to project ICH-themed virtual decorations into everyday environments [129], or
transform spaces into interactive stages for learning traditional dances—such as the Australian Aboriginal Al Ardha dance [130] or the Greek ‘Syrtos in Three’ [131]. Another AR application described in [132], enables the digital preservation of ICH by combining realistic video images with cultural content using an intelligent terminal. Additionally, AR offers virtual try-on of traditional costumes and accessories, immersing users in culturally rich environments [133, 134]. What is more, AR walls, projection mapping, and animations provide novel methods of representing folklore and national traditions [135]. Finally, head-mounted displays (HMDs) deepen immersion when interacting with ICH- related material [136], though the development process is time-consuming [137].

Challenges of Augmented Reality in Cultural Heritage

The introduction of AR into cultural heritage is a valuable tool that can transform visitor experience, interpretation, and learning. However, the implementation of AR faces many challenges spanning technology, content, user experience, ethics, and institutional frameworks. The most important technological challenge is tracking and registering virtual content in real-world cases. Some of the difficulties in outdoor settings are unreliable GPS signals, varying light conditions, and sensor interference from building structures [138]. Besides, technical limitations of mobile phones, including small screen sizes, limited battery life, and restricted processing power, impose practical boundaries on the richness and reliability of AR experiences [139]. Finally, environmental conditions, such as strong sunlight or unpredictable weather conditions, can further complicate the development of AR [140]. Another challenge in AR is developing and maintaining AR content. Creating historically accurate 3D reconstructions and interactive elements is time-consuming, costly, and demands collaboration among
technologists, designers, historians, and heritage professionals [140]. Moreover, the lack of standardized platforms and tools does not allow the reusability or adaptation of content across different sites or applications. While ongoing maintenance is necessary as heritage sites evolve or undergo restoration, many AR applications are in danger of becoming obsolete after their initial application because of the constant lack of financial and technical support [141]. Furthermore, the user experience in AR applications must be carefully designed to avoid over-information and handling difficulties. Visitors come from different backgrounds and have different levels of digital literacy, so AR interfaces need to be intuitive and accessible to all [141]. Nevertheless, reliance on personal mobile devices can create barriers for users who either do not own or are unfamiliar with
such technologies, thus limiting their adoption. Besides usability, there are also critical cultural and ethical issues. For example, important issues include the misrepresentation of historical facts, the simplification of complex narratives, and the insulting of specific social groups. All these factors can undermine the authenticity and educational value of heritage sites [140]. In addition, decisions about which stories to tell and how to tell them often reflect the priorities of particular stakeholders, leading to bias and exclusion [141]. Finally, data privacy
is another ethical issue, especially when AR applications collect user information such as location and behavior without clear consent or transparency. Organizational and institutional factors are also involved. Many cultural institutions do not have multidisciplinary teams to develop or maintain AR projects; they rely mainly on external developers, so these projects often have not long-term sustainability [139]. Short-term sustainability is further enhanced by funding which is typically project-based and temporary, which complicates efforts to maintain and update DH tools over time. What is more, heritage and conservation policies can slow down progress, especially when new technologies need to be integrated into protected historical environments.


In summary, while AR has great potential to enrich the experience and understanding of CH, its implementation is hampered by technical, creative, social and institutional challenges. Their solution requires interdisciplinarity, sustainable funding models, and a user-centred design philosophy thatrespects both practical implementation and cultural integrity.

Critical Assessment of Augmented Reality in Cultural Heritage

Three-Dimensional Reconstruction
While 3D reconstruction offers valuable digital preservation options, high cost and technical complexity are significant limitations, especially when high-technology, like laser scanning or mobile LiDAR, is used. On the other hand, photogrammetry, although affordable, is not precise. The literature
generally emphasizes technical developments, but studies that give technical benchmarks according to the reconstruction methods are few, so that it is not possible to assess and compare them.

Digital Heritage
The use of AR in DH presents great potential for personalization. However, many studies focus on experimental or pilot applications without long-term user evaluation. In addition, ethical issues concerning personal data and digital permanence have not been sufficiently explored. The reliance on social media data (e.g. Twitter) raises issues of cultural representation bias too.

Virtual Museums
Virtual museums significantly expand access to cultural content, especially for remote audiences. Yet, several applications lack of narrative depth or intuitive UX design. Additionally, although multi-sensory features are often used, few studies focus on analyzing the impact on learning and emotional engagement. This indicates a gap between technical innovation and pedagogical value.

User Experience
The literature gives a general overview of user-centered approaches, while comparative studies are few. Most of the evaluations focus on usability and satisfaction, with less emphasis on deeper cognitive and emotional dimensions, which remain unexplored. Furthermore, accessibility for marginalized groups
(e.g., elderly, disabled) is often assumed but not strictly controlled. 5.5 Education
AR appears to be attractive to students, making learning more interesting and experiential, especially in informal learning environments. Nevertheless, despite the innovative nature of these applications, many of them lack a pedagogical foundation. Moreover, the teachers’ willingness to adopt AR tools is not sufficient on its own, as training and technical support remain limited.

Tourism
Tourism using AR allows for a more interesting introduction to the city and its attractions, both historical and modern. Yet, its impact on learning and cultural understanding remains under-researched. The limited number of studies conducted in this domain suggest that emotional engagement does not necessarily lead to deeper understanding. Commercial interests often drive the development of such applications, which can result in the oversimplification or ‘gamification’ of cultural content.

Gamification
Gamification in CH increases motivation, but research has yet to determine the most efficient way to combine fun and learning. Firstly, SGs are promising but resource-intensive. Additionally, many of them focus on short-term engagement rather than long-term learning. For example, if users do not have sufficient opportunities for review and repetition, learning may not occur. What is more, SGs do not offer proper customization to individual learner needs. Therefore, when the game is not tailored to the needs or level of each user, it may not be successful. Finally, many SGs lack clear evaluation criteria. For instance, a game might measure success through points, but this may be more related to speed or
memory – not deep understanding. 5.8 Intangible Cultural Heritage AR applications on ICH are generally well designed and evoke strong emotions in users. However, many existing applications are small-scale and depend mainly on a specific cultural context in which they are applied. This makes it difficult to generalize their results to other settings. In addition, such applications are often developed without collaboration with the community concerned, or without
considering whether the presentation of the content is culturally appropriate or respectful. Thus, this field could evolve significantly if collaborative design methods with local communities were adopted. Finally, while many studies show exactly what happens after using an application, long-term studies are
needed to examine whether users actually learn, retain knowledge and whether the community maintains a positive or negative view over time.

Conclusions
Augmented Reality (AR) is redefining the Cultural Heritage (HC) field by creating more accessible, interactive and engaging experiences. Its applications cover eight trending topics offering innovative approaches. Nevertheless, AR faces challenges, such as high development cost, usability issues, ethical concerns and sustainability problems. In conclusion, in order to advance AR applications, interdisciplinary collaboration, user-centred design and long-term evaluation are essential.

References

  1. Rauschnabel, P.A.; Felix, R.; Hinsch, C.; Shahab, H.; Alt, F. What is XR? Towards a Framework for Augmented and Virtual Reality. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2022, 133, 107289. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2022.107289
  2. Aggarwal, R.; Singhal, A. Augmented Reality and its effect on our life. In Proceedings of the 2019 9th International Conference on Cloud Computing, Data Science & Engineering (Confluence), Uttar
    Pradesh, India, 10–11 January 2019; pp. 510–515.
  3. Arena, F.; Collotta, M.; Pau, G.; Termine, F. An Overview of Augmented Reality. Computers 2022, 11, 28.
  4. Okanovic, V.; Ivkovic-Kihic, I.; Boskovic, D.; Mijatovic, B.; Prazina, I.; Skaljo, E.; Rizvic, S. Interaction in eXtended Reality Applications for Cultural Heritage. Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 1241. https://doi.org/10.3390/app12031241.
  5. Merchán, M.J.; Merchán, P.; Pérez, E. Good Practices in the Use of Augmented Reality for the Dissemination of Architectural Heritage of Rural Areas. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 2055. https://doi.org/10.3390/app11052055.
  6. Boboc, R.G.; Duguleană, M.; Voinea, G.-D.; Postelnicu, C.-C.; Popovici, D.-M.; Carrozzino, M. Mobile Augmented Reality for Cultural Heritage: Following the Footsteps of Ovid among Different Locations in Europe. Sustainability 2019, 11, 1167. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11041167.
  7. Panou, C.; Ragia, L.; Dimelli, D.; Mania, K. Outdoors Mobile Augmented Reality Application Visualizing 3D Reconstructed Historical Monuments. In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Geographical Information Systems Theory, Applications and Management (GISTAM
    2018), Porto, Portugal, 17–19 March 2018; pp. 59–67. https://doi.org/10.5220/0006701800590067.
  8. Campi, M.; di Luggo, A.; Palomba, D.; Palomba, R. Digital surveys and 3D reconstructions for augmented accessibility of archaeological heritage. Int. Arch. Photogramm. Remote Sens. Spat. Inf. Sci. 2019, 42, 205–212. https://doi.org/10.5194/ISPRS-ARCHIVES-XLII-2-W9-205-2019.
  9. Machidon, O.M.; Postelnicu, C.C.; Girbacia, F.S. 3D Reconstruction as a Service–Applications in Virtual Cultural Heritage. In: Augmented Reality, Virtual Reality, and Computer Graphics; De Paolis, L., Mongelli, A., Eds.; AVR 2016. Lecture Notes in Computer Science; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2016; Volume 9769. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-40651-0_21.
  10. Mongelli, M.; Chellini, G.; Migliori, S.; Perozziello, A.; Pierattini, S.; Puccini, M.; Cosma, A. Comparison and integration of techniques for the study and valorisation of the Corsini Throne in Corsini Gallery in Roma. ACTA IMEKO 2021, 10, 40–46. https://doi.org/10.21014/ACTA_IMEKO.V10I1.816.
  11. Gomes, L.; Bellon, O.R.P.; Silva, L. 3D reconstruction methods for digital preservation of cultural heritage: A survey. Pattern Recognit. Lett. 2014, 50, 3–14.
  12. Cultural Heritage at Risk: United States. Available online: https://www.khanacademy.org/humanities/special-topics-art-history/arches-at-risk-cultural- heritage-education-series/xa0148fd6a60f2ff6:cultural-heritage-endangered-round-the- world/a/cultural-heritage-at-risk-united-states (accessed on 20 June 2022).
  13. Portalés, C.; Lerma, J.L.; Pérez, C. Photogrammetry and augmented reality for cultural heritage applications. Photogramm. Rec. 2009, 24, 316–331. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1477- 9730.2009.00549.x.
  14. Putra, E.Y.; Wahyudi, A.K.; Dumingan, C. A proposed combination of photogrammetry, Augmented Reality and Virtual Reality Headset for heritage visualization. In Proceedings of the 2016 International Conference on Informatics and Computing (ICIC), Mataram, Indonesia, 28–29 October 2016; pp. 43–48. https://doi.org/10.1109/IAC.2016.7905687.
  15. Fritsch, D.; Klein, M. 3D preservation of buildings–Reconstructing the past. Multimed. Tools Appl. 2018, 77, 9153–9170. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11042-017-4654-5.
  16. Barrile, V.; Bilotta, G.; Meduri, G.M.; De Carlo, D.; Nunnar, A. Laser scanner technology, ground- penetrating radar and augmented reality for the survey and recovery of artistic, archaeological and cultural heritage. ISPRS Ann. Photogramm. Remote Sens. Spat. Inf. Sci. 2017, 4, 123–127.
  17. Barrile, V.; Nunnari, A.; Ponterio, R.C. Laser scanner for the Architectural and Cultural Heritage and Applications for the Dissemination of the 3D Model. Procedia-Soc. Behav. Sci. 2016, 223, 555–560.
  18. Scianna, A.; Gaglio, G.F.; Grima, R.; La Guardia, M. The virtualization of CH for historical reconstruction: The AR fruition of the fountain of St. George square in Valletta (Malta). Int. Arch. Photogramm. Remote Sens. Spat. Inf. Sci. 2020, 44, 143–149.
  19. Rodríguez-Gonzálvez, P.; Jimenez Fernandez-Palacios, B.; Muñoz-Nieto, Á.L.; Arias-Sanchez, P.; Gonzalez-Aguilera, D. Mobile LiDAR system: New possibilities for the documentation and dissemination of large cultural heritage sites. Remote Sens. 2017, 9, 189.
  20. Noh, Z.; Sunar, M.S.; Pan, Z. A Review on Augmented Reality for Virtual Heritage System; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2009; pp. 50–61.
  21. Van Nguyen, S.; Le, S.T.; Tran, M.K.; Tran, H.M. Reconstruction of 3D digital heritage objects for VR and AR applications. J. Inf. Telecommun. 2021, 6, 254–269.
  22. Shih, N.J.; Diao, P.H.; Chen, Y. ARTS, an AR tourism system, for the integration of 3D scanning and smartphone AR in cultural heritage tourism and pedagogy. Sensors 2019, 19, 3725. https://doi.org/10.3390/s19173725.
  23. Blanco-Pons, S.; Carrión-Ruiz, B.; Lerma, J.L.; Villaverde, V. Design and implementation of an augmented reality application for rock art visualization in Cova dels Cavalls (Spain). J. Cult. Herit. 2019, 39, 177–185. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.culher.2019.03.014.
  24. Cruz, D.R.; Sevilla, J.S.; San Gabriel, J.W.D.; Cruz, A.J.P.D.; Caselis, E.J.S. Design and Development of Augmented Reality (AR) Mobile Application for Malolos’ Kameztizuhan (Malolos Heritage Town, Philippines). In Proceedings of the 2018 IEEE Games, Entertainment, Media Conference (GEM), Galway, Ireland, 15–17 August 2018; pp. 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1109/GEM.2018.8516272.
  25. Pietroni, E. An augmented experiences in cultural heritage through mobile devices: “Matera tales of a city” project. In Proceedings of the 2012 18th International Conference on Virtual Systems and Multimedia, Milan, Italy, 2–5 September 2012; pp. 117– 124.
  26. Sebastiani, A. Digital Artifacts and Landscapes. Experimenting with Placemaking at the Impero Project. Heritage 2021, 4, 281–303.
  27. Girbacia, F.; Butnariu, S.; Orman, A.P.; Postelnicu, C.C. Virtual restoration of deteriorated religious heritage objects using augmented reality technologies. Eur. J. Sci. Theol. 2013, 9, 223–231.
  28. Boboc, R.G.; Gîrbacia, F.; Duguleană, M.; Tavčar, A. A handheld Augmented Reality to revive a demolished Reformed Church from Braşov. In Proceedings of the Virtual Reality International Conference-Laval Virtual, Laval, France, 22–24 March 2017; Volume 2017, pp. 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1145/3110292.3110311.
  29. Parfenov, V.; Igoshin, S.; Masaylo, D.; Orlov, A.; Kuliashou, D. Use of 3D Laser Scanning and Additive Technologies for Reconstruction of Damaged and Destroyed Cultural Heritage Objects. Quantum Beam Sci. 2022, 6, 11. https://doi.org/10.3390/qubs6010011.
  30. Abate, A.F.; Barra, S.; Galeotafiore, G.; Díaz, C.; Aura, E.; Sánchez, M.; Vendrell, E. An Augmented Reality Mobile App for Museums: Virtual Restoration of a Plate of Glass. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Digital Heritage, EuroMed 2018, Nicosia, Cyprus, 29 October–3 November 2018; Volume 11196 LNCS, pp. 539–547, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-01762- 0_47.
  31. Malik, U.S.; Tissen, L.N.; Vermeeren, A.P. 3D Reproductions of Cultural Heritage Artefacts: Evaluation of significance and experience. Stud. Digit. Herit. 2021, 5, 1- 29.http://dx.doi.org/10.14434/sdh.v4i2.32323.
  32. Blanco-Pons, S.; Carrión-Ruiz, B.; Lerma, J.L.; Villaverde, V. Design and implementation of an augmented reality application for rock art visualization in Cova dels Cavalls (Spain). J. Cult. Herit. 2019, 39, 177–185. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.culher.2019.03.014
  33. UNESCO. The Concept of Digital Heritage. Available online:
    https://en.unesco.org/themes/information-preservation/digital heritage/concept-digital-heritage (accessed on 20 June 2022).
  34. Balduini, M.; Celino, I.; Dell’Aglio, D.; Della Valle, E.; Huang, Y.; Lee, T.; Kim, S.-H.; Tresp, V. BOTTARI:An augmented reality mobile application to deliver personalized and location-based recommendations by continuous analysis of social media streams. J. Web Semant. 2012, 16, 33–41; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.websem.2012.06.004.
  35. Jacquemin, C.; Caye, V.; Luca, L.D.; Favre-Brun, A. Genius Loci: Digital heritage augmentation for immersive performance. Int. J. Arts Technol. 2014, 7, 223–246. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJART.2014.060942.
  36. Comunità, M.; Gerino, A.; Lim, V.; Picinali, L. Design and Evaluation of a Web- and Mobile-Based Binaural Audio Platform for Cultural Heritage. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 1540. https://doi.org/10.3390/app11041540.
  37. Tan, K.L.; Lim, C.K. Digital heritage gamification: An augmented-virtual walkthrough to learn and explore historical places. In Proceedings of the AIP Conference Proceedings, Bikaner, India, 24–25 November 2017; Volume 1891, p. 020139. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5005472.
  38. Ch’ng, E.; Cai, S.; Leow, F.-T.; Zhang, T.E. Adoption and use of emerging cultural technologies in China’s museums. J. Cult. Herit. 2019, 37, 170–180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.culher.2018.11.016.
  39. Boboc, R.G.; Gîrbacia, F.; Duguleană, M.; Tavčar, A. A handheld Augmented Reality to revive a demolished Reformed Church from Braşov. In Proceedings of the Virtual Reality International Conference-Laval Virtual, Laval, France, 22–24 March 2017; Volume 2017, pp. 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1145/3110292.3110311.
  40. Patti, I. Standard Cataloguing of Augmented Objects for a Design Museum. IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2020, 1, 012054. http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/949/1/012054.
  41. Rizvić, S.; Bošković, D.; Okanović, V.; Kihić, I.I.; Prazina, I.; Mijatović, B. Time Travel to the Past of Bosnia and Herzegovina through Virtual and Augmented Reality. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 3711. https://doi.org/10.3390/app11083711.
  42. Laudazi, A.; Boccaccini, R. Augmented museums through mobile apps. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Horizon 2020 and Creative Europe vs. Digital Heritage: A European Projects Crossover, Flash News Co-Located with the International Conference Museums and the We 2014, Florence, Italy, 18 February 2014; Volume 1336, pp. 12–17, ISSN 1613-0073.
  43. Balduini, M.; Celino, I.; Dell’Aglio, D.; Della Valle, E.; Huang, Y.; Lee, T.; Kim, S.-H.; Tresp, V. BOTTARI: An augmented reality mobile application to deliver personalized and location-based recommendations by continuous analysis of social media streams. J. Web Semant. 2012, 16, 33–41; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.websem.2012.06.004.
  44. Partarakis, N.; Zidianakis, E.; Antona, M.; Stephanidis, C. Art and Coffee in the Museum. In Distributed, Ambient, and Pervasive Interactions; Streitz, N., Markopoulos, P., Eds.; DAPI 2015. Lecture Notes in Computer Science; Springer, Cham, Switzerland, 2015; Volume 9189, pp. 370–381. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-20804-6_34.
  45. Teneketzis, A. Exploring the emerging digital scene in Art History and museum practice. Esboços Histórias Contextos Globais 2020, 27, 187–206. https://doi.org/10.5007/2175-7976.2020.e67954.
  46. Silva, M.; Teixeira, L. (2020, November). Developing an eXtended Reality platform for Immersive and Interactive Experiences for Cultural Heritage: Serralves Museum and Coa Archeologic Park. In Proceedings of the 2020 IEEE International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality Adjunct
    (ISMAR-Adjunct), Recife, Brazil, 9–13 November 2020; pp. 300–302. https://doi.org/10.1109/ISMAR-Adjunct51615.2020.00084.
  47. Kallergis, G.; Christoulakis, M.; Diakakis, A.; Ioannidis, M.; Paterakis, I.; Manoudaki, N.; Liapi, M.; Oungrinis, K.A. Open City Museum: Unveiling the Cultural Heritage of Athens Through an- Augmented Reality Based-Time Leap. In Proceedings of the Culture and Computing, 8th
    International Conference, C&C 2020, Held as Part of the 22nd HCI International Conference, HCII
    2020, Copenhagen, Denmark, 19–24 July 2020; pp. 156–171. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030- 50267-6_13.
  48. Kyriakou, P.; Hermon, S. Can I touch this? Using natural interaction in a museum augmented reality system. Digit. Appl. Archaeol. Cult. Herit. 2019, 12, e00088. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.DAACH.2018.E00088.
  49. Nisi, V.; Cesario, V.; Nunes, N. Augmented reality museum’s gaming for digital natives: Haunted encounters in the Carvalhal’s palace. In Entertainment Computing and Serious Games; Van der Spek, E., Göbel, S., Do, E.L., Clua, E., Baalsrud Hauge, J., Eds.; ICEC-JCSG 2019. Lecture Notes in Computer Science; Springer, Cham, Switzerland, 2019; Volume 11863; pp. 28–41. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-34644-7_3.
  50. Lee, J.; Lee, H.K.; Jeong, D.; Lee, J.; Kim, T.; Lee, J. Developing Museum Education Content: AR Blended Learning. Int. J. Art Des. Educ. 2021, 40, 473–491. https://doi.org/10.1111/jade.12352.
  51. May, P.M.; Schmidt, W.; Vlachopoulos, D. The Use of Augmented Reality (AR) In Museum Education: A Systematic Literature Review. In Proceedings of the 14th International Technology, Education and
    Development Conference, Valencia, Spain, 2–4 March 2020; pp. 3179–3186. https://dx.doi.org/10.21125/inted.2020.0917.
  52. Partarakis, N.; Antona, M.; Zidianakis, E.; Stephanidis, C. Adaptation and Content Personalization in the Context of Multi User Museum Exhibits. In Proceedings of the 1st Workshop on Advanced
    Visual Interfaces for Cultural Heritage (AVI*CH 2016), Bari, Italy, 7–10 June 2016; pp. 5–10. 5
  53. Hoang, T.N.; Cox, T.N. Alternating reality: An interweaving narrative of physical and virtual cultural exhibitions. Presence 2018, 26, 402–419.
  54. Teneketzis, A. Exploring the emerging digital scene in Art History and museum practice. Esboços Histórias Contextos Globais 2020, 27, 187–206. https://doi.org/10.5007/2175-7976.2020.e67954.
  55. Baker, E.; Bakar, J.A.; Zulkifli, A. A Conceptual Model of Mobile Augmented Reality for Hearingreality elements on a museum visit. Curr. Issues Tour. 2020, 23, 1990–2008. https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2019.1703914.
  57. 59. Münzer, M.G. How can augmented reality improve the user experience of digital products and
  58. engagement with cultural heritage outside the museum space? IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2020, 949, 012040. http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/949/1/012040. 60. Basaraba, N.; Conlan, O.; Edmond, J.; Arnds, P. Digital narrative conventions in heritage trail mobile
  59. apps. New Rev. Hypermedia Multimed. 2019, 25, 1–30.
  61. Münzer, M.G. How can augmented reality improve the user experience of digital products and engagement with cultural heritage outside the museum space? IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2020, 949, 012040. http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/949/1/012040.
  62. Tom Dieck, M.C.; Jung, T.H. Value of augmented reality at cultural heritage sites: A stakeholder approach. J. Destin. Mark. Manag. 2017, 6, 110–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdmm.2017.03.002.
  63. Han, D.-I.D.; Tom Dieck, M.C.; Jung, T. Augmented Reality Smart Glasses (ARSG) visitor adoption in cultural tourism. Leis. Stud. 2019, 38, 618–633. https://doi.org/10.1080/02614367.2019.1604790.
  64. Litvak, E.; Kuflik, T. Enhancing cultural heritage outdoor experience with augmented-reality smart glasses. Pers. Ubiquitous Comput. 2020, 24, 873–886. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00779-020-01366-7.
  65. Mason, M. The MIT museum glassware prototype: Visitor experience exploration for designing smart glasses. J. Comput. Cult. Herit. (JOCCH) 2016, 9, 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1145/2872278.
  66. Duguleana, M.; Brodi, R.; Girbacia, F.; Postelnicu, C.; Machidon, O.; Carrozzino, M. Time-travelling with mobile augmented reality: A case study on the piazza dei miracoli. In Proceedings of the Digital Heritage: Progress in Cultural Heritage: Documentation, Preservation, and Protection: 6th International Conference, EuroMed 2016, Nicosia, Cyprus, 31 October–5 November 2016; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2016; pp. 902–912. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-48496-9_73.
  67. Damala, A.; Ruthven, I.; Hornecker, E. The MUSETECH model: A comprehensive evaluation framework for museum technology. J. Comput. Cult. Herit. (JOCCH) 2019, 12, 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1145/3297717.
  68. Zou, N.; Gong, Q.; Zhou, J.; Chen, P.; Kong, W.; Chai, C. Value-based model of user interaction design for virtual museum. CCF Trans. Pervasive Comput. Interact. 2021, 3, 112–128. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42486-021-00061-7.
  69. Bozzelli, G.; Raia, A.; Ricciardi, S.; De Nino, M.; Barile, N.; Perrella, M.; Tramontano, M.; Pagano, P.; Palombini, A. An integrated VR/AR framework for user-centric interactive experience of cultural
    heritage: The ArkaeVision project. Digit. Appl. Archaeol. Cult. Herit. 2019, 15, e00124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.daach.2019.e00124.
  70. Trunfio, M.; Campana, S. A visitors’ experience model for mixed reality in the museum. Curr. Issues Tour. 2020, 23, 1053–1058. https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2019.1586847.
  71. Han, D.-I.; tom Dieck, M.C.; Jung, T. User experience model for augmented reality applications in urban heritage tourism. J. Herit. Tour. 2018, 13, 46–61. https://doi.org/10.1080/1743873X.2016.1251931.
  72. Pedersen, I.; Gale, N.; Mirza-Babei, P.; Reid, S. More than meets the eye: The benefits of augmented reality and holographic displays for digital cultural heritage. J. Comput. Cult. Herit. (JOCCH) 2017, 10, 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1145/3051480.
  73. Koo, S.; Kim, J.; Kim, C.; Cha, H.S. Development of an augmented reality tour guide for a cultural heritage site. J. Comput. Cult. Herit. (JOCCH) 2019, 12, 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1145/3317552.
  74. Damala, A.; Hornecker, E.; Van der Vaart, M.; van Dijk, D.; Ruthven, I. The Loupe: Tangible augmented reality for learning to look at Ancient Greek Art. Mediterr. Archaeol. Archaeom. 2016, 16, 73–85. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.204970.
  75. Besbes, B.; Collette, S.N.; Tamaazousti, M.; Bourgeois, S.; Gay-Bellile, V. An interactive augmented reality system: A prototype for industrial maintenance training applications. In Proceedings of the 2012 IEEE International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality (ISMAR), Bari, Italy, 5–8
    November 2012; pp. 269–270. https://doi.org/10.1109/ISMAR.2012.6402568.
  76. Liu, E.; Liu, C.; Yang, Y.; Guo, S.; Cai, S. Design and Implementation of an Augmented Reality Application with an English Learning Lesson. In Proceedings of the 2018 IEEE International Conference on Teaching, Assessment, and Learning for Engineering (TALE), Wollongong, Australia, 4–7 December 2018; pp. 494–499.
  77. Joo-Nagata, J.; Abad, F.M.; Giner, J.G.B.; García-Peñalvo, F.J. Augmented reality and pedestrian navigation through its implementation in m-learning and e-learning: Evaluation of an educational program in Chile. Comput. Educ. 2017, 111, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.04.003.
  78. Angelopoulou, A.; Economou, D.; Bouki, V.; Psarrou, A.; Jin, L.; Pritchard, C.; Kolyda, F. Mobile augmented reality for cultural heritage. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Mobile Wireless Middleware, Operating Systems, and Applications, London, UK, 22–24, June 2011; Springer:
    Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2011; pp. 15–22. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-30607-5_2.
  79. Etxeberria, A.I.; Asensio, M.; Vicent, N.; Cuenca, J.M. Mobile devices: A tool for tourism and learning at archaeological sites. Int. J. Web Based Communities 2012, 8, 57–72. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJWBC.2012.044682.
  80. Mortara, M.; Catalano, C.E.; Bellotti, F.; Fiucci, G.; Houry-Panchetti, M.; Petridis, P. Learning cultural heritage by serious games. J. Cult. Herit. 2014, 15, 318–325. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.culher.2013.04.004.
  81. Christopoulos, D.; Mavridis, P.; Andreadis, A.; Karigiannis, J.N. Using virtual environments to tell the story: The battle of Thermopylae. In Proceedings of the 2011 Third International Conference on Games and Virtual Worlds for Serious Applications, Athens, Greece, 4–6 May 2011; pp. 84–91. https://doi.org/10.1109/VS-GAMES.2011.18.
  82. Tom Dieck, M.C.; Jung, T.H.; Tom Dieck, D. Enhancing art gallery visitors’ learning experience using wearable augmented reality: Generic learning outcomes perspective. Curr. Issues Tour. 2018, 21, 2014-2034. https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2016.1224818.
  83. Novotný, M.; Lacko, J.; Samuelčík, M. Applications of multi-touch augmented reality system in education and presentation of virtual heritage. Procedia Comput. Sci. 2013, 25, 231–235. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2013.11.028.
  84. Tzima, S.; Styliaras, G.; Bassounas, A. Augmented reality applications in education: Teachers point of view. Educ. Sci. 2019, 9, 99. https://doi.org/10.3390/EDUCSCI9020099.
  85. Camurri, A.; Volpe, G. The intersection of art and technology. IEEE MultiMedia 2016, 23, 10–17. https://doi.org/10.1109/MMUL.2016.13.
  86. Bekele, M.K.; Champion, E. A Comparison of Immersive Realities and Interaction Methods: Cultural Learning in Virtual Heritage. Front. Robot. AI 2019, 6, 91. https://doi.org/10.3389/frobt.2019.00091.
  87. Rome Reborn. Available online: https://www.romereborn.org/ (accessed on 21 June 2022).
  88. Frischer, B.; Abernathy, D.; Giuliani, F.C.; Scott, R.T.; Ziemssen, H. A New Digital Model of the Roman Forum. J. Rom. Archaeol. 2006, 163–182. Portsmouth, Rhode Island. Supplementary Series Number 61. ISSN 1963-4304. Available online: https://www.academia.edu/36574837/Frischer_et_al_Roman_Forum_2006_pdf (accessed on 22 June 2022)
  89. Gaitatzes, A.; Christopoulos, D.; Voulgari, A.; Roussou, M. Hellenic Cultural Heritage through Immersive Virtual Archaeology. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Virtual Systems and Multimedia (VSMM’00), Ogaki, Japan, 3–6 October 2000; pp. 57–64.
  90. Vlahakis, V.; Ioannidis, M.; Karigiannis, J.; Tsotros, M.; Gounaris, M.; Stricker, D.; Gleue, T.; Daehne, P.; Almeida, L. Archeoguide: An augmented reality guide for archaeolog sites. IEEE Comput. Graph. Appl. 2002, 22, 52–60. https://doi.org/10.1109/MCG.2002.1028726.
  91. Marasco, A.; Buonincontri, P.; van Niekerk, M.; Orlowski, M.; Okumus, F. Exploring the role of next- generation virtual technologies in destination marketing. J. Destin. Mark. Manag. 2018, 9, 138–148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdmm.2017.12.002.
  92. Tom Dieck, M.C.; Jung, T.H. Value of augmented reality at cultural heritage sites: A stakeholder approach. J. Destin. Mark. Manag. 2017, 6, 110–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdmm.2017.03.002.
  93. Etxeberria, A.I.; Asensio, M.; Vicent, N.; Cuenca, J.M. Mobile devices: A tool for tourism and learning at archaeological sites. Int. J. Web Based Communities 2012, 8, 57–72. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJWBC.2012.044682.
  94. Cruz-Neira, C.; Sandin, D.J.; DeFanti, T.A.; Kenyon, R.V.; Hart, J.C. The CAVE: Audio visual experience automatic virtual environment. Commun. ACM 1992, 35, 64–72. https://doi.org/10.1145/129888.129892.
  95. Marasco, A.; Buonincontri, P.; van Niekerk, M.; Orlowski, M.; Okumus, F. Exploring the role of next- generation virtual technologies in destination marketing. J. Destin. Mark. Manag. 2018, 9, 138–148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdmm.2017.12.002.
  96. Czernuszenko, M.; Pape, D.; Sandin, D.; DeFanti, T.; Dawe, G.L.; Brown, M.D. The ImmersaDesk and Infinity Wall projection based virtual reality displays. SIGGRAPH Comput. Graph. 1997, 31, 46–49. https://doi.org/10.1145/271283.271303.
  97. Mason, M. The MIT museum glassware prototype: Visitor experience exploration for designing smart glasses. J. Comput. Cult. Herit. (JOCCH) 2016, 9, 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1145/2872278.
  98. Jung, T.H.; Lee, H.; Chung, N.; Tom Dieck, M.C. Cross-cultural differences in adopting mobile augmented reality at cultural heritage tourism sites. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 2018, 30, 1621– 1645. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-02-2017-0084.
  99. Jung, K.; Nguyen, V.T.; Piscarac, D.; Yoo, S.C. Meet the virtual jeju dol harubang—The mixed VR/Ar application for cultural immersion in Korea’s main heritage. ISPRS Int. J. Geo-Inf. 2020, 9, 367. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijgi9060367.
  100. Garau, C. From Territory to Smartphone: Smart Fruition of Cultural Heritage for Dynamic Tourism Development. Plan. Pract. Res. 2014, 29, 238–255. https://doi.org/10.1080/02697459.2014.929837
  101. Garau, C.; Ilardi, E. The “Non-Places” Meet the “Places”: Virtual Tours on Smartphones for the Enhancement of Cultural Heritage. J. Urban Technol. 2014, 21, 79–91. https://doi.org/10.1080/10630732.2014.884384.
  102. Trunfio, M.; Campana, S.; Magnelli, A. Measuring the impact of functional and experiential mixed reality elements on a museum visit. Curr. Issues Tour. 2020, 23, 1990–2008. https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2019.1703914.
  103. Tom Dieck, M.C.; Jung, T.H.; Tom Dieck, D. Enhancing art gallery visitors’ learning experience using wearable augmented reality: Generic learning outcomes perspective. Curr. Issues Tour. 2018, 21, 2014–2034. https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2016.1224818.
  104. Han, D.-I.D.; Tom Dieck, M.C.; Jung, T. Augmented Reality Smart Glasses (ARSG) visitor adoption in cultural tourism. Leis. Stud. 2019, 38, 618–633. https://doi.org/10.1080/02614367.2019.1604790.
  105. Deterding, S.; Dixon, D.; Khaled, R.; Nacke, L. From game design elements to gamefulness: Defining gamification. In Proceedings of the MindTrek ’11: Proceedings of the 15th International Academic MindTrek Conference: Envisioning Future Media Environments, Tampere, Finland, 28–30, September 2011; pp. 9–15. https://doi.org/10.1145/2181037.2181040.
  106. Growthengineering. The Ultimate Definition of Gamification (with 6 Real World Examples). Available online: https://www.growthengineering.co.uk/definition-of-gamification/ (accessed on 22 June 2022).
  107. Xu, F.; Buhalis, D.; Weber, J. Serious games and the gamification of tourism. Tour. Manag. 2017, 60, 244–256. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2016.11.020.
  108. Ibañez-Etxeberria, A.; Gómez-Carrasco, C.J.; Fontal, O.; García-Ceballos, S. Virtual environments and augmented reality applied to heritage education. An evaluative study. Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 2352. https://doi.org/10.3390/app10072352.
  109. Ferdani, D.; Fanini, B.; Piccioli, M.C.; Carboni, F.; Vigliarolo, P. 3D reconstruction and validation of historical background for immersive VR applications and games: The case study of the Forum of Augustus in Rome. J. Cult. Herit. 2020, 43, 129–143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.culher.2019.12.004.
  110. Liarokapis, F.; Petridis, P.; Andrews, D.; De Freitas, S. Multimodal serious games technologies for cultural heritage. In Mixed Reality and Gamification for Cultural Heritage; Ioannides, M., Magnenat- Thalmann, N., Papagiannakis, G., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2017; pp. 371–392. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-49607-8_15.
  111. Butnariu, S.; Duguleana, M.; Brondi, R.; Florin, G.; Postelnicu, C.; Carrozzino, M. An interactive haptic system for experiencing traditional archery. Acta Polytech. Hung. 2018, 15, 185. https://doi.org/10.12700/aph.15.5.2018.5.11.
  112. Ceccacci, S.; Generosi, A.; Leopardi, A.; Mengoni, M.; Mandorli, A.F. The role of haptic feedback and gamification in virtual museum systems. ACM J. Comput. Cult. Herit. 2021, 14, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1145/3453074.
  113. Augello, A.; Infantino, I.; Pilato, G.; Vitale, G. Site experience enhancement and perspective in cultural heritage fruition—A survey on new technologies and methodologies based on a “four- pillars” approach. Future Internet 2021, 13, 92. https://doi.org/10.3390/fi13040092.
  114. Hammady, R.; Ma, M.; Temple, N. Augmented Reality and Gamification in Heritage Museums; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2016; Volume 9894, pp. 181–187.
  115. Paliokas, I.; Patenidis, A.T.; Mitsopoulou, E.E.; Tsita, C.; Pehlivanides, G.; Karyati, E.; Tsafaras, S.; Stathopoulos, E.A.; Kokkalas, A.; Diplaris, S.; et al. A Gamified Augmented Reality Application for Digital Heritage and Tourism. Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 7868.
  116. Slavec, A.; Sajincic, N.; Starman, V. Use of smartphone cameras and other applications while traveling to sustain outdoor cultural heritage. Sustainability 2021, 13, 7312. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13137312.
  117. Tzima, S.; Styliaras, G.; Bassounas, A. Revealing hidden local cultural heritage through a serious escape game in outdoor settings. Information 2021, 12, 10. https://doi.org/10.3390/info12010010.
  118. Bujari, A.; Ciman, M.; Gaggi, O. Using gamification to discover cultural heritage locations from geo- tagged photos. Pers. Ubiquitous Comput. 2017, 21, 235–252. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00779-016- 0989-6.
  119. Vlizos, S.; Sharamyeva, J.-A.; Kotsopoulos, K. Interdisciplinary Design of an Educational Applications Development Platform in a 3D Environment Focused on Cultural Heritage Tourism; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2021; pp. 79–96.
  120. Evangelidis, K.; Sylaiou, S.; Papadopoulos, T. Mergin’ Mode: Mixed Reality and Geoinformatics for Monument Demonstration. Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 3826. https://doi.org/10.3390/app10113826.
  121. Vert, S.; Andone, D.; Ternauciuc, A.; Mihaescu, V.; Rotaru, O.; Mocofan, M.; Orhei, C.; Vasiu, R. User evaluation of a multi-platform digital storytelling concept for cultural heritage. Mathematics 2021, 9, 2678. https://doi.org/10.3390/math9212678.
  122. Zhao, Z.J.; Ma, X.J. ShadowPlay2.5D: A 360-degree video authoring tool for immersive appreciation of classical Chinese poetry. ACM J. Comput. Cult. Herit. 2020, 13, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1145/3352590.
  123. Fenu, C.; Pittarello, F. Svevo tour: The design and the experimentation of an augmented reality application for engaging visitors of a literary museum. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. 2018, 114, 20–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2018.01.009.
  124. .Jofresa, R.S.; Xirau, M.T.; Ereddam, H.E.B.; Vicente, O. Gamification and Cultural Heritage; UAB Research Park: Barcelona, Spain, 2019.
  125. Tisserand, Y.; Magnenat-Thalmann, N.; Unzueta, L.; Linaza, M.T.; Ahmadi, A.; O’connor, N.E.; Zioulis, N.; Zarpalas, D.; Daras, P. Preservation and Gamification for Cultural Heritage; Ioannides, M., Magnenat-Thalmann, N., Papagiannakis, G., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2017; pp. 421–446. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-49607-8_17. 1
  126. Hauser, H.; Beisswenger, C.; Partarakis, N.; Zabulis, X.; Adami, I.; Zidianakis, E.; Patakos, A.; Patsiouras, N.; Karuzaki, E.; Foukarakis, M.; et al. Multimodal narratives for the presentation of silk heritage in the museum. Heritage 2022, 5, 461–487. https://doi.org/10.3390/heritage5010027.
  127. UNESCO. Intangible Cultural Heritage. Available online: https://ich.unesco.org/en/what-is-intangible-heritage-00003 (accessed on 22 June 2022).
  128. Lu, W.; Wang, M.; Chen, H. Research on Intangible Cultural Heritage Protection Based on
  129. Augmented Reality Technology. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 2020, 1574, 012026. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1574/1/012026. 129. Yang, T.; Zhao, R. Research on Combination of Intangible Cultural Heritage and Augmented Reality. In Proceeding of the 2nd International Conference on Contemporary Education, Social Sciences ans Humanities, Moscow, Russia, 14–15 June 2017; Book Series: Advances in Social Science Education and Humanities Research, Tretyakova; Atlantis Press: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2017; Volume124, pp. 536–538. https://dx.doi.org/10.2991/iccessh-17.2017.131.
  130. Khan, M. MUSE: Understanding traditional dances. In Proceedings of the 2014 IEEE Virtual Reality (VR), Minneapolis, MN, USA, 29 March–2 April 2014; pp. 173–174. https://doi.org/10.1109/VR.2014.6802107.
  131. Ziagkas, E.; Stylianidis, P.; Loukovitis, A.; Zilidou, V.; Lilou, O.; Mavropoulou, A.; Douka, S. Greek traditional dances 3d motion capturing and a proposed method for identification through rhythm pattern analyses (terpsichore project). In Strategic Innovative Marketing and Tourism: Springer Proceedings in Business and Economics; Kavoura, A., Kefallonitis, E., Theodoridis, P., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2020; pp. 657–665. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-36126-6_73.
  132. Zhao, Z. Digital protection method of intangible cultural heritage based on augmented reality technology. In Proceedings of the 2017 International Conference on Robots & Intelligent System (ICRIS), Huai An, China, 15–16 October 2017; pp. 135–138. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICRIS.2017.41.
  133. Wen, Y.; Chen, J. Intangible cultural heritage display using augmented reality technology of Xtion PRO interaction. Int. J. Simul.: Syst. Sci. Technol. 2016, 17, 29.1–29.4. https://doi.org/10.5013/IJSSST.a.17.40.29.
  134. Xie, X.; Tang, X. The application of augmented reality technology in digital display for intangible cultural heritage: The case of cantonese furniture. In Human-Computer Interaction. Interaction in Context; Kurosu, M., Ed.; HCI 2018. Lecture Notes in Computer Science; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2018; Volume 10902, pp. 334–343. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-91244-8_27.
  135. Laštovička-Medin, G. The Materiality of Interaction & Intangible Heritage: Interaction Design. In Proceedings of the 2019 8th Mediterranean Conference on Embedded Computing (MECO), Budva, Montenero, 2019; pp. 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1109/MECO.2019.8760092.
  136. Huang, W.; Xiang, H.; Li, S. The application of augmented reality and unity 3D in interaction with intangible cultural heritage. Evol. Intell. 2019, 12, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12065-019-00314- 6.
  137. Viinikkala, L.; Yli-Seppälä, L.; Heimo, O.I.; Helle, S.; Härkänen, L.; Jokela, S.; Lehtonen, T. Reforming the representation of the reformation: Mixed reality narratives in communicating tangible and intangible heritage of the protestant reformation in Finland. In Proceedings of the 2016 22nd International Conference on Virtual System & Multimedia (VSMM), Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 17–21 October 2016; pp. 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1109/VSMM.2016.7863203.
  138. Vlahakis, V.; Karigiannis, J.; Tsotros, M.; Gounaris, M.; Stricker, D.; Gleue, T.; Daehne, P.; Almeida, L. ARCHEOGUIDE: An augmented reality guide for archaeological sites. In Proceedings of the 2002 1st International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality (ISMAR 2002), Darmstadt, Germany, 30 September–1 October 2002; pp. 273–274. https://doi.org/10.1109/ISMAR.2002.1115096.
  139. Christou, C.; Tzanavari, A.; Pouliasi, V.; Herakleous, K.; Papadopoulos, G.A. An architecture for mobile outdoors augmented reality for cultural heritage. In Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Mobile and Ubiquitous Systems: Computing, Networking and Services (MOBIQUITOUS 2018), New York, NY, USA, 5–7 November 2018; pp. 153–158. https://doi.org/10.1145/3286978.3286984.
  140. Andrews, D.; Brown, B.; Cherrett, T.; Turtle, S.; Winstanley, G.; Weatherill, A. Augmented reality – Challenges for cultural heritage. In Proceedings of the 2013 Digital Heritage International Congress (DigitalHeritage 2013), Marseille, France, 28 October–1 November 2013; Volume 1, pp. 113–120. https://doi.org/10.1109/DigitalHeritage.2013.6743703.
  141. Economou, M.; Meintani, E.; Tsiviltidou, Z.; Ioannidis, G.S. How can augmented reality improve the user experience of digital products and engagement with cultural heritage outside the museum space. In Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Theory and Practice of Digital