doi: 10.56294/mr2024.110

REVIEW

Virtual reality and virtual worlds: a favorable setting for the preservation of cultural heritage

Realidad virtual y mundos virtuales: un escenario propicio para la preservación de la herencia cultural

Guillermo Alfredo Jiménez Pérez¹ *, Alfredo Javier Pérez Gamboa² *, Carlos Alberto Gómez Cano³ *

¹Universidad de Matanzas. Matanzas, Cuba.

²Universidad de Ciego de Ávila, Ciego de Ávila, Cuba.

³Corporación Unificada Nacional de Educación Superior - CUN. Florencia, Caquetá, Colombia.

Cite as: Jiménez Pérez GA, Pérez Gamboa AJ, Gómez Cano CA. Virtual reality and virtual worlds: a favorable setting for the preservation of cultural heritage. Metaverse Basic and Applied Research. 2024; 3:.110. https://doi.org/10.56294/mr2024.110

Submitted: 24-01-2024          Revised: 05-06-2024          Accepted: 22-09-2024          Published: 23-09-2024

Editor: Yailen Martínez Jiménez

Corresponding author: Carlos Alberto Gómez Cano *

ABSTRACT

This article analyzes the literature regarding virtual reality (VR) and virtual worlds in cultural heritage preservation during the period 2018–2022. Through a hermeneutic review of specialized literature, key trends were identified that reveal how these technologies have evolved from visualization tools to active participation platforms. The findings reveal significant advances in the reconstruction of at-risk heritage, the documentation of intangible cultural expressions, and the creation of immersive educational experiences. However, tensions persist between technological innovation and accessibility, as well as ethical challenges surrounding the authentic representation of cultural contexts. The study highlights the need for collaborative frameworks that involve local communities in virtualization processes, ensuring that these initiatives not only preserve but also strengthen the emotional and identity-based connection with heritage. It concludes that while VR offers promising solutions, its implementation requires rigorous protocols that balance technical accuracy, social inclusion, and long-term sustainability.

Keywords: Virtual Reality; Cultural Heritage; Digital Preservation; Community Engagement; Technology Ethics.

RESUMEN

El artículo analiza la literatura sobre la realidad virtual (RV) y los mundos virtuales en la preservación del patrimonio cultural durante el periodo 2018-2022. A través de una revisión hermenéutica de literatura especializada, se identificaron tendencias clave que indican cómo estas tecnologías han evolucionado desde herramientas de visualización hacia plataformas de participación activa. Los hallazgos revelan avances significativos en la reconstrucción de patrimonios en riesgo, la documentación de expresiones culturales intangibles y la creación de experiencias educativas inmersivas. Sin embargo, persisten tensiones entre la innovación tecnológica y la accesibilidad, así como desafíos éticos en torno a la representación auténtica de contextos culturales. El estudio destaca la necesidad de marcos colaborativos que involucren a las comunidades locales en los procesos de virtualización, asegurando que estas iniciativas no solo preserven, sino que también fortalezcan la conexión emocional e identitaria con el patrimonio. Se concluye que, si bien la RV ofrece soluciones prometedoras, su implementación requiere protocolos rigurosos que equilibren precisión técnica, inclusión social y sostenibilidad a largo plazo.

Palabras clave: Realidad Virtual; Patrimonio Cultural; Preservación Digital; Participación Comunitaria; Ética Tecnológica.

INTRODUCTION

The preservation of cultural heritage faces unprecedented challenges in the 21st century.⁽¹⁾ Due to armed conflicts, natural disasters, accelerated urbanization processes, and the effects of climate change, numerous tangible and intangible cultural assets are at risk of disappearing.^(2,3,4) This context has prompted the search for innovative solutions that transcend traditional conservation methods.

In this sense, the technological advances of recent decades have opened up new possibilities for documenting, studying, and disseminating endangered heritage.^(5,6) In particular, the development of immersive technologies such as virtual reality (VR) and virtual worlds has demonstrated their potential for digitally preserving cultural elements and reinventing their ways of interacting.^(7,8) Among their main advantages and contributions is that these tools allow us to overcome physical and geographical limitations to offer interactive experiences adapted to diverse educational and social contexts.

However, applying these technologies in the heritage field has its complexities. Among the most visible and pressing are the tensions between historical fidelity and pedagogical needs, between technological innovation and accessibility, as well as between digital preservation and the cultural rights of indigenous communities.⁽⁹⁾ On the other hand, the rapid development of these tools has often exceeded the capacity of cultural and academic institutions to evaluate their medium- and long-term impacts critically.⁽¹⁰⁾

This article arises from the need to analyze how virtual reality and virtual worlds can reconfigure cultural preservation practices. Based on a hermeneutic review of the specialized literature, the study seeks to understand the conceptual and methodological transformations that have emerged in this field and the ethical and technical challenges they pose. The research is justified by the urgency of establishing critical frameworks to guide the responsible use of these technologies and ensure that their implementation genuinely contributes to safeguarding heritage without compromising its integrity or excluding the communities involved.

The period 2018-2022 was selected as it corresponds to a technological and conceptual maturation phase in the field, marked by the convergence of technical advances, critical reflections, and experiences applied in diverse cultural contexts.⁽¹¹⁾ This study aims to provide a solid conceptual basis for future research and practical applications in this constantly evolving field.

METHOD

Between 2018 and 2022, a hermeneutic approach was adopted to critically analyze the academic and technical literature on virtual reality and cultural heritage preservation. This methodology allowed us to interpret the sources’ discourses, tensions, and consensuses beyond a descriptive synthesis.

Firstly, the documentary corpus was delimited based on clear selection criteria: We worked exclusively with articles indexed in Scopus in the identified time range and whose thematic relevance was clear. Priority was given to documents that addressed both the technical potential and the social, educational, or ethical dimensions of the application of these technologies. In addition, for triangulation purposes, author 2 reviewed reports from international organizations (UNESCO, Europeana) and emblematic case studies published in the defined period.

Subsequently, an in-depth reading of the sources was carried out to identify emerging categories. These emerged inductively from recurring patterns, such as “immersive reconstruction,” “community participation,” or “digital ethics.” The process was not limited to extracting data but sought to understand the historical and theoretical context behind each trend.

The analysis was enriched by cross-sectional methodological triangulation. To this end, perspectives from different disciplines (both recognized by Scopus and others) were contrasted, focusing on sources from digital anthropology, computer science, and museology. This approach made it easier to avoid interpretive biases and allowed for examining the contradictions between techno-utopian discourses and preservationist critiques, which added depth to the study.

Finally, the findings were organized into a coherent narrative highlighting opportunities and challenges. Hermeneutics made it easier to connect technical trends with their socio-cultural impact, avoiding reductionism and contributing to the contextualization of the analysis.

RESULTS

Trends in virtual reality and virtual worlds for the preservation of cultural heritage

The analysis revealed that in recent years, virtual reality (VR) and virtual worlds have begun to establish themselves as key tools for safeguarding cultural heritage.^(12,13) The initiatives consulted suggest that these technologies are not exclusively instruments for recreating historical spaces, given that they also encourage the active participation of communities, with particular benefits for the new generations. For example, virtual travel projects allow exploring historical periods in their splendor through immersive reconstructions based on archaeological evidence.⁽¹⁴⁾ These experiences, in addition to attracting digital tourists, constituted a vital integration project for teaching history in specialized university classrooms.

Another relevant trend was the use of VR to document heritage at risk.⁽¹⁵⁾ Between 2019 and 2021, international organizations promoted 3D scans of sites threatened by conflict or climate change, such as Palmyra in Syria or monuments in Nepal.^(16,17) By their purpose, these digital archives now serve as publicly accessible backups and educational material. In addition, some metaverse platforms host collaborative exhibitions where users interact with cultural artifacts from anywhere in the world.

The democratization of technology also marked a milestone. Tools such as Unreal Engine or Blender made it easy for small teams — even indigenous communities — to create their own immersive experiences without great expense.⁽¹⁸⁾ In Mexico, the Pueblos Mágicos Virtuales (Virtual Magical Towns) project (2020) allowed locals to design tours of their heritage, combining oral narratives with 3D models.⁽¹⁹⁾ This approach represents an effort to preserve traditions and generate new sources of income through virtual tourism.^(20,21,22)

Likewise, a significant advance was the incorporation of artificial intelligence to personalize visits. Case studies showed that museums such as the Louvre and the British Museum tested VR systems that adapted explanations according to the visitor’s interests, using data from previous interactions.⁽²³⁾ These experiences, although still in the experimental phase, showed the potential to make heritage more inclusive, especially for people with disabilities.

Finally, ethical debates arose about authenticity and access. While some activists and academics argue that digital recreations distort the essence of historical sites, new studies highlight their role in preserving contexts that have already disappeared. For example, platforms such as Europeana worked on standards to guarantee academic accuracy in these projects, ensuring that technology was complemented, not replaced, by traditional conservation efforts. These advances reflect a paradigm shift: technology is no longer a luxury but an ally in enabling heritage to transcend borders and generations. In summary, the five key trends were:

1. Immersive reconstructions for educational and tourism purposes (Virtual Angkor).

2. Digitization of heritage at risk through 3D scanning (CyArk/UNESCO).

3. Empowerment of local communities to create their own experiences (e.g. Pueblos Mágicos Virtuales).

4. Personalization of visits with AI in museums (Louvre, British Museum).

5. Development of ethical frameworks to balance innovation and authenticity (Europeana).

Results of the auxiliary search

To triangulate the findings made in Scopus, an auxiliary search focused on the application of virtual reality and virtual worlds for the preservation of cultural heritage. This process prioritized academic documents in Spanish and Portuguese, emphasizing empirical research and theoretical reviews.

Firstly, studies were identified that analyzed the use of immersive environments to reconstruct deteriorated or disappeared cultural assets.^{(24,25,26,27)} In this sense, the research addressed how these technologies can facilitate access to heritage that is difficult to visit physically while serving as educational tools in formal and informal contexts.^(28,29)

Secondly, we found works that explore the relationship between virtual worlds and collective memory. Some of the literature examined cases where local communities actively participated in creating digital representations of their cultural heritage, which generated processes of social appropriation of the technology.^(30,31)

Thirdly, articles addressed the technical and ethical challenges of preserving heritage through virtual reality.^(32,33) There is an agreement with an important line of publications that questions the risk of simplifying complex historical contexts in digital reconstructions. However, the potential for documenting intangible traditions in danger of disappearing is also recognized.^(34,35,36) This debate is fundamental because, although the participation of experts in heritage and culture can facilitate the rigor of the designs, initiatives aimed at monetization can also distort the result.

The search revealed that, although significant progress has been made in Latin America, there are still gaps in the documentation of experiences outside the museum environment. In this regard, studies on specific applications dominated compared to less theoretical work that critically analyzes the long-term impacts of these technologies on heritage conservation.

Key findings:

1. Emphasis on vulnerable heritage (architectural and intangible)

2. Duality between technological innovation and accessibility

3. Emergence of collaborative models with native communities

4. Lack of standardized evaluative frameworks

5. Tension between historical fidelity and pedagogical adaptation

DISCUSSION

Virtual reality as a socio-technical phenomenon in cultural preservation

The review allowed us to identify a significant conceptual shift in the five years analyzed. Immersive technologies were no longer perceived as mere visualization tools but became spaces for cultural negotiation.⁽³⁷⁾ This paradigm shift manifested itself in three interrelated dimensions.

In the technical sphere, the virtualization of heritage evolved from unidirectional models - where institutions “translated” the physical into the digital - towards collaborative schemes.⁽³⁸⁾ In the future of this field, it is crucial to develop projects that document the representation of indigenous rituals. However, it should also be considered that previous research indicates that this process may require ethical protocols as sophisticated as 3D reconstruction algorithms.⁽³⁹⁾ The paradox lies in that while tools are democratized (with low-cost software), new forms of digital exclusion may arise, particularly in rural communities.

In another direction, the tension between authenticity and adaptability marked the academic debate during the period.⁽⁴⁰⁾ On the one hand, scholars questioned the loss of aura in digital reproductions. On the other hand, educators emphasized how these versions facilitated emotional connections with digital native generations.^(41,42) The cases analyzed illustrated how VR not only replicates physical structures but also reconstructs lost historical layers, which creates a stratigraphic experience impossible in the material world.^(34,43)

From a social perspective, an unexpected conflict emerged: the gap between the speed of technological innovation and cultural timescales.⁽⁴⁴⁾ While developers worked with obsolescence cycles of 18-24 months, traditional communities required extensive deliberative processes to authorize the digitization of their living heritages.^(45,46) This asynchrony generated fractures in several projects analyzed, where the technically possible collided with the culturally acceptable.

The analysis revealed that the most successful models adopted a glocal approach, combining international digital preservation standards with local adaptations. However, a structural limitation persisted: most impact assessments measured immediate results (number of users, graphic resolutions) but lacked long-term metrics on cultural appropriation or attitudinal changes.

At a regional level, Ibero-American studies showed a particularity: VR was frequently used as a tool for symbolic reparation, especially in cases of heritage damaged by social conflicts or natural disasters.⁽¹⁵⁾ This therapeutic function, little explored in the Anglo-Saxon literature, opened up innovative lines of research into the links between immersive technology, collective memory, and epistemic justice.

Finally, it was found that the emergence of the metaverse in the heritage field introduced new layers of complexity to the debate on digital preservation.⁽⁴⁷⁾ Unlike isolated virtual reality experiences, metaverse-based environments raised the possibility of creating persistent cultural ecosystems where heritage is preserved, collectively inhabited, and transformed.⁽⁴⁸⁾ This qualitative leap reconfigured three fundamental dimensions of the field of study.

The first was the temporality of cultural experiences. While traditional VR projects tended to recreate static historical moments, platforms such as Decentraland demonstrated how heritage could evolve through layers of contemporary reinterpretation.⁽⁴⁹⁾ This dynamism generated fruitful tensions between conservation and creation, where authenticity ceased to be a fixed attribute and became a negotiated process.

In the sociocultural sphere, the metaverse amplified both opportunities and risks. On the one hand, it facilitated the convergence of geographically dispersed communities around shared heritages; on the other, it reproduced the asymmetries of the physical world in terms of technological access and cultural representation.^(50,51) Cases such as the digitization of sacred Indigenous sites revealed how persistence in virtual environments required new digital governance frameworks that respected traditional knowledge protocols.

Technologically, the open architecture of the metaverse allowed experimentation with hybrid preservation models. Integrating blockchain to certify digital replicas, using NFTs to manage cultural rights, or combining generative AI with historical archives pointed to innovative ways to solve the eternal dilemma between institutional control and community appropriation.^(52,53)

However, the analysis showed that these potentialities came up against structural limitations. The gap between the promises of the corporate metaverse and current technical realities made it clear that many projects prioritized spectacle over cultural substance. In addition, the lack of interoperable standards threatened to fragment the digital heritage into incompatible technological silos.

This discussion suggests that the metaverse’s actual value for cultural preservation could lie not in its mimetic capacity but in its potential to generate new digital rituals that transcend the original/copy dichotomy. The most successful cases were those that understood the virtual environment not as a substitute but as a dialogic extension of physical heritage, thus creating a third category: living-digital heritage.

CONCLUSIONS

VR emerged as a multidisciplinary tool for cultural preservation, surpassing its initial function as a simple digital repository. The cases analyzed demonstrated its capacity to reactivate heritage at risk through stratigraphic reconstructions that integrate material and immaterial dimensions, although challenges persist in documenting complex socio-historical contexts.

The tension between technological innovation and cultural sustainability emerged as a critical axis. While immersive platforms enabled new forms of community participation, they also revealed asymmetries in access and appropriation, particularly in rural communities and Indigenous groups. This raised the need for dynamic ethical protocols that balance technical precision with cultural sensitivity.

The period studied marked a turning point in preservation models, moving from unidirectional institutional approaches towards glocal collaborative schemes. However, the review showed deficiencies in long-term evaluation systems, suggesting the urgency of developing metrics that transcend fundamental quantitative indicators to measure cognitive, emotional, and social impacts on recipient communities.

REFERENCES

1.  ASSMANN A. The future of cultural heritage and its challenges. En: Cultural Sustainability: Perspectives from the Humanities and Social Sciences. 1a ed. Routledge; 2018. p. 25–35. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351124300-3

2.  Khalaf RW. Cultural Heritage Reconstruction after Armed Conflict: Continuity, Change, and Sustainability. The Historic Environment: Policy & Practice. 2020;11(1):4–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/17567505.2019.1605709

3.  Higuera Carrillo EL. Aspectos clave en agroproyectos con enfoque comercial: Una aproximación desde las concepciones epistemológicas sobre el problema rural agrario en Colombia. Región Científica. 2022;1(1):20224. https://doi.org/10.58763/rc20224

4.  Otero J. Heritage Conservation Future: Where We Stand, Challenges Ahead, and a Paradigm Shift. Global Challenges. 2022;6(1):2100084. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/gch2.202100084

5.  Parrinello S, Dell’Amico A. Experience of Documentation for the Accessibility of Widespread Cultural Heritage. Heritage. 2019;2(1):1032–44. https://doi.org/10.3390/heritage2010067

6.  Trillo C, Aburamadan R, Mubaideen S, Salameen D, Makore BCN. Towards a Systematic Approach to Digital Technologies for Heritage Conservation. Insights from Jordan. Preservation, Digital Technology & Culture. 2020;49(4):121–38. https://doi.org/10.1515/pdtc-2020-0023

7.  Selmanović E, Rizvic S, Harvey C, Boskovic D, Hulusic V, Chahin M, et al. Improving Accessibility to Intangible Cultural Heritage Preservation Using Virtual Reality. Journal on Computing and Cultural Heritage. 2020;13(2):1–19. https://doi.org/10.1145/3377143

8.  Theodoropoulos A, Antoniou A. VR Games in Cultural Heritage: A Systematic Review of the Emerging Fields of Virtual Reality and Culture Games. Applied Sciences. 2022;12(17):8476. https://doi.org/10.3390/app12178476

9.  Shiri A, Howard D, Farnel S. Indigenous Digital Storytelling: Digital Interfaces Supporting Cultural Heritage Preservation and Access. International Information & Library Review. 2022;54(2):93–114. https://doi.org/10.1080/10572317.2021.1946748

10.  Poulopoulos V, Wallace M. Digital Technologies and the Role of Data in Cultural Heritage: The Past, the Present, and the Future. Big Data and Cognitive Computing. 2022;6(3):73. https://doi.org/10.3390/bdcc6030073

11.  Sanabria Martínez MJ. Construir nuevos espacios sostenibles respetando la diversidad cultural desde el nivel local. Región Científica. 2022;1(1):20222. https://doi.org/10.58763/rc20222

12.  Banfi F, Bolognesi CM. Virtual Reality for Cultural Heritage: New Levels of Computer-Generated Simulation of a Unesco World Heritage Site. En: From Building Information Modelling to Mixed Reality. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2021. p. 47–64. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-49278-6_4

13.  Barrado-Timón DA, Hidalgo-Giralt C. The Historic City, Its Transmission and Perception via Augmented Reality and Virtual Reality and the Use of the Past as a Resource for the Present: A New Era for Urban Cultural Heritage and Tourism? Sustainability. 2019;11(10):2835. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11102835

14.  Luyt B. A new kind of travel guide or more of the same? Wikivoyage and Cambodia. Online Information Review. 2021;45(2):356–71. https://doi.org/10.1108/OIR-03-2020-0104

15.  Hajirasouli A, Banihashemi S, Kumarasuriyar A, Talebi S, Tabadkani A. Virtual reality-based digitisation for endangered heritage sites: Theoretical framework and application. Journal of Cultural Heritage. 2021;49:140–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.culher.2021.02.005

16.  Ocón D. Digitalisation and Cultural Heritage Tourism in Asia: Stepping in Without Stepping Out. En: Cultural Leadership in Transition Tourism. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2022. p. 157–81. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-14121-8_9

17.  Wilson AS, Gaffney V, Gaffney C, Ch’ng E, Bates R, Ichumbaki EB, et al. Curious Travellers: Using Web-Scraped and Crowd-Sourced Imagery in Support of Heritage Under Threat. En: Visual Heritage: Digital Approaches in Heritage Science. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2022. p. 51–65. (Springer Series on Cultural Computing). https://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-3-030-77028-0_4

18.  Pokorný P, Falešník D. Historical 3D Visualisations of Starý Světlov Castle Using Blender and Unreal Engine. En: Software Engineering and Algorithms. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2021. p. 351–62. (Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems; vol. 230). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-77442-4_30

19.  Winiarczyk-Raźniak A, Raźniak P. Are Pueblos Mágicos Really Magic? Tourism Development Program in the Context of the Quality of Life of Town Residents. Land. 2021;10(12):1342. https://doi.org/10.3390/land10121342

20.  Suanpang P, Niamsorn C, Pothipassa P, Chunhapataragul T, Netwong T, Jermsittiparsert K. Extensible Metaverse Implication for a Smart Tourism City. Sustainability. 2022;14(21):14027. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142114027

21.  Mogrovejo Andrade JM. Estrategias resilientes y mecanismos de las organizaciones para mitigar los efectos ocasionados por la pandemia a nivel internacional. Región Científica. 2022;1(1):202211. https://doi.org/10.58763/rc202211

22.  Verma S, Warrier L, Bolia B, Mehta S. Past, present, and future of virtual tourism-a literature review. International Journal of Information Management Data Insights. 2022;2(2):100085. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jjimei.2022.100085

23.  Giannini T, Bowen JP. Museums and Digital Culture: From Reality to Digitality in the Age of COVID-19. Heritage. 2022;5(1):192–214. https://doi.org/10.3390/heritage5010011

24.  Bekele MK, Pierdicca R, Frontoni E, Malinverni ES, Gain J. A Survey of Augmented, Virtual, and Mixed Reality for Cultural Heritage. Journal on Computing and Cultural Heritage. 2018;11(2):1–36. https://doi.org/10.1145/3145534

25.  Barrile V, Bernardo E, Fotia A, Bilotta G. A Combined Study of Cultural Heritage in Archaeological Museums: 3D Survey and Mixed Reality. Heritage. 2022;5(3):1330–49. https://doi.org/10.3390/heritage5030069

26.  Orozco Castillo EA. Experiencias en torno al emprendimiento femenino. Región Científica. 2022;1(1):20225. https://doi.org/10.58763/rc20225

27.  Jadresin Milic R, McPherson P, McConchie G, Reutlinger T, Singh S. Architectural History and Sustainable Architectural Heritage Education: Digitalisation of Heritage in New Zealand. Sustainability. 2022;14(24):16432. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142416432

28.  Kosmas P, Galanakis G, Constantinou V, Drossis G, Christofi M, Klironomos I, et al. Enhancing accessibility in cultural heritage environments: considerations for social computing. Universal Access in the Information Society. 2020;19(2):471–82. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-019-00651-4

29.  Bruno F, Ricca M, Lagudi A, Kalamara P, Manglis A, Fourkiotou A, et al. Digital Technologies for the Sustainable Development of the Accessible Underwater Cultural Heritage Sites. Journal of Marine Science and Engineering. 2020;8(11):955. https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse8110955

30.  Echavarria KR, Samaroudi M, Dibble L, Silverton E, Dixon S. Creative experiences for engaging communities with cultural heritage through place-based narratives. ACM Journal on Computing and Cultural Heritage (JOCCH). 2022;15(2):1–19. https://doi.org/10.1145/3479007

31.  Dutta U. Digital Preservation of Indigenous Culture and Narratives from the Global South: In Search of an Approach. Humanities. 2019;8(2):68. https://doi.org/10.3390/h8020068

32.  Zhong H, Wang L, Zhang H. The application of virtual reality technology in the digital preservation of cultural heritage. Computer Science and Information Systems. 2021;18(2):535–51. https://doi.org/10.2298/CSIS200208009Z

33.  Bekele MK, Champion E. A Comparison of Immersive Realities and Interaction Methods: Cultural Learning in Virtual Heritage. Frontiers in Robotics and AI. 2019;6:91. https://doi.org/10.3389/frobt.2019.00091

34.  Pietroni E, Ferdani D. Virtual Restoration and Virtual Reconstruction in Cultural Heritage: Terminology, Methodologies, Visual Representation Techniques and Cognitive Models. Information. 2021;12(4):167. https://doi.org/10.3390/info12040167

35.  Comes R, Neamțu CGD, Grec C, Buna ZL, Găzdac C, Mateescu-Suciu L. Digital Reconstruction of Fragmented Cultural Heritage Assets: The Case Study of the Dacian Embossed Disk from Piatra Roșie. Applied Sciences. 2022;12(16):8131. https://doi.org/10.3390/app12168131

36.  Ocón D. Digitalising endangered cultural heritage in Southeast Asian cities: preserving or replacing? International Journal of Heritage Studies. 2021;27(10):975–90. https://doi.org/10.1080/13527258.2021.1883711

37.  Swords J, Nally C, Rogage K, Watson R, Charlton J, Kirk D. Colliding epistemologies, productive tensions and usable pasts in the generation of heritage-led immersive experiences. International Journal of Heritage Studies. 2021;27(2):186–99.

38.  Banfi F. The Evolution of Interactivity, Immersion and Interoperability in HBIM: Digital Model Uses, VR and AR for Built Cultural Heritage. ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information. 2021;10(10):685. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijgi10100685

39.  Angélica GMM, Cristina LCC, De Jesús AMD. Museum, School and Augmented Reality, a Way to Preserve the Ethnic Identity of an Ancestral Culture. En: Perspectives and Trends in Education and Technology. Singapore: Springer Singapore; 2022. p. 93–108. (Smart Innovation, Systems and Technologies; vol. 256). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-5063-5_8

40.  Barbara J. Re-Live History: An immersive virtual reality learning experience of prehistoric intangible cultural heritage. Frontiers in Education. 2022;7:1032108. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2022.1032108

41.  Kenderdine S, Yip A. The proliferation of aura. En: The Routledge Handbook of Museums, Media and Communication. 1a ed. London: Routledge; 2018. p. 274–89. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315560168-23

42.  Hutson J, Olsen T. Virtual Reality and Art History: A Case Study of Digital Humanities and Immersive Learning Environments. Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice. 2022;22(2). https://doi.org/10.33423/jhetp.v22i2.5036

43.  Soto-Martin O, Fuentes-Porto A, Martin-Gutierrez J. A Digital Reconstruction of a Historical Building and Virtual Reintegration of Mural Paintings to Create an Interactive and Immersive Experience in Virtual Reality. Applied Sciences. 2020;10(2):597. https://doi.org/10.3390/app10020597

44.  Boboc RG, Băutu E, Gîrbacia F, Popovici N, Popovici DM. Augmented Reality in Cultural Heritage: An Overview of the Last Decade of Applications. Applied Sciences. 2022;12(19):9859. https://doi.org/10.3390/app12199859

45.  Borges Machín AY, González Bravo YL. Educación comunitaria para un envejecimiento activo: experiencia en construcción desde el autodesarrollo. Región Científica. 2022;1(1):202213. https://doi.org/10.58763/rc202213

46.  Daldanise G. From Place-Branding to Community-Branding: A Collaborative Decision-Making Process for Cultural Heritage Enhancement. Sustainability. 2020;12(24):10399. https://doi.org/10.3390/su122410399

47.  Zhang X, Yang D, Yow CH, Huang L, Wu X, Huang X, et al. Metaverse for Cultural Heritages. Electronics. 2022;11(22):3730. https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics11223730

48.  Allam Z, Sharifi A, Bibri SE, Jones DS, Krogstie J. The Metaverse as a Virtual Form of Smart Cities: Opportunities and Challenges for Environmental, Economic, and Social Sustainability in Urban Futures. Smart Cities. 2022;5(3):771–801. https://doi.org/10.3390/smartcities5030040

49.  Sparkes M. What is a metaverse. New Scientist. 2021;251(3348):18. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0262-4079(21)01450-0

50.  Li K, Cui Y, Li W, Lv T, Yuan X, Li S, et al. When Internet of Things Meets Metaverse: Convergence of Physical and Cyber Worlds. IEEE Internet of Things Journal. 2022;10(5):4148–73. https://doi.org/10.1109/JIOT.2022.3232845

51.  Bibri SE, Allam Z, Krogstie J. The Metaverse as a virtual form of data-driven smart urbanism: platformization and its underlying processes, institutional dimensions, and disruptive impacts. Computational Urban Science. 2022;2(1):24. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43762-022-00051-0

52.  Fu Y, Li C, Yu FR, Luan TH, Zhao P, Liu S. A Survey of Blockchain and Intelligent Networking for the Metaverse. IEEE Internet of Things Journal. 2022;10(4):3587–610. https://doi.org/10.1109/JIOT.2022.3222521

53.  Yilmaz M, Hacaloğlu T, Clarke P. Examining the Use of Non-fungible Tokens (NFTs) as a Trading Mechanism for the Metaverse. En: Systems, Software and Services Process Improvement. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2022. p. 18–28. (Communications in Computer and Information Science; vol. 1646). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-15559-8_2

FINANCING

None.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

None.

CONTRIBUTION OF AUTHORSHIP

Conceptualization: Guillermo Alfredo Jiménez Pérez, Alfredo Javier Pérez Gamboa, Carlos Alberto Gómez Cano.

Data curation: Guillermo Alfredo Jiménez Pérez, Alfredo Javier Pérez Gamboa, Carlos Alberto Gómez Cano.

Formal analysis: Guillermo Alfredo Jiménez Pérez, Alfredo Javier Pérez Gamboa, Carlos Alberto Gómez Cano.

Research: Guillermo Alfredo Jiménez Pérez, Alfredo Javier Pérez Gamboa, Carlos Alberto Gómez Cano.

Methodology: Guillermo Alfredo Jiménez Pérez, Alfredo Javier Pérez Gamboa, Carlos Alberto Gómez Cano.

Project administration: Guillermo Alfredo Jiménez Pérez, Alfredo Javier Pérez Gamboa, Carlos Alberto Gómez Cano.

Resources: Guillermo Alfredo Jiménez Pérez, Alfredo Javier Pérez Gamboa, Carlos Alberto Gómez Cano.

Software: Guillermo Alfredo Jiménez Pérez, Alfredo Javier Pérez Gamboa, Carlos Alberto Gómez Cano.

Supervision: Guillermo Alfredo Jiménez Pérez, Alfredo Javier Pérez Gamboa, Carlos Alberto Gómez Cano.

Validation: Guillermo Alfredo Jiménez Pérez, Alfredo Javier Pérez Gamboa, Carlos Alberto Gómez Cano.

Visualization: Guillermo Alfredo Jiménez Pérez, Alfredo Javier Pérez Gamboa, Carlos Alberto Gómez Cano.

Writing - original draft: Guillermo Alfredo Jiménez Pérez, Alfredo Javier Pérez Gamboa, Carlos Alberto Gómez Cano.

Writing – revision and editing: Guillermo Alfredo Jiménez Pérez, Alfredo Javier Pérez Gamboa, Carlos Alberto Gómez Cano.