1 Introduction

In many European countries, the negative impacts of tourism are becoming visible in the last decades. Specifically, in popular urban destinations tourism is considered a problem by a large percentage of the local population (García-Hernández et al., 2017). In this context, sustainable practices within the tourism industry emerge as a prerequisite for the well-being of local communities as well as the preservation of natural and cultural resources of destinations. Indeed, sustainable tourism practices are regarded as a necessity for the viability of destinations and the global tourism industry in general. As such, sustainability has become a key goal in the planning and management strategies of destinations worldwide.

The need for sustainability in tourism planning and destination management was recently highlighted in the Agenda 2030 for Sustainable Development. Among other goals, the agenda emphasised the need for sustainable cultural tourism. In fact, the UNWTO/UNESCO world conference on tourism and culture recently pointed towards the requirement of both sectors to strengthen their role and put into practice the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) outlined in the agenda. One of the objectives of the conference was to address the issue of the contribution of cultural tourism to the sustainability of tourist destinations (Almuhrzi & Al-Azri, 2019). Although the concept of sustainable cultural tourism is still young (Rosicka et al., 2009), the collaboration of tourism and cultural authorities for achieving sustainability is a theme that has begun to draw increasing attention in the scientific field.

Cultural tourism seems to be a conducive framework for sustainable development (Alisa & Ridho, 2020; Amerta et al., 2018; Durak et al., 2016; Gražulevičiūtė, 2006; Kumar, 2017). In exploring how to carry out sustainability through cultural tourism, several researchers have identified the host community as a factor of great significance (Amerta et al., 2018; Clausen & Gyimóthy, 2016; Durak et al., 2016; Halim & Ishak, 2017; Istoc, 2012; Keitumetse, 2011; Lee & Jan, 2019; López et al., 2018; Rasoolimanesh et al., 2017; Ruastiti et al., 2018; Tan et al., 2018). However, insofar pertinent literature has not clarified how a destination’s residents can contribute to the implementation of practises in line with the values of sustainable development within a cultural tourism context. This chapter aims to fulfil this research gap and examines resident perceptions of sustainable development as well as their role in sustainable development within the cultural tourism context. In so doing, the study draws from the Philopappos heritage site in Athens to offer insights that are useful to destination planners and managers with regard to the improvement of the sustainable development of cultural tourism.

2 Literature Review

2.1 Cultural Tourism

Cultural tourism has become a key product in the international tourism market (Artal-Tur, 2018), as it contributes to the seasonal and geographical extension of tourism (Richards, 1996). According to ICOMOS, cultural tourism provides tourists the opportunity to experience foreign lifestyles and brings them in touch with the natural environment, places of architectural, historical, archaeological or any other cultural significance (cited in Pop, 2016). While some scholars present cultural tourism as a means of economic and social prosperity (Savchenko & Borodina, 2020), others believe that it can lead to the deterioration of local cultures (García-Hernández et al., 2017). Generally speaking, cultural tourism development carries both positive and negative impacts. On the one hand, cultural tourism can contribute to the rise of local economy, the promotion and safeguarding of cultural heritage, and the preservation of the natural environment. On the other hand, insufficient planning of cultural tourism development can yield numerous negative impacts. For example, cultural tourism development can increase the cost of living in an area, which in turn can lead to residents’ eviction from their place of residence. In addition, the exploitation of cultural goods for tourism involves the risk of the commercialisation of culture and degradation of natural resources. Table 1 summarises the key positive and negative impacts of cultural tourism as identified in extant literature.

Table 1 Impacts of cultural tourism
Full size table

Despite the presence of several benefits arising from cultural tourism, it is obvious that the numerous negative impacts that may potentially emerge are a concern for destination planners and policymakers. Stakeholders have become particularly concerned with the sustainability of cultural resources and the protection and conservation of the cultural and natural environment. Thus, many destinations try to minimise the negative economic, socio-cultural and environmental impacts caused by cultural tourism development through the adoption of sustainable practices (Amerta et al., 2018).

2.2 Sustainability and Cultural Tourism

Sustainable development can be described as development that meets the needs of the current generation, without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs (United Nations, 1987). The concept of sustainability rests on three pillars: economic, environmental and social sustainability. The first pillar aims to ensure a sustainable economic environment and therefore focuses on improving the standard of living of existing and future societies (Andriotis, 2005). The second pillar aims to establish appropriate environmental conditions for the well-being of the present and future generations (Tomislav, 2018) while the third aims at socio-cultural stability by promoting education and protecting human health, securing cultural diversity, and combating phenomena such as loneliness/alienation among others (Duran et al., 2015). The adoption of sustainable principles has inevitably become a necessity in the tourism industry which is known for exerting several negative impacts on the environment, local economy, and society (Butler, 2018). In this context, the term “sustainable tourism” arose as a popular goal of destination development. Specifically, Butler (2018) defines sustainable tourism as:

Tourism which is developed and maintained in an area (community, environment) in such a manner and at such a scale that it remains viable over a definite period and does not degrade or alter the environment (human or physical) in which it exists to such a degree that it prohibits the successful development and wellbeing of other activities and processes. (p. 3)

The main components of sustainable tourism are thus: a) respect to the local population of each destination, b) preservation of its natural environment, c) protection of its cultural heritage and d) achievement of economic benefits for the local community (Amerta et al., 2018; Mowla, 2019; Rosicka et al., 2009). Scholars exploring the link between cultural tourism and sustainability (Alisa & Ridho, 2020; Chhabra, 2009; Clausen & Gyimóthy, 2016; Gražulevičiūtė, 2006; Keitumetse, 2011; Kumar, 2017; Ruastiti et al., 2018; Weng et al., 2019; Zhang et al., 2020) conclude that cultural tourism can significantly contribute to the achievement of the goals of sustainable development (Alisa & Ridho, 2020; Amerta et al., 2018; Durak et al., 2016; Gražulevičiūtė, 2006; Kumar, 2017). However, extant literature acknowledges the necessity to intensify efforts towards this direction (Clausen & Gyimóthy, 2016; Weng et al., 2019; Yeniasır & Gökbulut, 2018). Table 2 draws from the sustainable cultural tourism literature to offer an overview of the link between cultural tourism and sustainability. As can be seen from the table, the positive impacts of cultural tourism are in line with the main objectives of sustainable tourism.

Table 2 Sustainable tourism—Cultural tourism Nexus
Full size table

2.3 Community Participation for Achieving Sustainable Cultural Tourism

Among the topics scholars investigate regarding sustainability within the cultural tourism context is the important role of the local community. Many agree that the adoption of sustainable strategies in tourism inevitably involves the local people, and suggest enhancing the power of local communities as a solution to achieve sustainability through cultural tourism (Amerta et al., 2018; Clausen & Gyimóthy, 2016; Durak et al., 2016; Halim & Ishak, 2017; Istoc, 2012; Keitumetse, 2011; Lee & Jan, 2019; López et al., 2018; Rasoolimanesh et al., 2017; Ruastiti et al., 2018; Tan et al., 2018). In fact, it is argued that the active contribution of residents to cultural tourism is a criterion for assessing sustainability (Li & Hunter, 2015). In other words, community involvement can be used as an indicator of sustainability in cultural resource management (Keitumetse, 2011).

The literature describes three types of community participation in cultural tourism management: coercive, induced, and spontaneous. In the first type, residents are engaged in the promotion of the cultural aspects of the destination, gaining few economic benefits. In induced participation, although citizens have a say in matters concerning the management of cultural resources, they do not have real power and control over the decisions taken by key tourism stakeholders. In the third type, residents make decisions and control the process of tourism development (Rasoolimanesh et al., 2017). Lukman (2020) suggested that citizens play a central role in managing cultural heritage. He deduced that residents’ involvement as tour guides, narrators, museum curators and other related professions is of the utmost importance for building sustainable communities and for reducing poverty in rural populations particularly (Lukman, 2020). Equally, Ruastiti et al. (2018) highlighted the involvement of indigenous people in cultural tourism, suggesting that they contribute significantly to the preservation of indigenous traditions and the economic well-being of the community (Ruastiti et al., 2018). Nonetheless, Clausen and Gyimóthy (2016) found that a committee formed by residents on tourism sustainability issues may lead to conflicts due to their different views on sustainable development.

Despite the abundance of studies on residents’ participation in cultural tourism, there is still a strong inaccuracy regarding what exactly constitutes community participation (Clausen & Gyimóthy, 2016), which emphasises the need for further investigation. This chapter draws from the archaeological site of Philopappos in order to attempt to answer the following questions: How do residents perceive the concept of sustainable development? How do they contribute to sustainability within the cultural tourism context?

3 Methodology

3.1 Study Context

The archaeological site of Philopappos is a rock formation composed by the western hills of Athens—Hills of Philopappos, Pnyx and Nymphs—opposite Acropolis. The archaeological site reaches 700 acres and includes scattered monuments of different dates, remains of ancient settlements, city walls, water supply facilities, numerous sanctuaries, and burial sites, which are carved into the rocks (see Table 3). The paths created by the architect Dimitris Pikionis during the years 1954–1957 are a characteristic of the area.

Table 3 Declared monuments and archaeological sites
Full size table

The archaeological site of Philopappos was chosen as a case study, due to its communal character that favours the free access of the inhabitants of the surrounding areas and their possible involvement in matters that may concern it. In the area, there are catering and entertainment facilities that may benefit from the presence of tourists. The site provides a combination of cultural and natural elements and has often been associated with crime incidents. The area under investigation thus has a dual character. Although it is declared as an archaeological site, it is utilised daily as a common place of recreation and rest by the Athenians, as it is one of the few green spots in the city centre.

3.2 Data Collection

Qualitative research was chosen as the research approach guiding this study. Qualitative research was regarded as most suitable given the exploratory nature of the study, as it allows the in-depth understanding of residents’ perceptions and experiences (Magnini et al., 2012; Polkinghorne, 2005). Specifically, semi-structured interviews were used for data collection. The researcher composed a set of predefined questions on the topics that she deemed necessary to cover in accordance with extant literature on sustainable development in tourism (see Fig. 1). Additional questions were asked during the interviews depending on how the discussion went with each participant.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Fundamental principles of sustainable tourism. Source: Own processing

Full size image

Purposive sampling was used to identify cases rich in information that enabled in-depth study (Gray, 2014). Therefore, participants were sought at the archaeological site and through the internet. The primary goal was to find residents of areas adjacent to the archaeological site such as Koukaki, Petralona, Thiseio, and Makrigianni. However, given the situation caused by the pandemic that broke out in Greece in March 2020, finding people living in areas surrounding the hills was very difficult. Due to this obstacle, the sample included citizens of Athens who visited the site. A total of 17 interviews were conducted (see Table 4) in Greek and subsequently translated into English. The interviews took place from February 24 to March 31, 2021, and lasted about 30 minutes each. In addition, archival material, articles, and data from field observation were studied as complementary sources.

Table 4 Profile of participants
Full size table

3.3 Data Analysis

Data was organised and interpreted according to the principles of thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006); whereby key themes emerged following a coding process. In particular, transcripts were read several times by the researcher who identified patterns of themes according to the literature on sustainable development. Blocks of text were copied verbatim, re-organised and cross-referenced to allow the identification of thematic categories. Sub-categories also emerged which were combined with pre-identified themes to allow for greater elaboration on key issues (Hennik et al., 2010). In the end, the following key themes emerged: a) perceptions of sustainable development, b) importance of implementing sustainability in cultural tourism, c) financial benefits, d) promotion of culture—protection of monuments, e) nature protection, f) maintaining social order and g) citizens’ contribution—incentives.

4 Findings and Discussion

4.1 Perceptions of Sustainable Development

Most informants were familiar with the concept of sustainable development, due to personal interest or through television, the press, and their workplace. Informant descriptions of sustainable development showed that emphasis was placed on environmental sustainability. As P3 stated, sustainable development is “the peaceful coexistence between man and environment”. On a similar note, P8 added that sustainable development is “development that aims to protect the environment…that is not harmful to the environment and natural resources”. P4 also argued that sustainable development “has to do with securing the environment and natural resources for the future”. Other informants suggested that sustainable development “is something that bears fruit socially and economically without depleting the resources, from which it draws wealth” [P1] and “is mainly economic development that is done in a way that can sustain itself and maintain the framework in which it takes place” [P5].

4.2 Importance of Implementing Sustainability in Cultural Tourism

When informants were asked about the importance of sustainable development to cultural tourism, it was argued that sustainable development is important for the entire tourism to assure a healthy economic growth without endangering the environment. According to P5, “sustainability must be applied to all tourism so that activities are not destructive for the environment, for the area where tourism takes place”. P4 agreed stating that “it should be applied to all tourism industry to achieve a healthy development, that will not destroy the environment. Current economic tactics lead to crises”. It was also pointed out that sustainability can contribute to the preservation of the archaeological site of Philopappos, the monuments located in it, as well as the protection of the history of the area. As P1 claimed:

Monuments and archeological sites should not be exploited in a way that destroys them. There is a carrying capacity, which should not be exceeded…it does not work when there is a crowd…it is not the meaning of visiting the monument. People should have the opportunity to visit the monument in peace (…), to meditate on its historicity. Sustainability in this case has the meaning of a measure of traffic.

4.3 Financial Benefits Due to the Presence of Tourists

Access to the archaeological site is free 24 hours a day for all visitors and walkers. Therefore, there is no financial gain from the entry. There are facilities—the restaurant “Dionysos”, the “Dora Stratou” theatre and the pavilion of Agios Dimitris Lombardiaris—that can be profitable. The restaurant operates until today and is visited by many tourists who go to the historical centre, especially in the summer season. Performances and classes of Greek dances are held in the theatre. The place, however, is not favoured financially by the presence of tourists. As P3 commented, “the classic walk of tourists is from Dionysiou Aeropagitou to the monument of Philopappos. Sometimes to the Pnyx and the Observatory (…) They are not aware of the existence of the theatre, as it is not promoted”. The Lombardiaris pavilion remains unexploited and abandoned from 2005 onwards. It was mentioned by interviewees that it has been a place of residence for the homeless since.

4.4 Promotion of Culture: Protection of Monuments

There are not any guides in the archaeological area who could convey its historical significance to tourists. Visitors usually enter the area to take a walk and take photos; something that was evident not only to the research through the interview process but also from tourists’ comments, available on TripAdvisor. Most tourists perceive the site as a viewing spot of the city and the sea. As a tourist said on TripAdvisor, “You can see the amazing panorama of the city, up to Piraeus and beyond” (Italian, February 2020). Another added, “It is in front of Acropolis. I highly recommend visiting it at sunset as the view of the Parthenon is amazing!” (Spanish, February 2020). Other comments on the website include “The view is fantastic. Great spot to photograph the Parthenon” (English, October 2020), “It has low traffic, but it is an ideal spot to observe the city” (Italian, September 2019), “Very nice place to rest and enjoy Acropolis” (German, December 2019) and “Find the time to climb (…), it is worth it. Athens is in front of your eyes 360 degrees” (Italian, May 2018).

Admittedly, the usage of the site by locals is more harmful than that of foreign visitors. According to P4, “on the hills you can view the negative culture of the Greeks via garbage and graffiti, and this is because most people do not perceive it as an archaeological site” (see Fig. 2). The managers of Lombardiaris pavilion had been exploiting a part of the Pnyx, which they had fenced in illegally for several years. Plastic carpet and umbrellas were placed in the area inside the fence, while shacks that were set up in the area served as warehouses.

Fig. 2
figure 2

Graffiti on surfaces inside the archaeological site, February 2021

Full size image

4.5 Nature Protection

Several informants suggested that “there is more harm from the locals. Tourists are harmless” [P7] as “there are not so many tourists so that their presence may cause problems” [P2]. Indeed, the research observed on site that there are not enough rubbish bins and during quarantine, especially on Sundays, bins got full by noon and overflowing with rubbish. It is “the lack of education and municipality’s insufficient care” [P3] that was to blame according to informants (see Fig. 3). In addition, the restaurant “Dionysos” has expanded its facilities on the slope of the Philopappos hill (n.d.) over the years, changing the natural landscape. As P1 clarified, tree plantings which were carried out by the municipality every year were banned since 2013 by the archaeological service, who claimed that vegetation is responsible for the degradation of site’s archaeological significance. The informant went on to add that “greenery is an issue of conflict with the archaeological service, which considers that the hills should not have been planted” and stressed the need to continue planting because, during deforestations carried out annually to avoid fires, new plants are cut.

Fig. 3
figure 3

The lack of sufficient care of the natural landscape is visible, April 2021

Full size image

4.6 Maintaining Social Order

In August 2018, a 25-year-old student was killed by a three-member gang, who intended to rob him and his girlfriend inside the archaeological site. Since then, articles published in the same year refer to gangs operating uncontrollably in the hills, in the absence of policing and the lack of a sufficient number of guards during the night. Residents claimed that “up here is dangerous after 10 pm. It is a dark place and there have been many attacks in the past” and that “there are no guards, there is no policing in the area, most tourists come and are afraid” (Korellis, 2018). Comments posted on TripAdvisor by tourists from 2017 onwards, however, contradict this statement. Contradicting comments were made by informants as well. For example, while P8 claimed that “I would not enter the hills when it gets dark. It has no lighting, it has no security, I have not seen policing”, P6 said that “the area has policing at all hours”. Another informant added that “small-scale criminality is a more general phenomenon, which is not specific to Philopappos (…) There was a gang on the hill that robbed tourists and worked in Thiseio and Monastiraki at the same time. There are gangs that steal but they are everywhere (…)” [P1]. Similar comments were made by P3, who suggested that “criminality is a common phenomenon of Athens in general, but it is not characteristic of the hills”. It was also reported by the informants that there is no separate file in the police station regarding the incidents taking place in the archaeological site, and therefore there is not a clear picture of how much the area affects the overall existing situation. Citizens, who visit the area, argued that small-scale criminality is usual in the centre of Athens and increases with the presence of tourists.

4.7 Citizens’ Contribution: Incentives

During the works of unification and promotion of the archaeological sites of Athens for the Olympic Games in 2004, a fence was placed in the area. That meant that the hills would operate on schedule and be part of the single ticket of the consolidation sites. Residents of areas adjacent to the hills reacted convening an assembly and forming the Philopappos movement. It is pointed out that the hills are used as a place of “walk and recreation (…), at least during the last century” (filopappou.wordpress.com) not only by the inhabitants of the nearby areas but also by visitors who come from other municipalities of Attica. For several years, residents in the context of open assemblies dislocated parts of the fence, which were repositioned by the public company EAHA until 2005. Part of the fencing continued to be dislocated until about 2008. Some parts were restored, while many were left without railings so that the access to the hills is unimpeded until today. In 2008, the Minister of Culture approved “the designation of the archaeological site of Philopappos as an organised archaeological site (L.3028/2002, article 46, par. 1) demarcated and fenced with functional guarded entrances, open throughout the day and closed at night (…), for the protection of the monuments and the natural environment of the archaeological site, as well as for the proper operation of the site and the aesthetic and cultural upgrade of the quality of life of Athenians, according to the following terms: a) admission will be free without a ticket, b) the guarding of the space will be on a 24-hour basis (24), and c) it will be possible to operate the Pikionis pavilion during certain night hours”.

According to this decision, the site would be open only during the day and would be closed at night. This ban on access prompted residents to turn to the Council of State the same year for annulment. In 2015, their application was partially accepted and it was clarified that the closure of the archaeological site during the night is “an inappropriate measure to prevent fires”, that “the gatherings of the inhabitants inside the archeological site, as well as the reported damage to the fence, does not appear to be causing damage to its monuments, and therefore does not appear to justify the measure itself” and that “the organized archeological site will be open throughout the day and the entrance to it will be free without a ticket” (filopappou.wordpress.com).

The community has tackled issues of encroaching on the archaeological site and securing its natural environment. In 2004, with reports to public authorities, the residents requested an inspection of the Lombardiaris pavilion, the restaurant “Dionysos” and some construction work that contributed to the cutting of trees. In 2005, the Ephorate of Modern Monuments of Attica confirmed with its report that “(…) The back of the pavilion, which is not included in Pikioni’s project on the Philopappos hill, but is located within the archeological site, has indeed been illegally fenced by the tenants (…)” (Report of the Ephorate of Modern Monuments of Attica, 6/4/2004). In April 2005, two residents filed a lawsuit against those responsible for the situation in the shelter. The manager was convicted and fined. Since then, the Tourist Pavilion of Agios Dimitrios remains unused, despite the requests of the committee of the Philopappos movement for its reopening, provided that its original use as a place of gathering, entertainment and rest will be maintained (see Fig. 4). In fact, in a report sent by the committee to the Minister of Culture and the Mayor of Athens in 2007, they raised the issue of the pavilion, but also that of the maintenance of the Acropolis–Philopappos works of Dimitris Pikionis.

Fig. 4
figure 4

Parts of the Tourist Pavilion of Agios Dimitrios, confirming the existence of homeless. Abandonment and stench prevail, April 2021

Full size image

In the case of “Dionysos”, the citizens made acute efforts to conduct an autopsy to determine whether the expansion of its facilities is illegal or not. For several years, they sent complaints to the City Planning service of Athens, the archaeological services, and the Corps of Public Administration Inspectors. Only in 2007, the City Planning Department of Athens was forced to investigate the matter, following a prosecutor’s order issued by the residents. The Department discovered arbitrariness and imposed fines on the restaurant, while in 2012 it was found that the violations in the area reach 430 sq. m., of which 126 sq. m. was the result of an illegal excavation. However, the issue has not yet been resolved. Citizens have also suggested that part of the restaurant rent be used to maintain the hills; something that has not been implemented so far.

The residents have contributed significantly over the years by planting trees and taking care of their adequate watering, especially during the summer months; a fact that had led to a trial of three persons due to an accusation of the competent archaeological service. Their activity in securing the flora continued even after the ban, which has been quoted above. Residents’ steering committee of Philopappos began their action in 2002 when the issue of fencing was raised and emerged through open assemblies. The committee investigates issues related to the hills. In case of a serious problem, it convenes meetings to communicate it to the world. Meetings are announced via email to a wide range of residents and take place in open access areas. The committee promotes their work through a blog, which is accessible via the internet, and through its participation in programmes and events. A notable example is the participation in the 18th meeting of the International Network for Urban Research and Action (INURA), which took place in Athens in October 2004. In addition, their action has been announced through publications.

The research revealed the existence of another initiative of citizens, which focuses on securing public spots in Athens. Interviewees who do not belong to any of the collectives and visit the archaeological site for a walk, try to keep it clean during their stay. The participants who act via collectives are driven by their community attachment, from which comes their love for the city and the desire to secure the public character of the archaeological site. In addition, they act due to their environmental values and the awareness of the need to protect cultural goods. Informants focus on environmental protection because it “contributes to the good profile of the city” [P4] and “helps to highlight the area” [P9], while others are driven by ecological awareness and respect to the archaeological site.

5 Conclusion and Implications

The aim of this study was to examine how residents in Athens visiting the archaeological site of Philopappos perceive sustainable development and whether they contribute to sustainability through cultural tourism. Overall, findings reveal that for informants, sustainability relates to the protection of the environment and resources for future generations. While greater emphasis was placed on environmental sustainability, important insights may be drawn regarding the sustainability of the cultural tourism aspect.

The site under study may not be regarded as a typical cultural resource used for tourism. There are financial benefits that may be derived due to the presence of tourists only in the case of the restaurant “Dionysos”; however, it operates without respecting the archaeological site. This comes in contrast with the sustainable goals of securing natural landscape and cultural heritage. In addition, the archaeological area does not receive special care and attention on the part of public authorities; the abandonment of the church of Agios Dimitrios and its Tourist Pavilion—both declared monuments—are indicative of this. Graffiti and garbage waste from the locals also spoil the area. As such, visitors do not realise the historical importance of the place. The lack of transmission of historical knowledge and the inadequate management of the sensitive area of the hills do not agree with the aspirations of cultural tourism and disclose the absence of sustainable practices.

Tourists do not seem to negatively affect the daily life of residents. This of course can be justified by the fact that the site has not been developed as much as it could; thus, a conclusion may not be drawn as to whether tourism activities are carried out disrespectfully to the inhabitants. The issue that arose in the interviews is that of guarding and policing. Phenomena of petty crime concern the entire historic centre of the city. In terms of sustainability, this problem runs counter to social sustainability.

The purpose of this study was to highlight citizens’ role in sustainability through cultural tourism. It appears that citizens’ participation is related to the viability and survival of the archaeological site and its survival consists of securing its natural landscape, the restoration of monuments and the delimitation of the operation of the businesses. Residents’ involvement does not stem from their positive or negative perception of the impact of tourism, but from place attachment. As such, the findings reveal the need for a more responsible management of the site. This archaeological area has the potential to become one of the most interesting touristic attractions in Athens, bringing considerable economic benefits, which in turn could contribute to the protection of the natural and cultural landscape of the city. Well-thought-out planning and management by competent public services is therefore vital. Specific emphasis should thus be given to the:

  • Restoration and maintenance of monuments—reopening of Lombardiaris Tourist Pavilion.

  • Remediation and protection of the environment.

  • Definition of an operating framework for the enterprises to avoid arbitrariness and carrying out inspections.

  • Maintenance of safety conditions.

  • Security of citizens’ daily habits, who visit the hills for leisure and rest.

  • Promotion of hills and facilities included—highlighting the theatre.

Interestingly, the study showcased that there is a group of citizens who know the particularities and needs of the area and have ideas that can contribute to its development. The site may not be an example of a cultural resource managed within a sustainable development concept framework, but it provides a fertile ground for implementing the sustainable development agenda. It is, hence, proposed that the competent public bodies of culture and tourism of destinations cooperate with the local community for the development of strategies aiming at the restoration, usage, and touristic promotion of archaeological sites. Residents, having rich knowledge and experience of the area, can minimise possible negative impacts of site exploitation with their involvement in decision-making processes.

The management of a cultural good is inherently complex and raises the question of whether it should be public or private. A possible privatisation of the cultural site under study would probably deprive the residents of a vital natural resource. Such an approach may be disrespectful to local people and respecting local communities’ needs and wants is one of the main objectives of sustainable tourism. It is thus crucial to establish sufficient mechanisms to ensure the equal involvement of a variety of stakeholders including the local community in tourism decision-making processes. Taking residents’ perceptions into consideration can prevent the overuse of resources upon which they rely, while allowing them to express their opinions and define their needs to ensure a more sustainable tourism development. It is recommended that further research is conducted to find out a way of preserving and utilising archaeological sites in the direction of environmental, social, cultural and economic sustainability. This would contribute to the revival of city centres such as the one in Athens, and at the same time, to the upgrading of the existing cultural tourism product. It is important that sites similar to the Philopappos example are recognised as valuable resources and development levers to be used as a framework of collaboration between tourism-cultural authorities and residents towards sustainable development.