Enabling the Governance of Spatial Change through Culture: Insights from the Piraeus Road in Athens, Greece

Authors: Georgia Tseva (corresponding author), PhD Scholar, Dept. of Geography, Harokopio University, [email protected], ORCID: 0000-0001-5044-6842; Pavlos Marinos Delladetsimas, Professor em., Dept. of Geography, Harokopio University, [email protected], ORCID: 0000-0001-9634-8201; João Carlos Vicente Sarmento, Associate Professor, Institute of Social Sciences, Dept. of Geography, University of Minho, [email protected], ORCID: 0000-0002-4770-2427. Research Article Enabling the Governance of Spatial Change through Culture: Insights from the Piraeus Road in Athens, Greece Georgia Tseva, PhD Scholar, Dept. of Geography, Harokopio University Pavlos-Marinos Delladetsimas, Professor em., Dept. of Geography, Harokopio University João Carlos Vicente Sarmento, Associate Professor, Institute of Social Sciences, Dept. of Geography, University of Minho Abstract Over the past three decades, culture has gained prominence as a central element in local development strategies, increasingly acknowledged as a catalyst for shaping alternative development paradigms. Scholarship has highlighted its role in driving spatial transformation and mediating dialogue between policy frameworks, planning practices, and the lived experiences of citizens. This paper advances this discussion by proposing a conceptual framework that examines how cultural institutions contribute to capacity-building from the perspective of citizens. The study focuses on three distinct cultural organisations located along Piraeus Road in Athens, Greece, exploring users’ perceptions of cultural activities, their contribution to enhancing individual and collective capacities, and the extent to which these capacities can enable engagement in spatial development processes. Beyond institutional practices, the analysis considers the wider role of culture in urban transformation and the development opportunities emerging in this transitional urban corridor. Findings reveal that although cultural interventions are recognised as relevant and meaningful, citizens’ participation in such activities has not significantly strengthened their capacities to influence spatial development. Persistent everyday needs and a lack of supportive policy frameworks constrain the broader social potential of cultural institutions. These insights contribute to understanding how culture may more effectively foster inclusive urban transformation. Keywords Culture, Social Innovation, Citizen Engagement, Place-based research, Piraeus Road European Journal of Spatial Development 22(4) 32 Introduction Over the past three decades, culture has played an increasingly pivotal role in local development strategies, emerging as a key driver in shaping alternative development paradigms. In this context, a range of both top-down and bottom-up initiatives – from performing arts to heritage preservation and place branding – have been implemented to expand economic opportunities and strengthen social cohesion, each employing distinct approaches and yielding varied impacts. In contemporary societies, which are often characterised by persistent and recurring crises (Reckwitz & Rosa, 2023), the role of cultural and creative industries has been increasingly recognised as crucial in addressing these challenges (Kalfas et al., 2024). In this context, growing attention is being paid to how cultural experiences can empower local communities (Rausell-Köster et al., 2022) to advocate for the adoption of sustainable development practices (Stihl, 2024). At the same time, scholars caution against treating such initiatives as quick fixes to complex socio-spatial issues (Montalto et al., 2023). Within this framework, addressing citizens’ cultural demand has become a strategic priority in unlocking the cultural sector’s potential to support inclusive and sustainable growth at the local level (Mateos Mora & Yáñez, 2023; Sacco et al., 2025). These approaches address culture as a broad and dynamic sphere, encompassing values, artistic practices, events, traditions, and everyday activities. In this direction, new conceptual frameworks emerged in the 2010s aiming at fostering a holistic perspective of culture’s role within spatial planning. Particular attention was paid in culture’s networking capacity expressed through socially innovative practices (Moulaert, 2018; Moulaert et al., 2017; 2022). that carry the potential to question and reshape established planning traditions (Knieling & Othengrafen, 2009). Within this line of inquiry, scholars have investigated culture’s influence on spatial transformation (Belfiore, 2020) and emphasized the relevance of territorial impact assessments (Medeiros, 2023) in revealing the complex relationships among social, cultural, and economic aspects of cultural activities. Other studies have examined the notion of cultural value (Yan & Liu, 2023) and identified specific cultural parameters that encourage collaboration across diverse stakeholder groups (Čamprag, 2023). Further research has drawn attention to situations where cultural dynamics shaped agency (Stefanidou et al., 2024), as well as to cases where inadequate attention to citizens’ needs undermined the creation of social value (Haraldseid, 2019), particularly in sites of recognized cultural heritage (Grossi et al., 2023). In this direction, the literature (ibid.) suggests that for cultural policies to play a genuinely effective role, they must first incorporate a societal value-building dimension, rather than prioritising economic value alone. Societal value can be understood as the contribution of cultural activities to social cohesion, civic participation, well-being, and the collective capacity European Journal of Spatial Development 22(4) 33 to address shared challenges (Belfiore, 2016). This requires cultivating a nuanced understanding of society and the evolving needs of individuals, instead of concentrating solely on activities with physical – often large-scale – regeneration outcomes. In this view, cultural institutions and cultural content should not be regarded merely as instruments serving predetermined spatial development goals; rather, they should function as mediators that shape dialogue between policy, planning practices, and the lived experiences of citizens as expressed through dynamic cultural practices. In this role, they generate spaces of negotiation where diverse interests, identities, and perspectives can intersect, enabling cultural dynamics to inform not only the outcomes of development but also the processes through which those outcomes are envisioned and achieved. However, the extent to which cultural institutions strengthen citizens’ capacity to engage in the re-envisioning of spatial development within their local contexts remains uncertain (Taheri et al., 2024). While cultural activities are argued to create spaces of negotiation (Nyseth et al., 2017), it is not yet clear whether this potential arises primarily from their regular programmes or from more targeted short-term events. The role of policy is crucial in this regard. Short-term programmes often generate expectations of positive outcomes, yet their actual impact remains ambiguous, particularly in cases where relocation of cultural institutions is assumed to deliver community benefits. Relocation is frequently associated with the promise of introducing more sustainable activities, reinforcing demands for change in the area, and attracting new forms of cultural and economic activity. When conceptualised as local assets, the ongoing programmes of cultural institutions warrant closer examination for their capacity to foster sustainable citizen engagement. This engagement may manifest in calls for new planning instruments, the creation of grassroots initiatives, or community responses to the inflow of specific types of capital. This raises a critical question: if inclusiveness in spatial development cannot be secured through planning instruments alone, but instead requires recognition of the lived realities of places beyond ad hoc projects (Horlings et al., 2021), to what extent have cultural institutions contributed to fostering sustained and meaningful forms of engagement? Addressing this question calls for systematic investigation to clarify both the limitations and the possibilities inherent in the cultural practices of institutions situated in areas undergoing socio-spatial transformation. A central dimension of this debate is capacity-building in spatial planning, understood in the literature (ibid.) as the development of citizens’ skills, knowledge, and interests that enable them to assume a more active role in spatial planning initiatives. Cultural practices – whether introduced through short-term projects or embedded in long-term institutional programmes – are not only associated with attracting new populations or uses to an area. Their added value lies more fundamentally in their ability to strengthen people’s knowledge and capabilities. The key European Journal of Spatial Development 22(4) 34 question, therefore, becomes whether cultural institutions can effectively foster such capacitybuilding in the context of spatial development, thereby enabling citizens to participate more meaningfully in the re-envisioning of their local environments. Building on this premise, the present study examines how cultural institutions influence citizens’ capacities, focusing specifically on the potential of cultural activities generated through their planned strategy and regular programmes. This perspective is particularly relevant in contexts where cultural interventions have traditionally prioritised physical regeneration or/and financial outcomes. Through an analysis of citizens’ perceptions and experiences, the paper studies the motivations driving participation and provides insights into the potential strategies cultural institutions can employ to foster more inclusive forms of local transformation. To pursue this aim, the study investigates three cultural organisations of distinct character and scope located along Piraeus Road in Athens, Greece. Piraeus Road underwent a targeted regeneration initiative during the 1990s, yet the anticipated positive outcomes were not uniformly realised across the area. Although the local development plan, centred on changing land uses, was initially regarded as promising, its implementation coincided with the inability of local actors to formulate a shared vision for the road (Tseva et al., 2024). While these regulations succeeded in attracting cultural institutions – the majority of which remain active today – their relocation did not generate the broader socioeconomic benefits that were originally expected. Within this context and recognising both the need for citizen engagement in spatial planning processes along with the role of cultural institutions as key actors, the study employs an empirical survey of cultural institutions’ users. The objective is to critically assess how participation in cultural activities contributes to capacity-building for citizens (Segovia & Hervé, 2022), thereby enabling their more active involvement in spatial development. The paper addresses two central research questions in this regard: first, how do different types of users perceive the role of these institutions; and second, which institutional elements may enable capacity-building. In doing so, the study also considers how public policy could support the enabling characteristics of cultural institutions to enhance citizen participation in new spatial planning visions. Conceptual Framework The transformative outcomes of cultural practices remain difficult to capture, particularly when considering the interplay between tangible and intangible cultural elements in place-based approaches. Scholars have highlighted the need to reassess indicators, refine communication among stakeholders, and design strategies for more meaningful community engagement (Tricarico et al., 2022). Building on this, the present paper examines capacity building for citizen engagement as a cornerstone of creative spatial planning. Here, creative planning refers not only to the capacity to address spatial challenges from diverse perspectives (Nyseth et al., 2017), but European Journal of Spatial Development 22(4) 35 also to the exploration of alternative holistic visions that enable new forms of spatial organization to emerge (Frøde & Kramvig, 2017). Cultural activities play a crucial role in shaping environments that cultivate a shared sense of place among space users (Roberts & Lowe, 2024). Understanding citizen engagement is fundamental to examining the conflicting narratives surrounding spatial transformation between policymakers and the communities that inhabit these spaces (ibid). This approach diverges from traditional evaluation tools in policymaking, as discussed by Saltelli et al. (2023), by emphasising the wider societal outcomes of cultural activities (Rausell-Köster et al., 2022). In this respect, it stands at the core of socio-spatial integration policy analysis (Mateos Mora & Yáñez, 2023). Within this context, capacity building can be understood across multiple paradigms: at the individual level (skills and agency), the community level (trust and collective resources), the institutional level (adaptive governance), and the transformative level (new imaginaries and ontologies of space). Capacity building offers a useful entry point for understanding the contribution of cultural activities to culture-based urban development. Attention to strengthening individual, community, institutional, and transformative capacities, make cultural practices spaces of active citizen participation. The literature suggests that such initiatives hold the potential to evolve into forms of social innovation capable of reconfiguring social relations and fostering bottom-up transformation (Cancellieri et al., 2018; Moulaert & van Dyck, 2013; Moulaert et al., 2022). This potential emerges where cultural practices help to mitigate tensions, foster social cohesion, and enable inclusive change (Galego et al., 2021). Nevertheless, such claims remain relatively generalised. Although often framed in a positive light, their complexity and contextspecific nature cannot be adequately captured through a universal framework. Frequently celebrated as a ‘magic concept’ within governance debates (Bragaglia, 2021), the notion has also been criticised for its instrumental deployment as a means of shifting responsibilities to citizens without a corresponding redistribution of power (Fougère & Meriläinen, 2019). On the other hand, the role of cultural practices has been understood as requiring the formation of context-specific alliances, calibrated to local policy landscapes and community aspirations (André et al., 2013; Sum & Jessop, 2013; André, 2019). Their transformative potential rests less on universal solutions than on the extent to which capacity development redistributes authority and enables co-production as a genuine space of deliberative democracy. Framed in this way, the debate on social innovation can be reoriented: rather than being portrayed as a radically new phenomenon, it may be more productively approached as a mode of renewal, reconfiguration, and translation within existing institutional and cultural arrangements. Building on this, the ability of cultural activities to connect diverse stakeholders and provide tools for engaging with urban development futures highlights their relevance as socially European Journal of Spatial Development 22(4) 36 innovative practices. This is particularly significant in contexts where the objective is not to enforce consensus, but to build capacities for addressing conflict and negotiating power relations (von Schönfeld & Ferreira, 2021). In this light, Suitner et al. (2024) propose an analytical framework for assessing the cultivation of socially innovative processes as a means of identifying strategies for value creation. While context-specific, their framework identifies social innovation into social experimentation as a means of testing new forms of social organisation at both governance and community levels. Taken together, it provides a constructive lens for evaluating the potential of cultural activities to generate social value, here understood as the empowerment of citizens to articulate visions, negotiate interests, and participate meaningfully in planning processes. This paper applies a threefold methodological structure to analyse the externalities generated by cultural activities – ranging from artistic practices and events to educational programmes and community engagement initiatives – and to assess the extent to which they foster a shared sense of place where citizens become stakeholders in urban development. Externalities are understood here as outcomes that extend beyond the immediate scope of cultural institutions, such as economic spill-overs, symbolic value, or enhanced social networks (García, 2004). Among these, capacity building emerges as a crucial externality: cultural practices not only generate artistic outputs but also cultivate skills, agency, and collaborative practices that underpin sustainable participation in planning processes (Christman et al., 2020) and thus enable social experimentation. Crucially, such practices cannot be reduced to abstract ‘good practices’ that can be universally replicated. Rather, they operate as situated processes in which innovation arises through negotiation, translation, and contestation across diverse governance settings. Embedding capacities within locally grounded meanings is therefore essential, reinforcing the need to anchor value-creation processes in their specific cultural and spatial contexts (Torre, 2024). This orientation resonates with calls to understand spatial planning as a dynamic and adaptive practice rather than a static blueprint (Healey, 2007; Albrechts, 2015). It also aligns with recent scholarship highlighting the transformative capacity of cultural initiatives in postindustrial urban contexts (Popa et al., 2025), while at the same time recognising that fragmented governance frameworks continue to shape – and frequently constrain – participatory outcomes (Kurt Özman & Taşan-Kok, 2024). Figure 1 presents a framework showing how cultural activities can initiate citizen participation, generating diverse perceptions of space and collective engagement. Participation gives rise to capacity building as a core externality, articulated across four dimensions - individual, community, institutional, and transformative. These capacities can strengthen skills, networks, and governance while also create conditions for social innovation by reinforcing European Journal of Spatial Development 22(4) 37 participation in planning procedures. The resulting policy outcomes mediate between community and institutional perspectives and contribute to socio-spatial integration, while a feedback loop illustrates how integration outcomes reshape both perceptions and practices, informing future cycles of cultural activity. Figure 1. Analytical Framework: Capacity Building Cycle in Cultural Activities. Authors’ own elaboration. This paper applies the above framework to examine citizens’ perceptions as a crucial lens for assessing whether cultural activities generate such externalities. Particular attention is given to capacity building as a core outcome that influences participation, policy processes, and socio-spatial integration, with Piraeus Road serving as the focal case study. To deepen the understanding of citizen involvement, the study examines three distinct cases along Piraeus Road, each reflecting different levels of engagement with the large-scale impacts envisioned in the original urban redevelopment strategy. This approach is particularly important, as existing literature stresses how varying degrees of citizen participation directly influence the success and long-term sustainability of urban transformation initiatives (Bragaglia & Caruso, 2020). The analysis begins with an exploration of key spatial planning elements and the integration of culture-based policy interventions in the area. It then turns to a closer examination of the specific features of the three cultural interventions under study. Building on this, the paper presents the methodology and results of an empirical survey capturing citizens’ perceptions of the externalities generated by these institutions’ cultural practices. Finally, the study synthesises its findings, discussing the experimental possibilities opened up by the identified externalities and their implications for future urban development. European Journal of Spatial Development 22(4) 38 Key spatial planning opportunities and challenges on Piraeus Road Piraeus Road is a main road axis that connects the center of Athens to the city of Piraeus, covering an area nearly 10 km long that administratively belongs to four municipalities (Athens, Moschato-Tavros, Nikaia-Aghios Ioannis Rentis and Piraeus Municipalities). Piraeus Road’s historical importance and its contemporary trajectories have thoroughly attracted analytical and policy interest (Kotios et al., 2018). In the 1970s, Piraeus Road entered a long period of transformation, becoming an emblematic case of Greece’s deindustrialization process (Agriantoni, 2019). This transformation partly led to a quest for a strategic renewal of the road, deriving from the abandonment and dereliction of the existing former industrial building stock. This quest has been gradually manifested through a series of actions that went underway throughout the years, comprising planning policy measures and legislative actions aimed at the valorisation of the former industrial building stock and the attraction of cultural, entertainment, educational, recreation, and targeted productive activities. All these led to the transformation of the road as an area of supra-local development interest. Indeed, the relocation of cultural uses1, during the 1990s and the 2000s, constituted supra-local mainly public-driven interventions that added to the cultural capital assets of the area combined with the supra-local commercial-retail and mass entertainment activities on specific sites; all in all, projecting a radically different structure from its industrial past. However, the lack of current implementation practice support for new culture-based redevelopment actions has been coupled with what literature suggests analytically as an overall absence of trust and consensus (Giannakourou, 2019) on planning vision for the road, among the parties and stakeholders involved without the parallel effort of harmonisation with the above planning levels. This is further enhanced by the differentiated socioeconomic conditions each municipality neighbouring to the Piraeus Road is subject to. Table 1 presents the evolution of planning interventions for Piraeus Road and its surrounding areas. Next, Map 1 presents land uses provisions for Piraeus Road based on the existing legislative framework. Table 1. Summary of Spatial Planning Legislation Provisions for Piraeus Road (compiled from official documents, authors’ processing). Plan Year Provisions for Piraeus Road Regulatory Plan of Athens (Official Gazette 18Α /18.2.1985) & 1983 It drafted actions for redefining the central areas of Athens and Piraeus, relocation of wholesale and industrial uses, and consolidating the areas’ historical 1 Such as theatrical spaces, the School of Fine Arts, the Ellinikos Kosmos Cultural Center, the Technopolis in Gkazi area, the Benaki Museum, the M. Cacoyannis Foundation, and the Athens Greek Festival. European Journal of Spatial Development 22(4) 39 Regulatory Plan of Athens amendment (Official Gazette 94Α /5.6.1992A) 1992 importance and their role as metropolitaninternational centers. Emphasis was given also to the western part of the Athens central area with the relocation of cultural and administrative uses to the neighbourhoods of Gazi, Kerameikos, and Iera Odos; all of which bear connections to Piraeus Road. Athens City Local Land Use Plan (Official Gazette 80Δ / 4.1.1988) 1988 It determined incentives for new uses as well as strengthening the metropolitan role of the central area. Moschato City Local Land Use Plan (Official Gazette Δ 386/ 2.6.1988) 1988 It mainly referred to public road works with special reference to Piraeus Road. Tavros City Local Plan (Official Gazette 834 Δ / 31.08.1987) 1987 It referred to the need for providing incentives for the development of multi-dynamic centers and general housing uses along the Piraeus Road. Aghios Ioannis Rentis City Local Plan (Official Gazette 1038 Δ / 16.10.1987) 1987 It referred to the upgrading of Piraeus Road with the gradual relocation of the industrial uses with less nuisance and aesthetically upgraded uses. Piraeus City Local Plan (Official Gazette 79 Δ / 4.2.1988) 1988 It referred to Piraeus areas, posing a need of the preservation and protection of historic buildings and change of use. Provisions for the protection of the traditional character of particular parts or buildings of the road (Official Gazette 510 Δ' /1996; and its amendment 267 Δ'/1997) 1996/1997 This targeted legislation modified the aforementioned local plans by designating the road as a special statute traditional-historical area beyond the historical centers of Athens and the municipal boundaries of the four municipalities it spans. In this context, eighty-eight (88) buildings and ten (10) facades belonging also to the road were classified as listed buildings. Legislation on Piraeus Road character (Official Gazette 1063 Δ / 16.11.2004) 2004 Athens, Tavros, Moschato, Ag. Ioannis Rentis and Piraeus municipalities’ local plans were modified to regulate new uses and define construction by-laws in the Piraeus road axis area. Legislation on Piraeus Road character amendment (103 ΑΑΠ/ 22.2.2007) 2007 It allowed the relocation of food hypermarkets and partly specified land use categories based on 2004 legislation provisions. New Athens-Attica Regulatory Plan (Official Gazette 156 Α / 1.8.2014). 2014 It emphasized the need to develop the Piraeus Road area based on cultural functions and leisure activities with the aim of enhancing the image and identity of European Journal of Spatial Development 22(4) 46 Table 2. Dimensions of Survey and Corresponding Forms of Capacity Building (authors’ own elaboration). Survey Dimension Linked CapacityBuilding Types Focus of Capacity Building Institutions’ Realized Impact Institutional, Transformative Supporting entrepreneurship, sociopolitical participation, and local economic change; potential risks of gentrification. Culture’s Role Individual, Community Developing personal creativity and skills; fostering collective cooperation and improving social life. Place-Making & Community Involvement Community, Transformative Building belonging and collaboration; enabling governance innovation and reconfigured spatial relations. The survey began by screening participants to determine their engagement with the cultural spaces. Subsequently, the perceived impact of cultural activities for the aforementioned indicators was measured using a Likert scale (1-5), assessing responses related to the cultural institutions' roles in the aforementioned areas. The survey also collected sociodemographic data and information on participation characteristics to contextualize the responses. The study employed a combination of descriptive statistics, ANOVA, post-hoc tests, and ttests to analyse the survey results. Since the survey aimed at comparing the perceptions of users from different institutions (Technopolis, the School of Fine Arts, and Romantso), ANOVA was used to assess whether statistically significant differences existed between these groups. ANOVA is particularly effective when comparing three or more groups, as it can identify significant variations in perceptions across cultural institutions. If significant differences were found, post-hoc tests were conducted to pinpoint which specific groups differed from each other. Additionally, t-tests were employed to compare two groups at a time, specifically for examining sociodemographic differences (Robson, 2002). Results and Discussion Respondents’ profile and general perception of institutions’ impact A total of 202 respondents participated in the Technopolis survey. The sample was weighted towards women (59.4%) and adults aged 35–49 (50.5%), most of whom were Greek nationals (84.2%), employed in the private sector (48.5%), and with medium income (77.7%). This profile reflects the institution’s positioning as a cultural hub appealing to middle-income professionals, many of whom had previously engaged with its activities (83.7% in 2019, particularly exhibitions at 76%). Respondents largely perceived Technopolis as contributing positively to public space, social life, and political engagement, suggesting that its cultural programme resonates beyond European Journal of Spatial Development 22(4) 47 its premises. Nevertheless, certain limitations were identified: a minority felt excluded due to mismatches between the content of activities and their interests, or a lack of information about available opportunities, pointing to the importance of communication strategies for sustaining broader engagement. The School of Fine Arts survey yielded 109 responses, with a markedly different profile. Nearly half of respondents were students (46.8%), while another 29.4% were university graduates. Participation levels were high, with 78% attending School of Fine Arts activities and 47.1% doing so weekly, reflecting its embeddedness in the academic routine of its community. However, this frequency of engagement did not necessarily translate into perceptions of broader socio-economic impact. Respondents valued School of Fine Arts primarily for aesthetic cultivation and artistic creation, while reporting minimal effects on entrepreneurship, employment, or public space improvement. Interest in the future development of the surrounding area was evident, particularly in relation to investments and public space, but such aspirations remained largely disconnected from the institution’s everyday cultural activities. Romantso’s survey, involving 66 participants, indicated a smaller but culturally active audience, with 68.2% having attended events in 2019, primarily festivals and exhibitions. Despite this interest, respondents perceived the institution’s external impacts as limited, particularly in relation to entrepreneurship, employment, and neighbourhood improvements. Instead, its value was seen in fostering artistic creation and offering space for cultural consumption, with little acknowledgment of wider socio-economic or spatial benefits. Respondents also noted that Romantso’s influence was mostly confined to its internal space, reinforcing its role as an incubator of niche creativity rather than a driver of urban transformation. Still, many participants expressed openness to contributing to local development initiatives, though barriers such as lack of time or resources constrained deeper engagement. Taken together, these descriptive profiles highlight contrasting logics of participation. Technopolis attracts a broad, general audience that associates cultural activity with civic and economic benefits; School of Fine Arts draws frequent engagement but within a narrower, academically oriented frame that limits perceptions of external impact; Romantso cultivates artistic vibrancy but remains spatially contained. These contrasts shape how each institution is perceived as a contributor – or not – to wider urban development, an issue explored further in the comparative analysis below. Next, a comparative analysis was conducted between the responses from the different case studies to assess the significance of the results. The findings are presented in the subsequent sections. Cultural Institutions and perceived socio-economic impact European Journal of Spatial Development 22(4) 48 To assess perceptions of socio-economic outcomes, participants rated institutions’ impact on five indicators: cost of living, local entrepreneurship, public space improvement, employment opportunities, and socio-political life. ANOVA results showed statistically significant differences across institutions for all indicators, confirming that institutional type matters: cost of living [F(2,374)=75.88, p<0.001], entrepreneurship [F(2,374)=242.99, p<0.001], public space [F(2,374)=239.15, p<0.001], employment [F(2,374)=111.07, p<0.001], and socio-political improvement [F(2,374)=78.87, p<0.001]. Scheffe post hoc tests reveal that Technopolis consistently scored higher than School of Fine Arts and Romantso on economic-related indicators, including cost of living, entrepreneurship, public space, and employment. This reinforces its profile as a large-scale cultural hub with visible spill-over effects in local development. Romantso, though smaller, was rated higher than School of Fine Arts on entrepreneurship and public space, suggesting that even mid-sized creative hubs can activate certain neighbourhood dynamics. In contrast, School of Fine Arts score higher levels regarding its perceived impact on socio-political improvement, surpassing both Technopolis and Romantso, which reflects its academic orientation and its role in cultivating artistic and civic discourse. These results demonstrate that respondents generally linked institutional impact to their own everyday needs rather than to broader redevelopment aspirations. For instance, many Technopolis and Romantso users associated their visits with occasional recreational activities, a pattern that explains lower levels of sustained participation. By contrast, School of Fine Arts users, mostly students, displayed higher frequency of visits, but this regularity did not translate into perceptions of transformative impact. Instead, it reinforced the sense of School of Fine Arts as a dynamic academic space rather than a catalyst for area-wide change. Moreover, occasional visitors across all institutions often struggled to develop sustainable participatory links, highlighting the importance of designing direct and convincing strategies for engagement. Importantly, most respondents in all three cases did not perceive cultural institutions as contributing directly to the Piraeus Road redevelopment vision, instead situating impact within the institutions’ internal spaces (77% for Technopolis, 98.2% for SCHOOL OF FINE ARTS, 89.4% for Romantso). Only a minority pointed to broader neighbourhood improvements, and these were concentrated in Technopolis and Romantso, where local entrepreneurship activation was more visible. Sociopolitical improvements were also perceived unevenly: while most respondents linked them to public policy interventions in new public spaces, some in Technopolis (43.6%) associated them with the attraction of new visitors, and a smaller share of School of Fine Arts respondents (15.4%) linked them to increased decision-making capacity. Overall, the findings highlight that citizens’ participation in cultural activities is largely framed by immediate practical benefits, such as recreation or local economic opportunities, European Journal of Spatial Development 22(4) 49 rather than long-term social innovation or spatial transformation. While Technopolis demonstrates capacity to influence economic dimensions, School of Fine Arts strengthens socio-political discourse, and Romantso nurtures cultural vibrancy at a micro scale, none of the three institutions were widely perceived as connected to broader redevelopment agendas. This reveals both the potential and the limitations of cultural institutions in shaping urban transformation: they can mobilise engagement in specific domains but struggle to project these impacts onto wider territorial or governance frameworks. Table 3. Means and Standard Deviation (Std.D.) of participants’ responses regarding the type of impact (area cost, area local entrepreneurship, area public space, area public space and are social and political life) and in relation to the three case study areas (authors’ own elaboration). Technopolis (1) School of Fine Arts (2) Romantso (3) Cost of Living Mean: 2.47 Std.D.: 1.618 Scheffe Multiple Comparisons P<0,05: 1>2,3 Mean: 0.75 Std.D.: 0.547 Mean: 1.11 Std.D.: 0.726 Scheffe Multiple Comparisons P<0,05: 3>2 Local Entrepreneurship Mean: 3.21 Std.D.: 1.088 Scheffe Multiple Comparisons P<0,05: 1>2,3 Mean: 0.87 Std.D.: 0.610 Mean: 1.62 Std.D.: 0.837 Scheffe Multiple Comparisons P<0,05: 3>2 Public Space Improvement Mean: 3.62 Std.D.: 0.791 Scheffe Multiple Comparisons P<0,05: 1>2,3 Mean: 0.80 Std.D.: 0.590 Mean: 1.32 Std.D.: 0.768 Scheffe Multiple Comparisons P<0,05: 3>2 Increasing Employment Opportunities Mean: 2.72 Std.D.: 1.436 Mean: 2.47 Std.D.: 1.618 Mean: 2.47 Std.D.: 1.618 European Journal of Spatial Development 22(4) 50 Scheffe Multiple Comparisons P<0,05: 1>2,3 Scheffe Multiple Comparisons P<0,05: 3>2 Improvement of Social and Political Life Mean: 1.17 Std.D.: 1.618 Mean: 1.76 Std.D.: 0.428 Scheffe Multiple Comparisons P<0,05: 2>1,3 Mean: 1.58 Std.D.: 0.498 Scheffe Multiple Comparisons P<0,05: 3>1 Cultural Institutions and perceived Role for local communities The analysis of participants’ perceptions of the roles of cultural institutions focused on four dimensions: aesthetic cultivation, artistic creation, socioeconomic life, and cooperation networks. ANOVA results confirmed statistically significant variation across institutions: aesthetic cultivation [F(2,374)=75.88, p<0.001], entrepreneurship [F(2,374)=14.936, p<0.001], artistic creation [F(2,374)=26.356, p<0.001], socioeconomic improvement [F(2,374)=14.016, p<0.001], and cooperation networks [F(2,374)=24.770, p<0.001]. These findings underline that institutional type decisively shapes how respondents assess cultural contributions. Post hoc comparisons demonstrate a clear differentiation of roles. School of Fine Arts respondents valued most highly the role of cultural institutions in aesthetic cultivation and fostering artistic creation, confirming the institution’s orientation toward academic and artistic enrichment. Technopolis respondents, however, placed greater emphasis on socioeconomic improvement and cooperation networks, reflecting its civic scale and its stronger integration into entrepreneurial and local economic life. Romantso’s ratings positioned it between these two, with respondents recognising contributions to artistic creation and networking, yet less consistently associating them with community-wide benefits. Across all three cases, respondents tended to interpret cultural institutions as reinforcing conventional artistic and aesthetic roles rather than drivers of wider socio-political transformation. This was especially evident in SCHOOL OF FINE ARTS, where 61.5% prioritised aesthetic cultivation and 60.6% prioritised artistic creation, and Technopolis, where 55.9% and 64.4% respectively highlighted similar roles. Such perceptions point to a disjuncture: while institutions are embedded in a broader redevelopment narrative, their cultural identity remains rooted in artistic practice rather than in reshaping socio-political structures. The persistence of this perception is noteworthy, given that strategic aspirations for Piraeus Road redevelopment date back to the 1990s. The fact that respondents largely failed to connect European Journal of Spatial Development 22(4) 51 cultural institutions with this broader vision suggests a weak translation of policy rhetoric into lived experience. By contrast, comparative literature demonstrates that in other contexts, cultural institutions have been seen as central to collective identity-building and socio-political change (André et al., 2013). Here, however, cultural roles are confined to self-contained institutional spaces, limiting their capacity to foster broader community engagement or political agency. This outcome highlights a gap between institutional potential and public perception, and underlines the importance of situating cultural policy in ways that resonate more directly with community aspirations. Sociodemographic variations reinforced this pattern. Greek nationals (N=317) rated aesthetic cultivation significantly higher than respondents of other nationalities [t(375)=1.924, p<0.001], and medium-income participants (N=287) did so more than those with low incomes [t(375)=2.12, p=0.004]. Cultural-sector professionals (N=114), however, reported lower levels of perceived socio-political contribution [t(336)=0.246, p=0.003], perhaps reflecting greater scepticism about the actual civic impact of cultural institutions. Participants actively engaged with any of the institutions’ activities (N=299) also rated aesthetic cultivation higher [t(375)=4.85, p<0.001], confirming that frequent users tend to internalise culture’s aesthetic value rather than its transformative potential. These results indicate that social location and professional background shape perceptions, further constraining the extent to which cultural institutions are seen as catalysts of urban transformation. Table 4. Means and Standard Deviation (Std.D.) of participants’ responses on different statements regarding cultural institutions’ roles and in relation to the three case study areas: Aesthetic Cultivation of the Individual, Fostering Artistic Creation, Economic and Social Life of an area Improvement , Strengthened Cooperation Networks in between public and private organisations (authors’ own elaboration). . Technopolis (1) School of Fine Arts (2) Romantso (3) Aesthetic Cultivation of the Individual Mean: 3.79 Std.D.: 0.710 Mean: 4.21 Std.D.: 0.610 Scheffe Multiple Comparisons P<0,05: 2>1,3 Mean: 3.67 Std.D.: 0.997 Fostering Artistic Creation Mean: 4.09 Std.D.: 0.617 Mean: 4.61 Std.D.: 0.491 Mean: 4.30 Std.D.: 0.701 European Journal of Spatial Development 22(4) 52 Scheffe Multiple Comparisons P<0,05: 2>1,3 Economic and Social Life of an area Improvement Mean: 3.52 Std.D.: 0.859 Scheffe Multiple Comparisons P<0,05: 1>2 Mean: 2.87 Std.D.: 1.299 Mean: 3.39 Std.D.: 1.065 Scheffe Multiple Comparisons P<0,05: 3>2 Strengthened Cooperation Networks in between public and private organisations Mean: 3.58 Std.D.: 0.895 Scheffe Multiple Comparisons P<0,05: 1>2 Mean: 2.66 Std.D.: 1.396 Mean: 3.39 Std.D.: 1.188 Scheffe Multiple Comparisons P<0,05: 3>2 Cultural Institutions and contribution in Spatial Development A final set of analyses explored how respondents linked cultural institutions to spatial development opportunities, including new investments, attraction of population, public space improvement, attraction of cultural institutions, and activation of local bodies. ANOVA results confirmed significant institutional effects across all indicators: investments [F(2,374)=15.172, p<0.001], public space [F(2,374)=93.046, p<0.001], new cultural institutions [F(2,374)=54.902, p<0.001], socioeconomic improvement [F(2,374)=14.016, p<0.001], and activation of local bodies [F(2,374)=24.581, p<0.001].Scheffe post hoc comparisons highlight distinct institutional profiles. School of Fine Arts participants considered new investments and public space improvements as most important, reflecting their orientation toward long-term urban quality and student-oriented needs. Romantso participants, in contrast, prioritised activation of local entities in decision-making, suggesting a stronger awareness of governance processes despite the institution’s smaller scale. Technopolis respondents emphasised attraction of new cultural institutions, consistent with its positioning as a large-scale hub that anchors and attracts complementary activities. European Journal of Spatial Development 22(4) 53 Despite these differences, all three groups converged on the importance of new investments, indicating that respondents prioritise tangible development over abstract policy agendas. Yet the way investments were framed varied: for Technopolis, investments were linked to attracting population (74.8%) and improving public space (58.4%); for SCHOOL OF FINE ARTS, the focus was overwhelmingly on public space (74.3%) and secondarily on new residents (51.4%); for Romantso, similar proportions stressed both public space (53%) and population attraction (53%). These findings suggest that while public space improvement is consistently valued, the framing of other priorities depends on institutional type and user base. The role of local bodies elicited mixed responses, with support ranging from 25.7% in School of Fine Arts to nearly 50% in Technopolis and Romantso. This uncertainty reflects both citizens’ ambivalence about governance processes and their limited trust in policy actors to facilitate participatory development. The reluctance to engage in future initiatives further underscores this point: many respondents expressed low expectations that institutions could or would organise such initiatives, particularly in the case of Technopolis. Sociodemographic variables sharpen these distinctions. Younger respondents (<35, N=174) rated population attraction as less important [t(375)=1.350, p<0.001] but activation of local bodies as more important [t(375)=2.755, p<0.001], suggesting generational differences in prioritising governance over demographic change. Higher-educated respondents rated local body activation slightly less important [t(375)=0.42, p=0.002], while participants engaged with cultural activities (N=299) rated both population attraction [t(375)=2.041, p=0.002] and local body activation [t(375)=2.509, p<0.001] more highly. These findings point to the fact that engagement itself fosters a stronger connection between culture and spatial development aspirations, whereas disengagement sustains scepticism. Overall, this section demonstrates that respondents tend to value concrete, visible improvements – investments, public space, and new institutions – over systemic governance transformations. While institutional type and user profile shape which dimensions are prioritised, the broader pattern is one of pragmatic expectations: culture is valued as a contributor to local quality of life but is rarely seen as a vehicle for transformative redevelopment. Table 5. Means and Standard Deviation (Std.D.) of participants’ responses on Spatial Development Opportunities from Institutions’ Cultural Interventions: Creation of new investments in the area, Improvement of Public Space , Attraction of new cultural institutions in the area , Greater activation of local bodies in decision making (authors’ own elaboration). Technopolis (1) School of Fine Arts (2) Romantso (3) Creation of new investments in the area Mean: 3.89 Std.D.: 0.535 Mean: 4.23 Std.D.: 0.502 Mean: 4.15 Std.D.: 0.048 European Journal of Spatial Development 22(4) 54 Scheffe Multiple Comparisons P<0,05: 2>1,3 Scheffe Multiple Comparisons P<0,05: 3>1 Improvement of Public Space Mean: 3.83 Std.D.: 0.648 Mean: 4.72 Std.D.: 0.488 Scheffe Multiple Comparisons P<0,05: 2>1 Mean: 4.52 Std.D.: 0.533 Scheffe Multiple Comparisons P<0,05: 3>1,2 Attraction of new cultural institutions in the area Mean: 3.40 Std.D.: 0.830 Scheffe Multiple Comparisons P<0,05: 1>2,3 Mean: 2.23 Std.D.: 0.978 Mean: 3.89 Std.D.: 1.165 Scheffe Multiple Comparisons P<0,05: 3>2 Greater activation of local bodies in decision making Mean: 3.74 Std.D.: 0.848 Scheffe Multiple Comparisons P<0,05: 1>2 Mean: 3.13 Std.D.: 1.473 Mean: 4.24 Std.D.: 0.745 Scheffe Multiple Comparisons P<0,05: 3>1,2 Conclusions The aim of this paper was to contribute to the ongoing debate on how cultural activities can meaningfully engage citizens in spatial development. The focus was on enhancing capacities related to participation as a key externality in urban planning (Nyseth et al., 2017), reflected in the wider externalities of cultural interventions (Rausell-Köster et al., 2022). Through an empirical survey on three cultural spaces located along Piraeus Road, the study critically examined citizens' perceptions of the externalities created by cultural activities. It explored how participation in cultural experiences influenced citizens’ perceptions of their surroundings and their potential to contribute to broader goals of spatial transformation. European Journal of Spatial Development 22(4) 55 Building on literature that stresses the importance of recognising citizens' needs and roles in networking activities when analysing culture’s relevance to spatial planning (Taheri et al., 2024), this paper also examined the role of cultural institutions in stimulating demand for cultural practices that address spatial planning challenges within their programs. In this regard, the paper provided insights into cases where cultural interventions were assumed to be automatically beneficial, linking to the social innovation approach, but where the participation dimension was not adequately enhanced. To capture these dynamics, the study considered citizens’ perceptions of cultural institutions' impact on spatial development opportunities and highlighted the importance of enabling conditions towards capacity building so that cultural interventions can respond to societal change (Galego et al., 2021). Results indicated that each institution had a distinct impact, but levels of citizen engagement and perceived benefits varied significantly according to type, scale, and nature. The comparative analysis underscored the importance of studying institutions of different sizes and orientations side by side. It also showed that the perceived impact in each area often did not align with expected or desired outcomes. For example, respondents from School of Fine Arts reported sociopolitical improvements more strongly than the other two institutions, yet they valued its role mainly in aesthetic cultivation and fostering artistic creation. They prioritised new investments, public space improvements, and activation of local actors, but without recognising a direct connection between these outcomes and the cultural character of the institution. In contrast, respondents from Technopolis noted significant impacts on cost of living, entrepreneurship, public space, and employment opportunities. They also valued Technopolis for its contributions to socioeconomic improvement, cooperation networks, and its ability to attract new cultural institutions. Romantso respondents, by comparison, linked the institution more strongly with improvements in the local sociopolitical environment and stressed the need to enhance local actors' capacity building. A key insight from the research was that the size of the institution mattered less than the degree of users’ systematic connection to cultural content production. Capacity-building activities, such as education, were especially important in this respect. Artistic production, though valuable, often made it harder for citizens to perceive developmental opportunities, as the absence of visible public policy strategies was more striking to respondents. As a result, many prioritised policy measures over direct involvement in cultural activities. Survey results further showed that the externalities of cultural activities were primarily understood through economic lenses. Citizens’ role in these activities was not always viewed as part of a more deeply engaged or participatory process. While respondents valued the aesthetic and everyday benefits of cultural engagement, they did not consistently connect these activities to broader urban development goals. These findings underline the need for policies that foster European Journal of Spatial Development 22(4) 62 Healey, P. (2007). Urban complexity and spatial strategies: Towards a relational planning for our times. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203017453 Horlings, L. G., Roep, D., Mathijs, E., & Marsden, T. (2020). Exploring the transformative capacity of placeshaping practices. Sustainability Science, 15(2), 353–362. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-02000787-w Kalfas, D., Kalogiannidis, S., Ambas, V., & Chatzitheodoridis, F. (2024). Contribution of the cultural and creative industries to regional development and revitalization: A European perspective. Urban Science, 8(2), 39. https://doi.org/10.3390/urbansci80200397 Kotios A., Belavilas N., Charalambous P. (2018), Syngroy Av. - Faliro Bay - Piraeus Road [in greek], Scientific Conference "The development strategy of the region and the cultural axis of Syngrou", Network of the avenue's educational and cultural institutions, Athens. Knieling J. & Othengrafen F. (2009), Planning Cultures in Europe. Decoding Cultural Phenomena in Urban and Regional Planning, Routledge, London. Kurt Özman, E., & Taşan-Kok, T. (2024). From entrepreneurial to responsive spatial governance: Bottomup responses in fragmented urban regeneration. European Planning Studies, 32(7), 1289–1307. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2024.1234567 Kyritsi, M. (2017). Management of industrial premises and buildings of Athens for cultural use [in Greek]. Mytilene: Thesis. Dept. of Cultural Technology and Communication. University of the Aegean. Malapani, G., Schoina, S. D., & Travlos, G. (2016). Gkazi - Analysis of the residential area [in Greek]. Students' essay. School of Architecture, National and Technical University of Athens. Retrieved from http://oldwww.arch.ntua.gr/project/9762 (03 28, 2022). Mateos Mora, C., & Navarro Yáñez, C. J. (2023). ‘Cultural Buzz’ on the neighbourhood: The impact of the URBAN I initiative on cultural consumption opportunities. In C. J. Navarro Yáñez, M. J. RodríguezGarcía, & M. J. Guerrero-Mayo (Eds.), EU Integrated Urban Initiatives (pp. 191-208). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-20885-0_10 McCormick, K., Hardy, J., & Utter, M. (2020). Creative placemaking: Sparking development with arts and culture. The Urban Land Institute. Retrieved from https://knowledge.uli.org/-/media/files/researchreports/2020/creative-placemaking-v2.pdf (05 31, 2021). Medeiros, E. (2023). Data and modelling for the territorial impact assessment (TIA) of policies. In E. Bertoni, M. Fontana, L. Gabrielli, S. Signorelli, & M. Vespe (Eds.), Handbook of Computational Social Science for Policy (pp. 177-194). Springer. Montalto, V., Alberti, V., Panella, F., & Sacco, P. L. (2023). Are cultural cities always creative? An empirical analysis of culture-led development in 190 European cities. Habitat International, 132, 102739. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2022.102739 Moulaert, F. (2018). Cultura, artes e inovacao social. O que aprendemos com gratidao com a Isabel Andre. In A. Estevens & A. Carmo (Eds.), Isabel André. Uma geografa inquieta: Textos escolhidos. Universidade de Lisboa, Centro de Estudos Geográficos. Moulaert, F., & van Dyck, B. (2013). Framing social innovation research: A sociology of knowledge perspective. In F. Moulaert, D. MacCallum, A. Mehmood, & A. Hamdouch (Eds.), The international European Journal of Spatial Development 22(4) 63 handbook on social innovation: Collective action, social learning and transdisciplinary research (pp. 466-479). Edward Elgar Publishing Limited. Moulaert, F., Mehmood, A., MacCallum, D., & Leubolt, B. (2017). Social innovation as a trigger for transformations: The role of research. European Commission. https://doi.org/10.2777/68949 Moulaert, F., & MacCallum, D. (2019). Advanced introduction to social innovation. Edward Elgar Publishing Limited. Moulaert, F., Jessop, B., & Swyngedouw, E. (2022). Political change through social innovation. Edward Elgar Monographs. Nyseth, T., Hamdouch, A., Demaziere, C., Forde, A., Serrano, J. (2017). Perspectives on creative planning and local development in small and medium-sized towns. In A. Hamdouch, T. Nyseth, C. Demazière, A. Førde, J. Serrano, N. Aarsæther (Eds.), Creative approaches to planning and local development: Insights from small and medium-sized towns in Europe (pp. 13-21). Routledge. Partal, A., & Dunphy, K. (2016). Cultural impact assessment: A systematic literature review of current methods and practice around the world. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 33(5), 1-26. https://doi.org/10.1080/14615517.2015.1077600 Popa, A., Kovács, Z., & Petrova, D. (2025). Culture-led urban regeneration in post-socialist cities: From decadent spaces towards creative initiatives. Urban Studies, 62(1), 45–64. https://doi.org/10.1177/00420980241234567 Rausell-Köster, P., Ghirardi, S., Sanjuán, J., Molinari, F., & Abril, B. (2022). Cultural experiences in the framework of “cultural cities”: Measuring the socioeconomic impact of culture in urban performance. City, Territory and Architecture, 9(40). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40410-022-00189-8 Reckwitz, A., & Rosa, H. (2023). Late modernity in crisis: Why we need a theory of society (V. A. Pakis, Trans.). Polity. Roberts, L., & Lowe, J. (2024). The spatial imaginaries of creative clusters: Examining the role of R&D programmes in creative placemaking. Geoforum, 154, 104066. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2024.1040667 Sacco, P. L., Bialowolski, P., & Weziak-Bialowolska, D. (2025). Culture and creativity, skills building, and growth: What have we missed? Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 12, 236. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-04200-0 Saltelli, A., Kuc-Czarnecka, M., Lo Piano, S., Lőrincz, M. J., Olczyk, M., Puy, A., Reinert, E., Thor Smith, S., & van der Sluijs, J. P. (2023). Impact assessment culture in the European Union. Time for something new?. Environmental Science & Policy, 142, 99-111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2023.02.005 Segovia, C., & Hervé, J. (2022). The creative city approach: Origins, construction, and prospects in a scenario of transition. City Territory Architecture, 9, 29. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40410-022-00178-x von Schönfeld, K. C., & Ferreira, A. (2021). Urban Planning and European Innovation Policy: Achieving Sustainability, Social Inclusion, and Economic Growth? Sustainability, 13(3), 1137. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13031137 European Journal of Spatial Development 22(4) 64 Stefanidou, A., Doumpos, M., & Zopounidis, C. (2024). Culture as a driver of sustainable urban development - Methodological approaches. Development and Sustainability in Economics and Finance, 2–4, 100011. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dsef.2024.100011 Stihl, L. (2024). Local culture and change agency in old industrial places: Spinning forward and digging deeper. European Planning Studies, 32(3), 586-606. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2023.2222145 Suitner, J., Haider, W., & Krisch, A. (2024). Socially innovative experiments for transformative local development: Putting more-than-growth-oriented local interventions in spatial context. Regional Science Policy & Practice, 16(9), 100035. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rspp.2024.100035 Taheri, S., Khalilpour, F., Ashayeri, M., & Shabani, A. (2024). Handicrafts as cultural creative clusters: A spatial-cultural planning approach for the regeneration of urban historical fabrics. International Journal of Tourism Cities, 10(4), 1393-1413. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJTC-02-2024-0042 Tricarico, L., De Vidovich, L., & Billi, A. (2022). Entrepreneurship, inclusion, or co-production? An attempt to assess territorial elements in social innovation literature. Cities, 130, 103986. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2022.103986 Torre, A. (2024). Re-learning culture in cities beyond the West. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 48(2), 210–225. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2427.13045 Tseva, G., Delladetsima, P. M., & Sarmento, J. (2024). Towards an Analytical Framework for Assessing the Impact of Culture-Driven Interventions on Integrated Local Development Planning: Insights from the Case Study of Piraeus Avenue in Athens, Greece. Revue Roumaine de Géographie / Romanian Journal of Geography, 68(1), 21-47. https://doi.org/10.59277/RRG.2024.1.02. Yan, W.-J., & Liu, S.-T. (2023). Creative economy and sustainable development: Shaping flexible cultural governance models for creativity. Sustainability, 15(5), 4353. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15054353 Zelenkovski, K., Prodanova J., & Kocarev, L. (2024). Exploring citizen perceptions and values for a responsible society. Social Science Quarterly, 105, 296–310.https://doi.org/10.1111/ssqu.13353 Zou, L., Wall, G., Zhang, D., & Cheng, X. (2021). Tourism and the (re)making of rural places: The cases of two Chinese villages. Tourism Management Perspectives, 40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tmp.2021.100910