## 2 Background  
### A New Paradigm in Cultural Heritage  
In the traditional view of cultural heritage, people valued material things with intrinsic properties or a national history relevance. The traditional paradigm encouraged the reduction of heritage to tourism and consumption, with the engagement of broader cultural topics only for a professional audience. Recently, however, a new paradigm emerged that puts the production of heritage to the foreground. The new paradigm aims to encompass the greater involvement of local citizens in creating content and to contribute to cultural heritage, with greater concern for the everyday. Generally, it has been argued that, when heritage is everywhere and relevant to our everyday life, it is likely to be one of the preconditions for genuine sustainability [4]. This stresses the importance of heritage communities, which are social groups, who value specific aspects of cultural heritage that they wish to sustain and transmit to future generations within the framework of public action [5] and social capital, which is defined as an important resource of individuals and social groups impacting economic growth, democratic practices, quality of governance, and quality of life [6]. Hence, local citizen participation is considered an ethical obligation and a political necessity to strengthen democracy and to create governance that can ultimately improve quality of life [4]. Some key examples of the paradigm shift are _policy_, _inclusivity_, and _technology_. Firstly, the role of culture as a component of sustainable development is being increasingly discussed in policy debates. UNESCO emphasised the importance of culture during the Decade of Culture and Development (1988-1998) and through its conventions (e.g., on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions in 2005, for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage in 2003, and concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage in 1972). In Europe, both the Council of Europe's Landscape Convention and its Faro Convention imply the need for more culturally sensitive approaches [4]. Secondly, heritage is often represented by places linked to a built environment that is already iconic but not really representative of all the sides and transliterations of a culturally diverse audience [7]. This happens also on a smaller scale in museum environments, e.g., the Mona Lisa in the Louvre museum is one of the most famous masterpieces, but most of the time, people focus just on this artwork and easily forget to pay attention to the surroundings. According to a study published by the MIT Senseable Lab [8], generally, visitors overlook the very famous [PERSON]'s display just in front of [PERSON]'s masterpiece. The reason for this is because anyone who visits the museum feels the need to snap a picture of the Mona Lisa, as a means to underline the _\"Louvre museum experience\"_ and _\"to bring back home the proof of having been there\"_ as a small souvenir. Therefore, collecting samples of the museum/cultural experience is a recurring action for tourists and museum visitors [9], while cultural landmarks are becoming similar to brands. To reach better visibility, cultural heritage needs to be understood by a wider range of visitors. One key aspect in being understood by the audience is to find a common root between different cultures and to globalise what, at the moment, is only locally known [9]. The challenge here is to contextualise masterpieces, cultural landmarks, and pieces of the built environment to a culturally diverse panorama. Cultural artefacts are rarely located where most people live or work: _here_. Too often they are--it seems almost by definition--somewhere else: _there_. People might visit them on holiday, but this type of heritage is not part of the everyday landscape of their normal lives. If heritage is thus defined as elsewhere, there is a risk that it will unintentionally become an instrument of exclusion.