Journal of Heritage Tourism

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjht20

Heritage tourism and place making: investigating

the users’ perspectives towards Sa'd al-Saltaneh
Caravanserai in Qazvin, Iran

Naimeh Rezaei, Zahed Ghaderi & Maryam Ghanipour

To cite this article: Naimeh Rezaei, Zahed Ghaderi & Maryam Ghanipour (2022) Heritage tourism
and place making: investigating the users’ perspectives towards Sa'd al-Saltaneh Caravanserai in
Qazvin, Iran, Journal of Heritage Tourism, 17:2, 204-221, DOI: 10.1080/1743873X.2021.1998076

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/1743873X.2021.1998076

Published online: 10 Nov 2021.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 430

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 2 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rjht20
JOURNAL OF HERITAGE TOURISM
2022, VOL. 17, NO. 2, 204–221
https://doi.org/10.1080/1743873X.2021.1998076

Heritage tourism and place making: investigating the users’

perspectives towards Sa’d al-Saltaneh Caravanserai in Qazvin,
Iran
a b
Naimeh Rezaei , Zahed Ghaderi and Maryam Ghanipourc
a
School of Urban Planning, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran; bDepartment of Tourism, Collège of Arts & Social
science, Sultan Qaboos University, Muscat, Oman; cUrban Design, Tabriz Islamic Art University, Tabriz, Iran

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

This study examines the adaptive reuse of an abandoned heritage Received 13 January 2021
ensemble, Sa’d al-Saltaneh Caravanserai, in Qazvin, Iran, through ‘place Accepted 22 October 2021
making’, a multifaceted approach to create urban spaces. We applied a
KEYWORDS
qualitative research approach, focusing on in-depth semi-structured Heritage conservation;
interviews and on-site observations. The findings revealed that the heritage tourism; place
adaptive reuse project and place making had created a positive image making; adaptive reuse;
of the city and a popular place for citizens and tourists to visit. The users’ perception; Qazvin
results support the assertion that tourism place making, using arts and
culture, could be a helpful way for heritage conservation in long-
neglected historical centers and improve the image and experiences of
urban places. However, the neglect of the community needs in the
process of place making may hinder the realization of effective urban
regeneration and sustainable tourism development. Through the case
of Qazvin, we argue that the lack of a comprehensive and
multidimensional approach in the process of tourism place making can
worsen the situation for residents and eliminate the residential role of
central neighborhoods. The study contributes to the literature on
heritage adaptive reuse and tourism place making from the
perspectives of different groups of stakeholders.

Introduction
Since the 1970s, in parallel with the expansion of the concept of heritage from single buildings to
heritage ensembles, the function of these buildings and sites has become important. Since then, giv-
ing contemporary uses to heritage sites has become an essential part of conservation practices.
Hence, built heritage has been considered as a tool to respond to various communities’ needs
and has entered people’s daily lives (Ashworth, 2011; Haldrup & Bœrenholdt, 2015). Thus, the con-
cept of adaptive reuse has emerged in the conservation literature (Ashworth, 2011; Smith, 2006).
Although heritage has been previously considered as an obstacle to urban development (Pendle-
bury, 2002), it has since entered the urban development programs as a catalyst for urban regener-
ation (Pendlebury & Porfyriou, 2017; Timothy, 2011).
Today, the transformation of historic sites and buildings into places for both citizens and tourists
is not limited to developed countries. Many developing nations have also adopted the same policy to
revitalize their heritage and socio-economic development, and tourist attractions (Chua & Deguchi,
2011; Ahmed Haidar & Talib, 2013; Kenneth & Lucian, 2019).

CONTACT Naimeh Rezaei naimeh.rezaei@ut.ac.ir

© 2021 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
 JOURNAL OF HERITAGE TOURISM 205

In Iran, reuse projects began in the 2000s. The public sector first started these projects, and then
private investors entered the process and caused significant changes in historical urban areas. How-
ever, limited research has been conducted on this subject which mostly have focused either on the
technical aspects (such as architectural design, executive details, buildings’ authenticity), or the pro-
cess of reuse and its impacts from the perspective of groups of stakeholders (Ghaderi et al., 2020;
Lotfi & Sholeh, 2020; Masoud & Einifar, 2021; Rezaei, 2017; Rezaei et al., 2019; Rezaei et al., 2021).
This study aims to provide a new perspective on the integration of abandoned historic places
into tourists’ experiences and the everyday lives of citizens, through using the concepts of ‘tourism
placemaking’ (Lew, 2017) and ‘heritage-based place making’ (Newman, 2016) as analysis frame-
works. Heritage tourism is known as one of the most critical factors in urban transformations.
However, very little research has been conducted on the relationship between heritage tourism
and place making, which is a globally accepted approach to planning, design, and management
of urban spaces (e.g. Delconte et al., 2016; Lew, 2017; Mansilla & Milano, 2019; Pendlebury & Por-
fyriou, 2017). Therefore, the main objective of this study is to investigate the relationship between
tourism-oriented heritage conservation and place making with reference to an empirical study in
Iran. For this purpose, Sa’d al-Saltaneh Caravanserai in Qazvin was selected. It is one of the
large-scale adaptive reuse projects in Iran whose restoration and reuse started in 2008 and is still
ongoing. This reuse project has been operated by the public sector, and its spaces have been trans-
formed into commercial, artistic, and cultural places such as handicraft shops, galleries, art work-
shops, and cafes.
The current study aims to answer the following research question: What are the stakeholders’
attitudes regarding the transformation of this historical complex into a touristic, commercial,
and leisure place? While previous studies have mostly evaluated the adaptive reuse projects from
the perspectives of a single group of stakeholders (Chen et al., 2018; Haidar & Talib, 2013; Hong
& Chen, 2017; Rezaei, 2017; Rezaei et al., 2019; Rezaei et al., 2021), our study aimed to examine
the divergent perspectives of different stakeholders, including domestic and international tourists,
residents, business owners, and public managers, to provide a comprehensive insight to the
phenomena.
The current study contributes to the literature from several perspectives. First, our study inves-
tigates the relationship between ‘place making’ and adaptive reuse heritage conservation from the
multidimensional perspectives compared to previous studies which have only focused on a single
group of stakeholders. Given the complexity of the issue of land use change, a deep understanding
of the cost–benefit analysis of these projects for different groups of stakeholders is necessary.
Second, through developing a multidimensional perspective, the study attempts to critically inves-
tigate the cultural, economic and social impacts of adaptive reuse projects on different beneficiaries
simultaneously.
Third, theoretically, this study aligns with the growing body of research on heritage and tourism,
through introducing ‘tourism place making’ as a lens of analysis. Finally, from a methodological
aspect, it provides a stakeholders-oriented assessment framework for future studies on the adaptive
reuse and offers insights and managerial implications for local actors in urban planning, heritage
management, and tourism development at local, national, and even international levels.

Literature review
Place making as an urban design strategy
The term place making was coined in the 1960s as an approach to planning and designing public
spaces. In the early stages, this approach aimed to improve urban environments in America’s
declining cities. This idea emerged among academics and urban professionals through the works
of authors such as Lynch (1960), Jacobs (1961) and then followed by Alexander (1979), Whyte
(1980), and Sime (1986). These researchers aimed to create livable neighborhoods and develop a
206 N. REZAEI ET AL.

sense of place in the face of the placelessness caused by modernist urbanism, which was character-
ized by high-rise buildings, multi-block mass housing estates, car-oriented streets, and large scale
urban renewal projects (Aravot, 2002; Sofield et al., 2017). By the 1970s, place making became a
popular urban design tool that would consider people’s needs and other socio-cultural dimensions
of urban spaces (Sime, 1986). Then, some international organizations used this term in their pro-
grams. For example, The European Community (EC) has emphasized creating places where people
want to live and work, which meet the needs of current and future residents, to achieve sustainable
communities (ODPM, 2005). The United Nations Habitat Commission, in a meeting held on 23
April 2011, in Nairobi, introduced the concept of place making in its programs such as the Public
Spaces Program (PPS); promoting its use in member countries (Project for Public Spaces Inc., 2012,
n.d.; Sofield et al., 2017).
About half a century after the formation of the concept of place making, the relationship between
this concept and built heritage has been taken into consideration (e.g. Delconte et al., 2016; Lew,
2017; Mansilla & Milano, 2019; Pendlebury & Porfyriou, 2017). Initially, place-making in historic
sites aimed at reviving the identity, preserving heritage, and promoting the aesthetic qualities of
urban space rather than just emphasizing economic benefits through tourism (Fleming, 2007). In
recent years, tourism has become essential for community development, and it has been shown
that tourism depends on the image of cities and the quality of places. Therefore, the concept of
place making has entered the tourism literature and acts as a tool to improve the image of cities,
strengthen their identities, and promote place marketing (Hultman & Hall, 2012; Lew, 2017;
Sofield et al., 2017).
Despite the acceptance of the concept of place making, a clear definition has not been agreed
upon. Authors have proposed different definitions of this term. For example, Wyckoff defined pla-
cemaking as ‘the process of creating quality places that people want to live, work, play and learn in’
(2014, p. 2). In line with Wyckoff, Jeleński (2017, p. 3) stated that ‘the concept of place making is
essentially about deliberately wanting people to stop, enjoy and linger, rather than move through.’
Galdini (2016) considered place making as a tool for innovative urban renewal. Emphasizing the
importance of people in this process, he defined place making as ‘a process of adding value and
meaning to the public sphere through community-based revitalization projects, … [which] aims
at creating an innovative vision around the spaces that people consider as important to their
daily life and experience’ (2016, p. 1). According to Lew (2017, p. 454), the goal of place making
is ‘to create spaces that are easily walkable, have a variety of mixed uses and architectural designs
to attract both locals and tourists.’ Hence, we can say that these authors consider place making as a
process of (re)creating a relationship between people and places.
Scholars have identified different processes for place making. Lew (2017), through reviewing
numerous studies and categorizing them according to the used terms, argued that the word
‘place-making’ is often used for organic, spontaneous, bottom-up, and unplanned actions, generally
done through people’s daily practices and independently of the public sector. However, the term
‘placemaking’ is often used for planned, top-down actions that governments and authorities
carry out. In the top-down, planned placemaking approach, most actions are part of urban plan-
ning, urban design, architecture, and landscape design. According to Lew, ‘bottom-up, organic
place-making’ and ‘top-down, planned placemaking’ are two ends of a spectrum; however, in
most cases, mixed place makings can be seen, which combine the two approaches. He also suggested
that the term ‘place making’ has a broader meaning and includes both placemaking and place-mak-
ing strategies.
Other authors have emphasized the collaborative nature of the place making process. For
instance, Manzini (2015) stated that place making is a design dialogue between various actors, con-
necting them with their built environment. Markusen and Gadwa (2010) also argued that this pro-
cess involves different partners from public and private sectors and community members, intending
to shape or change urban places’ physical and social character. Because of this nature of place mak-
ing, Teder considered it as ‘co-creation’ (Teder, 2019).
 JOURNAL OF HERITAGE TOURISM 207

Citizen-centered activities and the involvement of communities in the transformation of places,

enabling the emergence of creative ideas (Andres et al., 2021), can be studied through the concept of
creative place making. Creative place making aims to ‘shape the physical and social character of a
neighborhood, town, city, or region around arts and cultural activities’ (Markusen & Gadwa, 2010,
p. 3). Since the publication of the NEA-commissioned Creative Placemaking White Paper (Marku-
sen & Gadwa, 2010), this approach has been recognized worldwide. Therefore, we can argue that
although place making in the early stages was a top-down approach taken by city managers and
professionals (urban planners and designers) (Sofield et al., 2017), in the last two decades, with
increasing the importance of citizens’ role in the city, place making has emerged as a bottom-up
process and as public art (Fleming, 2007).

Place making and heritage tourism

Heritage as a tool for urban regeneration is a world-renowned phenomenon often associated with
place making (Pendlebury & Porfyriou, 2017). In recent decades, tourism development in historic
sites has strengthened the link between place making and heritage. Nowadays, heritage tourism,
which is recognized as one of the most important types of tourism in many cities, has a significant
role in the conservation of built heritage, urban regeneration, and economic reconstruction (Firth,
2011; Lak et al., 2020; Pendlebury, 2002; 2014). Therefore, in cities with architectural and urban
heritage, tourism is known ‘as a force of spatial change’ (Hultman & Hall, 2012, p. 546) and as a
significant factor in ‘(re)producing places and cultures ‘(Hultman & Hall, 2012, p. 547).
Place-making in tourism refers to creating attractive places through local identity, sense of place,
images, and experiences of places. Therefore, in the tourism literature, place making focuses on how
tourism-related planning and design shapes tourist destinations. Most authors consider place mak-
ing the synonym of creating attractive spaces for branding and marketing (Bosman & Dredge, 2011;
Hultman & Hall, 2012; Lew, 2017; Sofield et al., 2017). Sofield et al. define place making as the ‘pro-
cess of transforming a place into a destination through image making/re-creating and packaging’
(2017, p. 14). The nexus between place, heritage, and tourism has led to the formation of the con-
cept of ‘tourism place making’ (Hultman & Hall, 2012; Lew, 2017; Razali & Ismail, 2014), which is a
tool to transform cities into places where tourists want to spend their time and money. In this pro-
cess, as Lew (2017) stated, respecting the heritage structures increases the place’s attractiveness.
Some scholars (e.g. Fleming, 2007; Salzman & Lopez, 2020) stated that place making has become a
people-centered process in the last two decades, and creative place making practices have been done
in an innovative and artist-driven way. However, Lew (2017) showed that activities performed for
tourism place making are dominated by planned placemaking, which involves a high level of govern-
ment intervention. This is because, in recent years, most governments have realized the importance
of tourism development for economic growth (Bosman & Dredge, 2011). Nevertheless, Lew argued
that bottom-up organic place-making plays a significant role in creating a cultural spirit in places.
Tourism place making in the historic urban places, whether done by the public sector or by indi-
viduals and groups or as a collaborative activity, changes the image and function of these places.
Nowadays, globalization, tourism development, urban population growth, lifestyle changes, and
environmental concerns have created new needs in cities. These emerging demands have led to
the adaptation of abandoned heritage places for new uses, often realized through place making
(Pendlebury & Porfyriou, 2017). As Ashworth (2000) argued, in this study, we demonstrate a tri-
angular relationship between the three phenomena of heritage, tourism, and place.

Research context
Sa’d al-Saltaneh Caravanserai in the historic center of Qazvin was chosen as the case study for this
research. This caravanserai with an area of 2.6 hectares was registered on the National Heritage List
in 1998 (ICHTO, 1998).
208 N. REZAEI ET AL.

A Caravanserai is somewhere inside the city or along routes between cities where the caravans
used to stay. According to the UNESCO Silk Road Program, caravanserais are ‘large guest houses or
hostels designed to welcome traveling merchants and their caravans’ (Bloom et al., 2009; UNESCO,
n.d.). The caravanserai is a combination of two words, ‘caravan,’ meaning a group of travelers, and
‘sara,’ representing house and place (Amid, 2010, p. 830).
Caravanserais in Iran are divided into two groups, intra-urban and extra-urban. The primary
function of the first type is accommodation for travelers. The second type, often located in the
city center and adjacent to the bazaars, in addition to supplying accommodation for traveling mer-
chants, were the places of exchange and businesses. Furthermore, since the caravanserais have been
places of contact and interaction of people from different ethnicities and even nations, they have
also had a social and cultural role (Piri & Afshari Azad, 2016)
Sa’d al-Saltaneh Caravanserai is the most complete and the largest intra-urban caravanserai in
Iran, built in 1894 by order of Mohammad Baqir Khan Sa’d al-Saltaneh, the ruler of Qazvin
(Mojabi, 2009). Due to Iran’s extensive trade relations with Russia and Turkey, this caravanserai
was used as a goods depot. Before World War I, the caravanserai was the city’s trade center and
a place for non-local merchants to stay. Due to this caravanserai, Qazvin became an outstanding
intellectual and cultural center (UNESCO, n.d.). Sa’d al-Saltaneh was one of the few caravanserais
in Iran with several baths, courtyards, a marketplace, a grand stable for camels, a mosque, a tea-
house, and many other spaces (Iran University of Science and Technology, 2009).
However, since World War I, when the Russians occupied Qazvin, this caravanserai has lost its
importance as a trade hub between Europe and Asia and continued its economic life in a semi-
active manner. Some of its commercial places turned into independent shops (such as an electrical
shop, plastic shop, metal container shop), some of them became warehouses, a part of the caravan-
serai was used as a flour factory and raisin production factory, and other parts were turned into a
shoe workshop, carpet weaving workshop and sawmills (Iran University of Science and Technol-
ogy, 2009). Most of these uses were active until 2000; however, in January of this year (2000), a
fire broke out in a part of the caravanserai, which caused much damage, and then the caravanserai
was closed. In the same year, the Iranian Cultural Heritage Organization (ICHO) decided to restore
and protect this ensemble and purchased a large portion of the caravanserai properties from their
owners (famous old merchants and their heirs). However, the restoration did not begin at the same
time. In 2007, a memorandum of understanding was signed between the Qazvin Renovation and
Rehabilitation Organization (QRRO) (under the supervision of the municipality) and the Fund
for the Rehabilitation and Exploitation of Historical and Cultural Sites (under the control of
ICHO) to revitalize this caravanserai. Iran University of Science and Technology (IUST) was com-
missioned as a consultant by QRRO to conduct comprehensive studies in the historic center of Qaz-
vin and suggest a revitalization plan and suitable uses for different spaces of the caravanserai. The
main objective of this plan was to turn the caravanserai into a tourist place. The revitalization plan
emphasized that new activities must be compatible with the physical characteristics of the caravan-
serai and that activities close to the original function of this place as well as new functions should be
created (IUST, 2009). Therefore, the study team determined an extensive list of incompatible,
indifferent, and compatible uses for Sa’d al-Saltaneh Caravanserai in a charter, then based on
this charter, the optimum uses were proposed for different spaces of the caravanserai. In general,
categories of uses were commercial (souvenirs, handicrafts, and cultural products), tourism services
(cafes, restaurants, accommodation), arts and culture (gallery, museum, exhibition), educational
(art training workshops such as calligraphy) (IUST, 2009).
Then, according to a contract between the QRRO and the Institute of Urban and Economic
Studies as a consultant, a strategic plan was prepared by this institute. To provide this strategic
plan, the Institute of Urban and Economic Studies conducted interviews with various stakeholders.
After the restoration of spaces, based on the terms and conditions defined in this framework, the
shops and workplaces were leased to the applicants by the QRRO (Institute of Urban and Economic
Studies, 2009). According to an interview with a member of QRRO, a large part of the rent is spent
 JOURNAL OF HERITAGE TOURISM 209

on maintenance and running costs of the ensemble. Restoration and reuse of the spaces of this car-
avanserai have been undertaken in several phases, which are still ongoing. In 1998, ICHO has pro-
posed the Sa’d al-Saltaneh Caravanserai candidacy as a World Heritage Site, which is still ongoing.
Figures 1–3

Research methods
The purpose of this research is to understand the perceptions of visitors, shopkeepers, and neigh-
borhood residents towards revitalization and the reuse of Sa’d al-Saltaneh Caravanserai. Given
the exploratory nature of this research, a qualitative and inductive method can help discover
and recognize the facts and subjective perspectives (Bryman, 2012). In this method, no presup-
positions are set. Additionally, to probe the research question in-depth, a qualitative method
focusing on a limited number of interviews can provide more profound and detailed infor-
mation, rather than a quantitative approach that concentrates on a large number of respondents
and aims to collect data through questionnaires (Fusch & Ness, 2015). Considering the hetero-
geneity of our sample (i.e. domestic and international tourists, neighborhood residents, and
business owners/operators), qualitative methods focusing on semi-structured interviews as data
collection tools can yield different insights and robust results for practitioners in their place mak-
ing strategy designs. In addition to semi-structured interviews with the groups mentioned above,
two in-depth interviews were conducted with project managers (i.e. the Renovation and Rehabi-
litation Organization of Qazvin).

Data and sample

Data were collected through face-to-face and online interviews. We applied various sampling
methods as we targeted different groups of respondents. For example, random sampling was
applied to interview tourists and local visitors, while snowball sampling was used to find neighbor-
hood residents living close by the site. In addition, purposive sampling was used to find appropriate
respondents among shop owners (handicraft sellers, boutique galleries, cafes, etc.) and project man-
agers. We conducted twenty-five face-to-face, semi-structured interviews and two in-depth

Figure 1. One of the cafes located in the courtyard, which is a recreational place for tourists and a hangout for youth and stu-
dents in Qazvin.
210 N. REZAEI ET AL.

Figure 2. A courtyard in the Sa’d al-Saltaneh Caravanserai surrounding the cafes, which is also a place for cultural and arts events.

interviews with these groups to understand the views and experiences of adaptive reuse and place
making (Appendix A). Most interviews were conducted during the three field studies in September
and October 2019 in Qazvin, and three were conducted online. As mentioned, three additional
online interviews were conducted through WhatsApp video calls since our respondents preferred
this communication medium. To find participants for online interviews, we used TripAdvisor
(www.tripadvisor.com) as the most popular form of travel-related user-generated content (UGC)
and the most influential website in tourism (Ayeh et al., 2013; Prayag et al., 2017; Taecharungroj
& Mathayomchan, 2019). Using the hashtag ‘Sa’d al-Saltaneh Caravanserai’ on TripAdvisor, we
first found the comments made by international tourists about this place. Then, we sent messages
to these people and explained the purpose of our research, asking them to participate in the study
and discuss their experiences of visiting this caravanserai. Our calls were answered by three tourists
from the Netherlands, Poland, and Italy, who have recently visited the place.

Figure 3. New commercial uses in the caravanserai, focusing on arts and cultural activities.
 JOURNAL OF HERITAGE TOURISM 211

We first explained the interview’s purpose and the specific use for this information to partici-
pants for all face-to-face and online interviews. We disclosed that the interview would be recorded
with the prior permission of interviewees and then will be transcribed verbatim. Still, we assured the
participants that the recording will only be used by the researchers and will not be shared with any-
one else.
For each group of interviewees, specific questions were asked in line with the research objectives
(Appendix B). A pre-planned interview guide allowed us to save time and obtain all required infor-
mation during site visits. Interviews were conducted with local visitors and tourists in the caravan-
serai cafes. In this way, we first introduced ourselves and explained the purpose of the research. We
then asked them to accept our request for an interview in one of the caravanserai cafes or courtyards
if they had the time and desire.
However, we interviewed shopkeepers at their workplaces at a time convenient to them. The
semi-structured interviews were conducted in Persian, English, and French and took between
30–45 minutes.

Data analysis
Interview materials were transcribed verbatim and analyzed through a systematic coding process. In
this method, coding is used to break down participants’ descriptions into distinct units of meaning
(Corbin & Strauss, 1990). During this process, transcripts were coded according to their meanings,
and initial concepts were identified about the research topic (Bryman, 2012). Then, according to
their similarities and relationships, initial codes were clustered into categories, and a concept
was assigned to each category (Goulding, 2002). In the next stage, by comparing concepts with
each other, the main themes emerged, reflecting the essential topics of the interviews related to
the research question.
The coding process was carried out manually, and all authors of this paper (three persons)
undertook data analysis independently to control the accuracy of coding and accurate extraction
of concepts. The high similarity of the themes showed that the process of coding and extracting
the concepts was undertaken correctly. Through this process, four key themes emerged:

1. Adapted heritage place as a public space for local people;

2. Heritage-based place making and economic opportunity for artists;
3. A modern historical place for tourists;
4. Place making and adaptive reuse dilemmas.

These themes are developed and discussed in the following sections.

Findings and discussion

Adapted heritage place as a public space for local people
The most tangible effect of the restoration and reuse of the Sa’d al-Saltaneh Caravanserai is its open-
ing to the people. This place was abandoned and closed after the fire of 2000, and the public could
not enter it. Even before that, only those who were working with warehouses and sawmills could
commute to this caravanserai. Hence, ‘transforming an abandoned heritage place into an accessible
one’ is an assertion that most interviewees declared. People’s statements show that the restoration
and reuse of this caravanserai demonstrated ‘the relationship of people to their place’ (Schneekloth
& Shibley, 1995, p. 1) and connected the citizens to their past. It reveals that place making not only
creates a connection between people and place but also creates a relationship between people in that
place (Schneekloth & Shibley, 1995).
212 N. REZAEI ET AL.

The interviewed residents stated that they come here for both shopping and entertainment. Also,
this caravanserai, especially its courtyard and cafes, have become hangouts for young people and a
place for their gatherings and friendly appointments. As Qazvin is a religious and traditional city,
there are not enough public urban spaces for youth entertainment and relaxation. Creating new and
desirable uses for young people, such as cafes and art boutiques in the historic caravanserai, was able
to satisfy the youth to a large extent. A 25-year-old woman, a graduate student of restoration of
historic buildings, noted:
‘In my opinion, in general, it was a positive event in Qazvin because there were not many public and rec-
reational spaces inside the city. The caravanserai was a dead place before the restoration; it was permanently
closed; many did not even know what was behind the closed doors. Its restoration turned that unused space
into a very dynamic one’.

As some scholars have argued, the public’s appreciation of places is vital in their motivation to visit
them. Attributes of historical sites, such as aesthetic values, visual elements, ambiance, and func-
tion, significantly influence the visitors’ appreciation of these places (Ariffin et al., 2017; Berman,
2006; Coeterier, 2002). Due to these new uses- mainly art and handicraft shops- most of the visitors
are women. This fact was observed during our visits and also stated by the shopkeepers.
Visitors can have different experiences in this place, such as wearing traditional clothes, taking
photos in a traditionally decorated place, visiting art workshops, participating in art events, attend-
ing celebrations on various occasions, and visiting temporary exhibitions. Therefore, we can argue
that in this place making, not only the physical dimensions are designed, but also the image and
experience of the place are shaped by reflecting the history and various activities and events. It
means that this place making is a combination of tangible and intangible dimensions (Lew,
2017) and therefore was able to connect people with places through the creation of a ‘new (or
renewed) sense of place’ (Manzini, 2015, p. 122).

Heritage-based place making and economic opportunity for artists

One of the essential aims of new heritage policies is converting buildings into new uses with econ-
omic returns, such as boutique hotels and commercial activities (Dal Bello, 2017; Throsby, 2002).
Therefore, most place making initiatives that take place today in heritage environments encourage
an innovative economy (Landry, 2000) that can be considered as a part of creative place making
(Markusen & Gadwa, 2010).
In Sa’d al-Saltaneh Caravanserai, the creation of souvenir shops, handicrafts, and art workshops
began in 1992. The restored parts of the caravanserai contain more than 260 shops (IUST, 2009).
According to an interview with a member of QRRO, more than 130 of them have been rented to
artisans and artists to start their activities. Restoration and reuse of this caravanserai have created
an opportunity for artists to earn money by selling their artistic products to visitors and training
them (such as painting and calligraphy). Further, it has led to preserving and revival of some old
and traditional occupations, such as textiles, confectionery, etc.
All the interviewed shopkeepers were satisfied with the increase in their income after settling in
the caravanserai, stating that their customers and income increase every year. These shops have
different customers depending on the products they offer. In general, the income of handicraft
and souvenir sellers in this market is related mainly to tourism. For this reason, they have more
sales during Nowruz (the Iranian New Year) and summer. A woman shopkeeper stated:
‘We have been here since 2014. Our sales are increased during the Nowruz Holidays, Summer and different
festivals. In the first and second years, they mainly were tourists who visited this place. Local customers have
been increasing since two years ago because before that, and many people did not know that Sa’d al-Saltaneh
was being renovated and opened to the public. As the courtyards were restored and the cafés were created, and
the students were commuting, people gradually became aware. Now the people of Qazvin and other cities such
as Zanjan, Tehran, and Tabriz are part of our customers’.
 JOURNAL OF HERITAGE TOURISM 213

A contemporary historical place for tourists

Place making contributes to booming tourism in heritage sites and ensures rich and authentic
experiences for visitors (Duxbury et al., 2016). Today, heritage tourism is at the forefront of the glo-
bal tourism industry, attracting millions of international tourists to countries with heritage sites and
generating significant revenue for these countries (Bullen & Love, 2011; Timothy & Boyd, 2006). As
tourism is one of the motivations for countries to reuse and protect their heritage, it has also been
the most crucial reason for Sa’d al-Saltaneh Caravanserai. Influenced by the global trend of city ima-
gery through place making (Mansilla & Milano, 2019), the inclusion of this caravanserai into the
tourist experience enhances the image of Qazvin in national and international tourism markets.
Numerous factors play a role in shaping the image of this place in the minds of tourists. According
to interviews with international tourists, the ‘cafes’ created in the courtyards of the caravanserai are
the essential factor that plays a role in making this image and the attractiveness of the place for
them. Three international tourists described this caravanserai as an ‘ideal place to stroll, relax,
and eat.’ These cafes have also created a calm and cozy environment where most foreign tourists
want to sit there and have a drink. The ‘calmness’ that comes from being away from the traffic
and congestion is a factor that encourages international visitors to walk in this caravanserai and
sit in its cafes. A German tourist said:
‘I have been in Qazvin for three days, and every night I came to the cafes of this caravanserai and enjoyed the
atmosphere. It is a beautiful place. It is gratifying to walk in its courtyards and drink in cafes’.

The ‘beauty and splendor’ of this place, stated by three international and two domestic visitors,
which is the result of architecture, decorations, colors, and lighting, also has an undeniable role
in the attractiveness of this place for tourists. Some domestic tourists considered this place suitable
for photography, especially ‘Instagram photos.’ A 30-year-old woman, a doctoral student in French,
expressed: ‘It has many beautiful locations for taking Instagram photos. What I really enjoyed was
the good scenery for the photos. It has a beautiful old door, and I took many pictures with it. It is
stylish and classy for taking photos.’ ‘Aesthetic quality’ (Baggio & Moretti, 2018, p. 68) is a deter-
mining factor in attracting tourists, and as Urry (2002) stated, tourism is image-oriented, and tour-
ists are looking for pleasant sights and landscapes. As Speake and Kennedy (2019, p. 2) argued,
‘within the setting of cities as destinations for tourists, aesthetics are a facet of place making and
give a destination its character, which may be of interest and/or attractive to visitors and contribute
to their experience.’
Creating new uses in this caravanserai has caused a historical environment to integrate well into
the contemporary context (Mosler, 2019). It has turned it into a ‘fashionable creative’ place (Kiroff,
2020). The ‘modern and traditional’ atmosphere is an essential factor in attracting both local visitors
and tourists. However, some international tourists stated that this is a ‘modern’ place that does not
give the feeling of being in the past because of its modern boutiques and cafes. A Polish tourist com-
mented: ‘This caravanserai, although well renovated, is beautiful and attractive, it does not look like
an old business place. It is modern but commercialized. The feeling of old times does not touch you.’
Nevertheless, in general, the interviews showed that this caravanserai is a place where visitors want
to stop, shop, and have fun and experiences (Jeleński, 2017; Wyckoff et al., 2015). Although the car-
avanserai is one way to reach the bazaar, for those who come to the caravanserai (visitors and locals),
this is a destination and not a passage. Tangible (architecture and spaces) and intangible aspects (his-
tory, narratives, traditional professions) play a role in shaping visitors’ perceptions and experiences.

Place making and adaptive reuse dilemmas

Although different groups of users considered the reuse of the caravanserai as a positive initiative,
some interviewees identified some disadvantages and challenges. Three visitors, experts in architec-
ture and heritage conservation, who can be considered culturalists as opposed to economists-
214 N. REZAEI ET AL.

(Loulanski, 2006; Mason, 2008) believed that the primary purpose of this revitalization project was
to attract tourists. For this reason, some of the uses are not compatible with this place’s historical
and cultural character and cause damage to its originality. A resident of the neighborhood, a gradu-
ate of the restoration of historic buildings, said: ‘The commercial uses such as clothing stores or
colorful cafes are not appropriate for this historical context. The uses must be rooted in culture,
like Tabriz Bazaar.’ According to him, although there are conditions for applicants to rent shops
and start their activities, some ‘favoritism and nepotism’ led project managers (Renovation and
Rehabilitation Organization) to rent shops that are not compatible with the cultural and historical
character of the place. It is important to note that although the caravanserai had teahouses and
other places to eat for caravans in the past, interviews with the project manager and the study
team show that the caravanserai cafes are inspired mainly by tourist places in other cities of the
world. The revival of the original teahouses was not the primary intention of creating these cafes.
Furthermore, according to some interviewees, the events held in this place, such as festivals and
exhibitions, are for attracting audiences and the level of these programs does not conform with the
values of this historical place. According to these critics, many of the citizens who attend these
events are not aware of the historical and cultural values of the caravanserai, and their purpose
is purely entertainment and recreation. An interviewee who is an architect and one of the first
people who has started the activity in this caravanserai said:
‘In my opinion, the exhibitions and festivals that have been held have all been destructive to the building. The
organizer of these programs has put on a powerful amplifier, invited very low-level performers, and held a series
of low-level programs. The people who attend just want to see a show and finally buy a pocket of French fries’.

While some critics considered the presence of ordinary people (especially in the events) to be in
contradiction with the cultural values of this caravanserai and believed that only culturalists and
artists should come to this place, some others considered the presence of ordinary people as a factor
of vitality and dynamism of the place. Some of the second group of critics describe the caravanserai
as a ‘luxury place built exclusively for tourists’ and ‘a place for Instagram photography’ where
neighborhood residents do not use it at all. Some international tourists require experiences that
do not currently exist, like visiting local people, talking to them, seeing craft workshops, and tra-
ditional professions, not just chic boutiques and cafes. Project for Public Spaces (PPS) also considers
‘sociability’, along with ‘access, images and activities’, as one of the attributes that play a role in
strengthening the connection between people and places (PPS, 2012). As Khirfan (2015) argues,
the interaction with local people is an integral part of tourists’ social experience of the historic
sites. An Italian tourist stated:
‘This caravanserai is in the spotlight today because it is the subject of a gentrification project. After restoration,
the past people’s places of residence and trade turned into handicraft boutiques, fancy shops, and fashionable
cafes. Therefore, it is not similar to the beautiful old bazaars, such as Tabriz, Zanjan, etc.’.

Place making projects aimed at attracting tourists often lead to the displacement of low-income
groups (Buser et al., 2013; Liang & Bao, 2015). In Qazvin, although there was no change in the
neighborhood other than the restoration of the caravanserai, an interview with QRRO showed
that they intend to acquire the surrounding houses to create services related to the caravanserai
and turn this area into a tourist-oriented commercial-cultural place. The lack of required facilities,
especially parking lots, which according, to some interviewees, are necessary for tourist and com-
mercial establishments, is one of the project’s challenges. For this reason, QRRO aims to acquire
and demolish some of the adjacent houses to build a large parking lot for the public. However,
the social impacts of this plan might negatively affect nearby residents and prioritize tourism
over residential development. Interviews with three neighborhood residents demonstrated that
they are not satisfied with this development, as the caravanserai restoration and reuse did not posi-
tively impact their lives. Congestion and increased traffic in the neighborhood, lack of parking lots,
and environmental pollution are the project’s negative impacts on the neighborhood.
 JOURNAL OF HERITAGE TOURISM 215

Further, unlike most conservation and adaptive reuse projects in other countries, which have
positive economic impacts on nearby properties (Kee, 2019; Shipley et al., 2006), some residents
of this neighborhood stated that this historic complex reduced the price of their property, as it
led to restrictions on new construction. Consequently, investors are reluctant to buy these proper-
ties for demolition and reconstruction. Therefore, the houses adjacent to the caravanserai have a
low price due to the deterioration, unfavorable environmental conditions, inadequate car access,
and construction restrictions. Although the QRRO buys these properties at a higher price than
usual, many owners are unwilling to sell their property. The reason is that with the money they
receive, they are not able to buy a house elsewhere. Due to the owners’ resistance to selling their
home, the caravanserai development project is progressing slowly. A staff member of the QRRO
said: ‘The occupants of these old houses have hard living conditions. They prefer to suffer from
traffic, congestion, and environmental pollution but do not accept our offered price.’ Although
the implementation of the development plan and facilitating access to the caravanserai will improve
the physical quality of this area and attract capital, it seems to be the manifestation of ‘bulldozer
urbanism’ and the top-down approach of urban management. This also would lead to the detach-
ment of local community from the project (Rezaei et al., 2019) and limit the local-guest interaction
(Ghaderi et al., 2020), which is an essential component of a heritage tourism experience (Lehto
et al., 2020; Rezaei et al., 2021; Uriely & Reichel, 2000).

Conclusion
This study highlighted the role of place making and adaptive reuse of historical buildings in heritage
tourism. We investigated the users’ perspectives on how adaptive reuse of an old caravanserai cre-
ated a heritage attraction for both tourists and local visitors. Architectural features, aesthetic
aspects, the spirit of the place, new uses, activities, and events are essential factors that affect the
motivation of citizens and tourists to visit this place.
Although Sa’d al-Saltaneh revitalization is a ‘government-driven tourism development project’
(Lew, 2017, p. 8), individuals who have set up the boutiques, art galleries, or cafes have also played
an essential role in this place making process. This is because their activity has shaped these places
and contributed to creating the place image, even though some of their actions do not comply with
heritage conservation criteria. Therefore, we argue that according to Lew’s classification (2017),
both top-down and bottom-up place-making took place in the formation of this place, which
can be considered as mixed place making (Lew, 2017, p. 451). As Sanders and Stappers (2008, p.
2) have said about such places, Sa’dal-Saltaneh Caravanserai is the product of a ‘collective creativity’
and a creative place making that involves partners from the public, private, and community sectors
(Markusen & Gadwa, 2010).
In addition, people -including citizens, domestic and international tourists- play a role in place
making. Users of this place are not merely customers or visitors, but co-creators (Teder, 2019, p. 2),
co-producers, and co-performers (Everett, 2012, p. 539) who contribute to co-producing the places
with their practices (Lew, 2017). While this project demonstrates a relatively successful place mak-
ing and adaptive reuse in favor of heritage conservation and heritage tourism, several concerns and
challenges have been identified. One problem that emerges from our observations and interviews is
that the uses created in this place are similar to the uses of many other tourist destinations in the
world: modern cafes, handicraft boutiques, and art galleries; what Jeleński (2017, p. 4) calls the ‘uni-
versal remedy’, which refers to a ‘commonality of features and design elements’ and ‘generalized
planning and design principles than local cultures’ (Jeleński, 2017, p. 4). Therefore, there is a
risk that such an approach would undermine local identity and marginalize the unique and specific
characteristics of the place, such as history, traditions, culture, and architecture. A prosperous tour-
ism place making that can create an unforgettable experience for local people and visitors should be
based on place identity, place distinctiveness, localness, and authenticity (Furlan et al., 2019; Mar-
kusen & Gadwa, 2010; Project for Public Spaces Inc., 2012). Based on the example of Sa’d al-
216 N. REZAEI ET AL.

Saltaneh Caravanserai in Qazvin, we argue that to preserve the local identity and the spirit of heri-
tage, regulations and guidelines and monitoring the process of place making seem necessary.
Another deep concern was the dissatisfaction of neighborhood residents with the current devel-
opment plan, which threatens their neighborhood. The community’s exclusion from the decision-
making process might be an obstacle to sustainable tourism development and harm tourists’ experi-
ence. It is, therefore, highly recommended that Destination Management Organizations (DMOs)
prioritize the preferences of neighborhood residents and encourage them to play their role in offering
a unique heritage tourism experience. This is because local communities are the primary maintainers
and guardians of heritage (Wijesuriya, 2015). In addition, heritage conservation must be done in its
context because heritage buildings are not isolated objects and find their meaning in the urban
context.
As Klamer (2013) argues, the reuse of historic buildings through cultural activities achieves both
culturalists’ and economists’ goals because it preserves both the intrinsic values of heritage and
increases its use-values. It seems that the approach chosen for Sa’doal-Saltaneh Caravanserai has
been, to some extent, ‘a meeting point between economists and culturalists’ (Dal Bello, 2017, p.
9). However, some critics of the project believe that the cultural values of this place have fallen victim
to economic goals. Nevertheless, this study showed that heritage tourism is a helpful tool for urban
and heritage conservation and, if properly managed, as Ashworth (2000, p. 19) states, can satisfy all
groups: local community, visitors, and urban managers. Therefore, having an integrated and com-
prehensive approach in such projects is essential to benefit all groups and minimize disadvantages.
Finally, as this study relies on a single example in a specific context of Qazvin and Iran, it cannot
provide a general perspective towards the impacts of place making through heritage in other con-
texts. Additionally, the small number of participants within each category of users -because of lim-
ited financial resources and the reluctance of many people to be interviewed- can be seen as another
limitation of this study. However, our research, illustrating both successes and inefficiencies of the
Sa’d al-Saltaneh project, can contribute to the existing literature on heritage adaptive reuse and
tourism place making, suggesting the scope for further similar studies with a more significant num-
ber of participants and in different study locations. The contribution of this study could be in three
ways. First, addressing the calls for interdisciplinary empirical studies in countries where tourism is
a new phenomenon (Daher, 2006). This provides room for empirical studies in other settings,
especially in medium-size cities of developing countries, which will contribute to the sustainable
development of heritage tourism destinations. Secondly, by putting heritage conservation measures
within the framework of place making, and finally, by providing insights for policymakers and prac-
titioners, through shedding light on the challenges of ‘largely top-down’ place making practices.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes on contributors
Naimeh Rezaei is an assistant professor at University of Tehran. She’s got her PhD degree in urbanism from Uni-
versity of Sorbonne-Paris1 in 2014. She has extensive experience in both practice and research. Prior to joining
the University of Tehran as an academic member, she worked for many years for the Municipality of Tehran
(Urban Renovation Organization) and various consulting engineers companies. She is currently collaboration
with the Tehran Municipality as a project supervisor and member of various committees. Her research interests
include urban heritage, city center transformations and urban sociology. She can be contacted at: naimeh.rezaei@
ut.ac.ir
Zahed Ghaderi is currently attached to the Department of Tourism, College of Arts and Social Science, Sultan
Qaboos University, Muscat, Oman. He has over two decades of both academic and practical experience. Zahed is
truly an international lecturer and researcher, worked in several countries as a faculty member and visiting professor.
He conducted and managed several international projects with collaboration of international organizations such as
 JOURNAL OF HERITAGE TOURISM 217

UNDP, SGP, GEF, COMCEC, APO, UNWTO, etc. As a senior researcher, Dr. Ghaderi has conducted many quality
research projects and published his research outputs in top-tier and reputable tourism and hospitality journals. He
can be contacted at: z.ghaderi@squ.edu.om
Maryam Ghanipour is graduated from Tabriz Islamic Art University with a M.S. degree in Urban Design. She is
interested in urban research with a focus on urban heritage and urban regeneration. She is currently working for
Urban Renovation Organization of Tehran, as a researcher. She can be contacted at: m.ghanipour@tabriziau.ac.ir

ORCID
Naimeh Rezaei http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0819-755X
Zahed Ghaderi http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6666-1635

References
Alexander, C. (1979). The timeless way of building. Oxford University Press.
Amid, H. (2010). Amid Persian dictionary. Rah Roshd.
Andres, L., Bakare, H., Bryson, J. R., Khaemba, W., Melgaço, L., & Mwaniki, G. R. (2021). Planning, temporary
urbanism and citizen-led alternative-substitute place-making in the Global South. Regional Studies, 55(1), 29–
39. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2019.1665645
Aravot, I. (2002). Back to phenomenological placemaking. Journal of Urban Design, 7(2), 201–212. https://doi.org/10.
1080/1357480022000012230
Ariffin, A. B., Zahari, M. S. M., & Radzi, S. M. (2017). Adaptive reuse of historical buildings and local residents’ actual
visitation. Journal of Tourism, Hospitality & Culinary Arts, 9(2), 35–46. https://doi.org/10.1108/PM-04-2019-0019
Ashworth, G. (2011). Preservation, conservation and heritage: Approaches to the past in the present through the built
environment. Asian Anthropology, 10(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/1683478X.2011.10552601
Ashworth, G. J. (2000). Heritage, tourism and places: A review. Tourism Recreation Research, 25(1), 19–29. https://
doi.org/10.1080/02508281.2000.11014897
Ayeh, J. K., Au, N., & Law, R. (2013). “Do we believe in TripAdvisor?” examining credibility perceptions and online
travelers’ attitude toward using user-generated content. Journal of Travel Research, 52(4), 437–452. https://doi.org/
10.1177/0047287512475217
Baggio, R., & Moretti, V. (2018). Beauty as a factor of economic and social development. Tourism Review, 73(1), 68–
81. https://doi.org/10.1108/TR-06-2017-0098
Berman, R. W. (2006). Assessing urban design: Historical ambience on the waterfront. Lexington Books.
Bloom, J., Blair, S. S., & Blair, S. (2009). Grove encyclopedia of Islamic art & architecture: Three-volume Set (Vol. 2).
Oxford University Press on Demand.
Bosman, C., & Dredge, D. (2011). Histories of placemaking in the Gold Coast City: The neoliberal norm, the State
story and the community narrative. Griffith University-Urban Research Program, Research Paper, 33.
Bryman, A. (2012). Social research methods (4th ed.). Oxford University Press.
Bullen, P. A., & Love, P. E. (2011). Adaptive reuse of heritage buildings. Structural Survey, 29(5), 411–421. https://doi.
org/10.1108/02630801111182439
Buser, M., Bonura, C., Fannin, M., & Boyer, K. (2013). Cultural activism and the politics of place-making. City, 17(5),
606–627. https://doi.org/10.1080/13604813.2013.827840
Chen, C. S., Chiu, Y. H., & Tsai, L. (2018). Evaluating the adaptive reuse of historic buildings through multicriteria
decision-making. Habitat International, 81, 12–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2018.09.003
Chua, R. S., & Deguchi, A. (2011). Tourist dependent adaptive reuse in the Old Residential Quarter of Melaka City,
Malaysia. Journal of Architecture and Planning, 76(662), 779–787. https://doi.org/10.3130/aija.76.779
Coeterier, J. F. (2002). Lay people’s evaluation of historic sites. Landscape and Urban Planning, 59(2), 111–123.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2046(02)00007-5
Corbin, J. M., & Strauss, A. (1990). Grounded theory research: Procedures, canons, and evaluative criteria.
Qualitative Sociology, 13(1), 3–21. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00988593
Daher, R. F. (2006). Tourism in the Middle East: Continuity, change and transformation. Channel View Publications.
Dal Bello, P. (2017). Rethinking cultural heritage: A qualitative research on the value of adaptive reuse for cultural
heritage, Master thesis, Erasmus University Rotterdam.
Delconte, J., Kline, C. S., & Scavo, C. (2016). The impacts of local arts agencies on community placemaking and heri-
tage tourism. Journal of Heritage Tourism, 11(4), 324–335. https://doi.org/10.1080/1743873X.2015.1088019
Duxbury, N., Hosagrahar, J., & Pascual, J. (2016). Why must culture be at the heart of sustainable urban development.
Culture, 21, Retrieved 1 June, 2021, from http://www.agenda21culture.net/sites/default/files/files/documents/en/
culture_sd_cities_web.pdf
218 N. REZAEI ET AL.

Everett, S. (2012). Production places or consumption spaces? The place-making agency of food tourism in Ireland
and Scotland. Tourism Geographies, 14(4), 535–554. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616688.2012.647321
Fang, B., Ye, Q., Kucukusta, D., & Law, R. (2016). Analysis of the perceived value of online tourism reviews: Influence
of readability and reviewer characteristics. Tourism Management, 52, 498–506. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.
2015.07.018
Firth, T. M. (2011). Tourism as a means to industrial heritage conservation: Achilles heel or saving grace? Journal of
Heritage Tourism, 6(1), 45–62. https://doi.org/10.1080/1743873X.2010.536233
Fleming, R. L. (2007). The art of placemaking: Interpreting community through public art and urban design. Merrell.
Furlan, R., Petruccioli, A., & Jamaleddin, M. (2019). The authenticity of place-making: Space and character of the
regenerated historic district in Msheireb, Downtown Doha, (State of Qatar). Archnet-IJAR: International
Journal of Architectural Research, 13(1), 151–168. https://doi.org/10.1108/ARCH-11-2018-0009
Fusch, P. I., & Ness, L. R. (2015). Are we there yet? Data saturation in qualitative research. The Qualitative Report, 20
(9), 1408.
Galdini, R. (2016). Placemaking as an approach for innovative urban renewal practices: Community gardens in
Berlin. International Review of Sociology, 2016, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/03906701.2016.1254392
Ghaderi, Z., Dehghan Pour Farashah, M. H., Aslani, E., & Hemati, B. (2020a). Managers’ perceptions of the adaptive
reuse of heritage buildings as boutique hotels: Insights from Iran. Journal of Heritage Tourism, 15(6), 696–708.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1743873X.2020.1756834
Ghaderi, Z., Hall, C. M., Scott, N., & Béal, L. (2020b). Islamic beliefs and host-guest relationships in Iran.
International Journal of Hospitality Management, 90, 102603. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2020.102603
Goulding, C. (2002). Grounded theory: A practical guide for management (business and market researchers). Sage.
Haidar, L. A., & Talib, A. (2013). Adaptive reuse in the traditional neighbourhood of the Old City Sana’a-Yemen.
Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 105, 811–822. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.11.084
Haldrup, M., & Bœrenholdt, J. O. (2015). Heritage as performance. In E. Waterton, & S. Watson (Eds.), The Palgrave
handbook of contemporary heritage research (pp. 52–68). Palgrave Macmillan.
Hong, Y., & Chen, F. (2017). Evaluating the adaptive reuse potential of buildings in conservation areas. Facilities, 35
(3/4), 202–219. https://doi.org/10.1108/F-10-2015-0077
Hultman, J., & Hall, C. M. (2012). Tourism place-making: Governance of locality in Sweden. Annals of Tourism
Research, 39(2), 547–570. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2011.07.001
ICHTO. (1998). Registration document of Sa’d al-Saltaneh Caravanserai, n° 2089. Iran Cultural Heritage, Handicrafts,
and Tourism Organization.
Institute of Urban and Economic Studies. (2009). Studying the methods for transfer of shops in Sa’d al-Saltaneh
Caravanserai. Renovation and Rehabilitation Organization.
Iran University of Science and Technology. (2009). Strategic plan for the revival and restoration of the Sa’d al-Saltaneh
historical complex. Renovation and Rehabilitation Organization.
Jacobs, J. (1961). The death and life of great American cities. Vintage Books.
Jeleński, T. (2017). Inclusive placemaking: Building future on local heritage. In G. Amoruso (Ed.), Putting tradition
into practice: Heritage, place and design (pp. 783–793). Springer.
Kee, T. (2019). Sustainable adaptive reuse–economic impact of cultural heritage. Journal of Cultural
Heritage Management and Sustainable Development, 9(2), 165–183. https://doi.org/10.1108/JCHMSD-06-2018-0044
Kenneth, R., & Lucian, C. (2019). Adaptive reuse of historic buildings to promote social values: The
case study of Bagamoyo District in Tanzania. International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications, 9(8),
49–60. https://doi.org/10.29322/IJSRP.9.08.2019.p9210
Khirfan, L. (2015). Place making and experience in World Heritage cities. In L. Bourdeau, & M. Gravari-Barbas
(Eds.), World Heritage, tourism and identity: Inscription and Co-production (pp. 157–172). Routledge.
Kiroff, L. (2020). Nexus between creative industries and the built environment: Creative placemaking in inner
Auckland. Frontiers of Architectural Research, 9(1), 119–137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foar.2019.08.004
Klamer, A. (2013). The values of cultural heritage. In Ilde Rizzo (Ed.), Handbook on the economics of cultural heritage
(pp. 421–437). Edward Elgar Publishing.
Lak, A., Gheitasi, M., & Timothy, D. J. (2020). Urban regeneration through heritage tourism: Cultural policies and
strategic management. Journal of Tourism and Cultural Change, 18(4), 386–403. https://doi.org/10.1080/
14766825.2019.1668002
Landry, C. (2000). The creative city: A toolkit for urban innovation. Comedia.
Lehto, X., Davari, D., & Park, S. (2020). Transforming the guest–host relationship: A convivial tourism approach.
International Journal of Tourism Cities, 6(4), 1069–1088. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJTC-06-2020-0121
Lew, A. A. (2017). Tourism planning and place making: Place-making or placemaking? Tourism Geographies, 19(3),
448–466. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616688.2017.1282007
Liang, Z. X., & Bao, J. G. (2015). Tourism gentrification in Shenzhen, China: Causes and socio-spatial consequences.
Tourism Geographies, 17(3), 461–481. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616688.2014.1000954
 JOURNAL OF HERITAGE TOURISM 219

Lotfi, S., & Sholeh, M. (2020). Adaptive reuse gradient from ‘autocratic’to ‘creative’: A context-based anthology of
adaptive reuse experience in Tehran (1970-2020). International Journal of Architectural Heritage, 1–23. https://
doi.org/10.1080/15583058.2020.1793428
Loulanski, T. (2006). Revising the concept for cultural heritage: The argument for a functional approach. IJCP, 13(2),
207–233. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0940739106060085
Lynch, K. (1960). The image of the city. Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Mansilla, J. A., & Milano, C. (2019). Becoming centre: Tourism placemaking and space production in two
neighborhoods in Barcelona. Tourism Geographies, 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616688.2019.1571097
Manzini, E. (2015). Design, when everybody designs. An Introduction to design for social innovation. The MIT Press.
Markusen, A., & Gadwa, A. (2010). Creative Placemaking. Washington, DC: National Endowment forthe Arts. White
paper for The Mayor’s Institute on City Design. http://arts.gov/pub/pubDesign.php
Mason, R. (2008). Be interested and beware: Joining economic valuation and heritage conservation. International
Journal of Heritage Studies, 14(4), 303–318. https://doi.org/10.1080/13527250802155810
Masoud, E., & Einifar, A. (2021). A critical investigation into priorities in adaptive reuse theories within the interior
architecture of valuable buildings. Iran University of Science & Technology, 31(1), 1–11.
Mojabi, S. M. (2009). Search of Qazvin urban identity. Urban Planning and Architecture Study and Research Center.
Mosler, S. (2019). Everyday heritage concept as an approach to place-making process in the urban landscape. Journal
of Urban Design, 24(5), 778–793. https://doi.org/10.1080/13574809.2019.1568187
Newman, G. D. (2016). The eidos of urban form: A framework for heritage-based place making. Journal of Urbanism:
International Research on Placemaking and Urban Sustainability, 9(4), 388–407. https://doi.org/10.1080/
17549175.2015.1070367
ODPM (The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister). (2005). Bristol Accord: Conclusions of Ministerial Informal on
Sustainable Communities in Europe. Available on https://www.eib.org/attachments/jessica_bristol_accord_
sustainable_communities.pdf accessed 12 May 2021
Pendlebury, J. (2002). Conservation and regeneration: Complementary or conflicting processes? The case of Grainger
Town, Newcastle Upon Tyne. Planning Practice and Research, 17(2), 145–158. https://doi.org/10.1080/
02697450220145913
Pendlebury, J. (2014). Heritage and policy. In S. Watson, & E. Waterton (Eds.), The Palgrave Handbook of contem-
porary heritage research (pp. 426–441). Palgrave Macmillan.
Pendlebury, J., & Porfyriou, H. (2017). Heritage, urban regeneration and place-making. Journal of Urban Design, 22
(4), 429–432. https://doi.org/10.1080/13574809.2017.1326712
Piri, S., & Afshari Azad, S. (2016). Study of intra-urban caravanserais of the Qajar period of Hamedan. Iranian
Archaeological Research, 6(11), 207–221.
Prayag, G., Hosany, S., Muskat, B., & Del Chiappa, G. (2017). Understanding the relationships between tourists’
emotional experiences, perceived overall image, satisfaction, and intention to recommend. Journal of Travel
Research, 56(1), 41–54. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287515620567
Project for Public Spaces, Inc. (2012). Placemaking and the future of cities. UN-HABITAT Sustainable Urban
Development Network.
Project for Public Spaces. (n.d.). What Makes a Successful Place? Retrieved 14 May, 2021, From https://www.pps.org/
article/grplacefeat
Razali, M. K., & Ismail, H. N. (2014). A sustainable urban tourism indicator in Malaysia. WIT Transactions on Ecology
and the Environment, 187(6), 133–145. https://doi.org/10.2495/ST140111
Rezaei, N. (2017). Resident perceptions toward tourism impacts in historic center of Yazd, Iran. Tourism
Geographies, 19(5), 734–755. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616688.2017.1331261
Rezaei, N., Alborzi, G., & Alilou, L. (2021). Transformation of historic neighborhoods: How tourism Is Changing the
historic center of Kashan, Iran. Heritage & Society, 12(2–3), 176–196. https://doi.org/10.1080/2159032X.2021.
1934639
Rezaei, N., Rasouli, M., & Azhdari, B. (2019). The attitude of the local community to the impact of building reuse:
Three cases in an Old neighborhood of Tehran. Heritage & Society, 11(2), 105–125. https://doi.org/10.1080/
2159032X.2019.1583805
Salzman, R., & Lopez, J. (2020). Toward understanding the prevalence and purpose of placemaking among commu-
nity development institutions in the United States. Community Development, 51(4), 387–400. https://doi.org/10.
1080/15575330.2020.1789182
Sanders, E. B. N., & Stappers, P. J. (2008). Co-creation and the new landscapes of design. Co-design, 4(1), 5–18.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15710880701875068
Schneekloth, L. H., & Shibley, R. G. (1995). Placemaking: The art and practice of building communities. Wiley.
Shipley, R., Utz, S., & Parsons, M. (2006). Does adaptive reuse pay? A study of the business of building renovation in Ontario,
Canada. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 12(6), 505–520. https://doi.org/10.1080/13527250600940181
Sime, J. D. (1986). Creating places or designing spaces? Journal of Environmental Psychology, 6(1), 49–63. https://doi.
org/10.1016/S0272-4944(86)80034-2
Smith, L. (2006). Uses of heritage. Routledge.
220 N. REZAEI ET AL.

Sofield, T., Guia, J., & Specht, J. (2017). Organic ‘folkloric’community driven place-making and tourism. Tourism
Management, 61, 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2017.01.002
Speake, J., & Kennedy, V. (2019). Changing aesthetics and the affluent elite in urban tourism place making. Tourism
Geographies, 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616688.2019.1674368
Taecharungroj, V., & Mathayomchan, B. (2019). Analysing TripAdvisor reviews of tourist attractions in Phuket,
Thailand. Tourism Management, 75, 550–568. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2019.06.020
Teder, M. (2019). Placemaking as co-creation–professional roles and attitudes in practice. CoDesign, 15(4), 289–307.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15710882.2018.1472284
Throsby, D. (2002). Cultural capital and Sustainability concepts in the economics of cultural heritage, in De la Torre,
Marta, ed. 2002. Assessing the values of cultural heritage: Research report. Getty Conservation Institute.
Timothy, D. J. (2011). Cultural heritage and tourism: An introduction (Vol. 4). Bristol. Channel View Publications.
Timothy, D. J., & Boyd, S. W. (2006). Heritage tourism in the 21st century: Valued traditions and new perspectives.
Journal of Heritage Tourism, 1(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/17438730608668462
UNESCO. (n.d.). Caravanserais: cross-roads of commerce and culture along the Silk Roads, Retrieved 4 June, 2021,
from https://en.UNESCO.org/silkroad/content/caravanserais-cross-roads-commerce-and-culture-along-silk-roads
Uriely, N., & Reichel, A. (2000). Working tourists and their attitudes to hosts. Annals of Tourism Research, 27(2),
267–283. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0160-7383(99)00071-7
Urry, J. (2002). The tourist gaze (2nd edition). Sage.
Whyte, W. H. (1980). “Introduction”, “the life of plazas”, “sitting space”, and “sun, wind, trees and water” from the
social life of small urban spaces. In M. Larice, & E. Macdonald (Eds.), The urban design reader (pp. 198–213).
Routledge.
Wijesuriya, G. (2015). Living heritage: A summary. ICCROM.
Wyckoff, M. A. (2014). Definition of placemaking: Four different types. Planning & Zoning News, 32(3), 1–10. http://
landpolicy.msu.edu/news/article/lpis_mark_wyckoff_authors_article_on_four_different_types_of_placemaking
Wyckoff, M. A., Neumann, B., Pape, G., & Schindler, K. (2015). Placemaking as and economic development tool: A
placemaking guide. Land Policy Institute, Michigan State University. Retrieved form https://www.canr.msu.edu/
landpolicy/uploads/files/resources/publications__presentations/books/pm_guidebook/pmguidebook_final_
wcag2.0_v.01.05_metadata.pdf

Appendices
Appendix A. The profile of participants

No. Gender Age Status

Semi-structured face-to-face interviews
1 F 26 Local visitor
2 F 28 Local visitor
3 F 30 Local visitor
4 F 40 Local visitor
5 F 30 Local visitor
6 M 35 Local visitor
7 M 45 Local visitor
8 F 35 Shopkeeper
9 M 55 Shopkeeper
10 M 49 Shopkeeper
11 M 35 Shopkeeper
12 F 27 Shopkeeper
13 M 60 Shopkeeper
14 M 35 Shopkeeper
15 M 70 International tourist (France)
16 F 40 International tourist (France)
17 M 65 International tourist (France)
18 M 35 International tourist (Netherland)
19 F 30 National tourist (Tehran)
20 M 33 National tourist (Tehran)
21 F 27 National tourist (Tehran)
22 F 27 National tourist (Tehran)
23 F 45 Neighborhood resident
24 M 30 Neighborhood resident
25 M 50 Neighborhood resident

(Continued )
 JOURNAL OF HERITAGE TOURISM 221

Continued.
No. Gender Age Status
In-depth face-to-face interviews
1 F 30 Qazvin Renovation and Rehabilitation Organization
2 M 45 Qazvin Renovation and Rehabilitation Organization
Online interviews
1 M 30 International tourist (Netherlands) Online interview
2 M 50 International tourist (Poland) Online interview
3 M 65 International tourist (Italy) Online interview

Appendix B. Interview questions

No. Gender Age Status

Semi-structured face-to-face interviews
1 F 26 Local visitor
2 F 28 Local visitor
3 F 30 Local visitor
4 F 40 Local visitor
5 F 30 Local visitor
6 M 35 Local visitor
7 M 45 Local visitor
8 F 35 Shopkeeper
9 M 55 Shopkeeper
10 M 49 Shopkeeper
11 M 35 Shopkeeper
12 F 27 Shopkeeper
13 M 60 Shopkeeper
14 M 35 Shopkeeper
15 M 70 International tourist (France)
16 F 40 International tourist (France)
17 M 65 International tourist (France)
18 M 35 International tourist (Netherland)
19 F 30 National tourist (Tehran)
20 M 33 National tourist (Tehran)
21 F 27 National tourist (Tehran)
22 F 27 National tourist (Tehran)
23 F 45 Neighborhood resident
24 M 30 Neighborhood resident
25 M 50 Neighborhood resident
In-depth face-to-face interviews
1 F 30 Qazvin Renovation and Rehabilitation Organization
2 M 45 Qazvin Renovation and Rehabilitation Organization
Online interviews
1 M 30 International tourist (Netherlands) Online interview
2 M 50 International tourist (Poland) Online interview
3 M 65 International tourist (Italy) Online interview