Cultural heritage tourism is a vital sector that fosters cultural preservation, economic development, and intercultural exchange. However, the industry faces significant challenges, including sustainability, authenticity, and visitor engagement, necessitating innovative approaches to remain competitive. This paper explores the nature of stakeholder collaboration in driving innovation within cultural heritage tourism, with a specific focus on Zimbabwe. Drawing on theoretical frameworks such as Stakeholder Theory, Collaboration Theory, Innovation Theory, Sustainable Tourism Theory, and Institutional Theory, the study highlights how multi-stakeholder engagement can enhance site management, visitor experiences, and sustainable development. Through a systematic literature review of 100 peer-reviewed journals published between 2000 and 2025, the paper identifies key stakeholders, including local communities, government agencies, private sector players, and international organizations, and examines their roles in fostering innovation. The review prioritized studies focusing on cultural heritage tourism, stakeholder collaboration, and innovation. The findings of this paper illuminate the transformative potential of digital technologies, such as virtual reality (VR) and augmented reality (AR), in overcoming infrastructural deficits and enhancing visitor engagement. It also underscore the importance of public-private partnerships (PPPs) and inclusive policy frameworks in mobilizing resources and ensuring equitable benefits for local communities.
During the standard development process of a new vinyl coated fabric for the marine sector, all materials are thoroughly tested and exposed to harsh environmental conditions to confirm they meet the requirements of this segment. Through this process, a vinyl product exhibiting significant topcoat layer delamination was identified. To investigate the root cause of this failure, a factorial experimental design with 16 samples involving four key components of the vinyl coated fabric as factors (nature of basecoat, plasticizer type, plasticizer concentration, number of lacquer’s layers) was conducted. All the different constructions were evaluated through contact angle measurements and the identification of the plasticizer extraction profile. Furthermore, the different constructions were exposed to weathering conditions (thermal, salt fog, UV exposure) and analyzed by scanning electron microscopy (SEM) for detecting any possible integrity damage in the coating system. The finishing layers—basecoat and topcoat—were also individually studied by infrared spectroscopy, thermal gravimetric analysis, differential scanning calorimetry, and gel permeation chromatography to expedite identifying any possible change in their thermal behavior and chemical structure. As result of this exhaustive analysis, it was confirmed that one of the sample test groups (samples 9–16), which included one of the basecoat formulations (basecoat 2) in the vinyl coated fabric construction, displayed a lower UV resistance due to severe polymer degradation when compared to the alternative test group assembled with a different basecoat (basecoat 1) during the UV exposure test. In addition, a decrease of at least 45% in the surface free energy polar component (γsp) ascribed to a reduction from 100 phr (parts per hundred resin) to 80 phr in the plasticizer content was also identified for vinyl coated fabric samples containing basecoat 2. This finding allowed us to identify a strong correlation of the surface energy for basecoat 2 with the plasticization level of the PVC and explained the early delamination observed for the topcoat after thermally induced plasticizer migration, which was confirmed by SEM analysis. This analysis methodology not only promoted the identification of the failure root cause but also guided the choice of the most UV resistant and stable basecoat formulation to be included in future vinyl coated fabric constructions for marine upholstery applications.
All parties facing the risk of an enforcement action must make the difficult decision of settling the charges or fighting them in litigation or an administrative proceeding. Both options provide distinct advantages and disadvantages. By settling, a party can resolve charges without admitting or denying the allegations and can minimise public coverage of potentially lengthy litigation and trial. But litigating, while stressful and expensive, can end in public vindication or even a novel change in the law that could be advantageous to a defendant’s business or industry. Parties are motivated by different factors. For some, the primary goal might be limiting public scrutiny and reputational damage, while for others, the decision making is driven by a cost calculation weighing the prospective costs of a trial and potential damages against the costs of an anticipated settlement and potential penalties. Is there ever a right case to litigate? What factors should a party carefully examine when making the decision of whether to settle or litigate? And how do recent challenges to the power of Administrative Law Judges impact the analysis? This article provides an overview of principal considerations that parties facing an enforcement action should keep in mind as they evaluate whether to settle or litigate, especially during a climate in which regulatory agencies and administrative proceedings are facing increasing programmatic and reputational pressure. This article is included in The Business and Management Collection (https://hstalks.com/business/).
Background: Since current medications frequently cause potentially serious side effects, countless individuals continued to have pain and inflammation despite the accessibility of treatments. Ancient practitioners have used a variety of herbal remedies with analgesic and anti-inflammatory properties extensively. Momordica Dioica is one of them, but no experimental research has been done in support of this traditional use. Objective: The purpose of the research was to assess the analgesic and anti-inflammatory properties of methanolic Momordica Dioica fruit extracts. Methods: Dryed by air According to OECD guideline the version eighteen, the fruit of Momordica Dioica is extracted with the solvent methanol as well as an acute oral toxicity study was done for the methanol-based extract of Momordica Dioica. The Active Constituent responsible for the Activity was confirmed by HPTLC method. The hot plate method was employed to assess the analgesic efficacy of centrally mediated analgesia.The ability to reduce inflammation was assessed using a carrageenan-induced paw oedema test. Results: Momordica dioica's methanolic extract inhibits the ceiling result during activity. The Methanolic Extract of Momordica dioica (MEMD) extract demonstrated a significant (p 0.0001) analgesic effect in the hot plate method at doses of 100mg/kg and in all combinations with standard. Maximum anti-inflammatory effects were seen in carrageenan-induced paw edema starting 2-4 hours after induction, and all tested doses of the extract significantly inhibited the carrageenan-induced inflammation (p 0.0001, p 0.001). The presence of a pentacyclic terpenoid i.e Ursolic acid present in the extract had potential analgesic and anti-inflammatory activity which supports the traditional claim.
Public art – art in public spaces – is present in almost every city in America: murals on building walls, sculptures in public parks and plazas, light displays on sidewalks. Indeed, public art includes some of the most recognizable and iconic symbols of American cities, like Chicago’s “Cloud Gate” or Philadelphia’s LOVE statue. In 2022 alone over $800 million was dedicated to state arts agencies providing grants and funding for the commissioning of public art to beautify cities, both to attract tourists (and the resulting tourism revenue), and to benefit local communities through enhanced cultural identities, pride of place, and sense of community.The presence of art in public spaces implicates a number of copyright questions that are inadequately addressed by existing copyright law in the United States, attempted solutions implemented by various United Nation member countries, or the commissioning agreements that provide the contractual terms under which public art is commissioned and created. Public art, paid for (at least in part) by taxpayer dollars, and physically present in the public sphere, becomes part of the fabric of a city in a way that art in private homes or museums does not. But its existence in public does not make it part of the public domain. And where a public square free of public art is also free to be photographed, the installation of copyrighted public art changes that, making photographs that include the public art potentially infringing. While copyright law provides an exception for architectural work, no such exception exists for public art, and unwary tourists are shielded from infringement only by fair use or the de minimis doctrine. Moreover, an analysis of 30 public art commissioning agreements shows that not only do commissioning agencies fail to take into account the potential interests of the public in the reproduction of public art, but also, in many cases, inadequately protect the city’s own interests in reproducing or otherwise benefitting from the work of public art.This article examines the unique relationship between artists that create public art, the cities that commission that art, and the public that ostensibly benefits from it, and then seeks to balance their competing interests in the work and discuss the ways in which copyright law currently fails to address or protect those interests. Further, in what appears to be the first time in the literature, this article analyzes the terms of 30 existing public art commissioning agreements – all either fully executed agreements, or model agreements created and published by individual cities’ public art agencies – to demonstrate how existing contract terms are inadequate to protect the interests of any of the parties. Finally, this article addresses the need for a consistent set of contract terms for commissioning of public art to avoid the uncertainty of a patchwork of rights and protections that varies by city or state; and proposes a set of terms that, if uniformly adopted, would resolve existing uncertainty regarding the reproduction of public art.
