Дипломная работа по истории на тему Fusion of Eras: The Impact of Modern Technologies on the Historical Character of Hotels in Saint-Petersburg.

2. LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Defining Heritage and Historical Hotels

In international tourism policy, “heritage” is treated as a legacy from the past that shapes present identity and must be safeguarded and communicated to future generations; heritage tourism, in turn, centres travel motivations on engaging with that legacy (tangible and intangible). UN Tourism (UNWTO) frames this balance of access and conservation in its sustainability and heritage programming and reports, emphasizing that development should not erode the cultural resources that attract visitors in the first place [1]. In parallel, ICOMOS’ International Cultural Tourism Charter remains a cornerstone for destinations using historic places in tourism: it calls for measurable goals for presentation and interpretation, insists on integrity of heritage management, and highlights that visitor use must be planned so as to conserve authenticity. The 1999 Charter provides a widely accepted doctrinal basis for how cultural assets–including historic hotels–should mediate visitor experience and conservation duties [2].

Academic literature complements these institutional frames by showing how cities market the past and how hospitality products become part of that “tourist–historic” economy. Ashworth & Tunbridge argue that historic urban fabric and its adaptive uses are core to destination identity and must be managed to avoid either fossilizing places into museums or eroding their character through insensitive modernization [3]. Timothy’s synthesis of cultural‐heritage tourism further clarifies that accommodation within heritage contexts is not merely a functional service but a medium for storytelling and meaning‐making, provided that interpretation and conservation go hand in hand [4].

For Russia–and Saint-Petersburg specifically–the legal environment matters because it shapes what a hotel in a historic building may or may not do. Federal Law No. 73-FZ legally defines “objects of cultural heritage” (ОКН), sets protection regimes, and makes any interventions–technological fit-outs included–contingent on conservation rules [5]. On the hospitality side, Russia’s mandatory hotel classification framework (e.g., Government Decree No. 1860, 18 Nov 2020) establishes category assignment rules and acknowledges the distinct context of hotels operating in culturally protected settings; hotels must be certified to provide services, which shapes how heritage properties plan refurbishments and guest amenities [6] [7]. National standards such as GOST R 51185 (tourism services, means of accommodation–general requirements) provide the baseline for service and facility quality that heritage hotels must still meet while respecting conservation constraints [8].

Within this study, heritage (historical) hotels are understood as accommodation businesses that (a) occupy buildings with recognized cultural–historic value (often with legal protection), or (b) result from adaptive reuse of historic structures, where management policies explicitly aim to conserve authenticity and interpret cultural significance for guests [9]. This operational definition aligns with both doctrinal guidance and contemporary research on reuse of heritage assets in hospitality. Empirical studies show that adaptive reuse enhances memorable experiences and, via those experiences, can strengthen loyalty–evidence that historic character can be a value driver when sensitively managed [10].

Because “heritage hotel” is used inconsistently in practice (sometimes overlapping with “boutique,” “themed,” or “luxury”), it is helpful to ground the concept in workable typologies. Scholarship on heritage accommodations typically differentiates: (i) original/ authentic heritage hotels whose core structures and historic functions are largely preserved; (ii) converted heritage hotels where non-hotel historic buildings (palaces, monasteries, factories) are adapted for lodging; and (iii) simulated or themed heritage hotels, which are newly built but designed to emulate historic ambience. These categories capture differences in authenticity, regulatory constraints, and the kinds of guest experiences that can be credibly promised [11].

Policy practice abroad offers concrete criteria to operationalize such distinctions. India’s Ministry of Tourism, for example, formally classifies “Heritage Hotels” and sub-classifies them (Heritage / Heritage Classic / Heritage Grand) with age-of-fabric thresholds (commonly pre-1950 or earlier), minimum room counts, and qualitative requirements that renovations maintain architectural distinctiveness; later circulars refine these rules (e.g., requiring a minimum share of floor area built before a given cut-off year). While designed for India, this scheme illustrates how regulators embed authenticity and adaptive reuse into hotel standards [12].

Adapting these insights to Saint-Petersburg and aligning with our supervisor’s guidance, the study employs a three-part working typology for analysis [13]:
(1) Authentic heritage hotels in protected buildings (ОКН): hotels inside legally protected fabric, where any technological interventions must be discreet and reversible to comply with conservation regimes;
(2) Hybrid hotels (historic façade with modernized interiors): properties that retain the urban-morphological presence of the historic shell while redesigning interiors and systems for contemporary comfort, a common form of adaptive reuse;
(3) New-build, heritage-style hotels (“novodel” imitation): "...new-build, heritage-style hotels (“novodel” imitation, i.e., newly constructed buildings designed to emulate historic architecture without formal heritage status). recent constructions that intentionally borrow historical aesthetics and narratives without formal heritage protection.

This typology helps compare like with like: regulatory risk and conservation duty are highest for authentic heritage properties, while hybrids balance façade authenticity with interior modernization, and new-build imitations focus on evocative storytelling rather than legal conservation. It also prepares the ground for examining how modern technologies (from building systems to guest-facing digital tools) can be integrated differently across types–maintaining authenticity and meeting service standards codified in national rules.

2.2 Modern Technologies in Hospitality

In contemporary hospitality, “modern technologies” denotes a cluster of inter-operable, data-driven systems that reshape service delivery, guest experience, and building performance. In hotels this ecosystem typically spans smart rooms, digital concierge/AI chatbots, AR/VR experiences, and energy-efficient building systems; each term is defined below with reference to current scholarship and industry standards.

Smart rooms are guest rooms instrumented with networked sensors and devices (IoT) that allow real-time control and automation of lighting, HVAC, entertainment, and blinds, as well as preference-based personalisation across the stay [14]. In hospitality research, smart hotels are framed as ICT-intensive environments that integrate AI, IoT, cloud and big data to enhance efficiency and guest value; smart rooms are the guest-facing unit of that integration. Empirical and review work in the International Journal of Hospitality Management and related journals describes smart rooms enabling remote/voice control, context-aware automation and “hyper-personalisation” at scale [15].

Digital concierge denotes a virtual assistant (often mobile-app, web, in-room tablet or messaging based) that manages routine requests (amenities, housekeeping, maintenance), provides local or on-property recommendations, and can transact upgrades or services; technically, it is most often implemented as an AI/chatbot integrated with the hotel PMS and service platforms [16]. Systematic reviews confirm the fast diffusion of service chatbots in hotels and restaurants and outline adoption antecedents (e.g., perceived usefulness/ease of use, trust, privacy). Industry definitions converge on the assistant metaphor–“a personal assistant that can action requests and perform automated tasks”–delivered via text or voice [17] [18].

Augmented reality (AR) and virtual reality (VR) tours provide immersive, pre-stay and on-site interpretation of destinations and properties. A foundational synthesis by Guttentag positions VR as a tool for marketing, planning and heritage preservation [19], while more recent systematic reviews document significant growth in AR/VR applications across tourism and hospitality and clarify that AR overlays digital content onto the physical environment [20], whereas VR offers a fully simulated environment. Studies for heritage contexts show that AR/VR can elevate satisfaction, memorability, and learning, including in museums and historical sites; emerging work compares emotional impacts of AR vs VR during heritage visits [21].

Energy-efficient systems in hotels encompass building-level automation (BMS), high-efficiency HVAC and heat-recovery, smart lighting with occupancy sensors, key-card master switches, and analytics-driven optimisation. The UNWTO-led Hotel Energy Solutions (HES) programme codifies efficiency and renewables options for SME hotels and targeted a 20% gain in energy efficiency and 10% increase in renewables uptake; its guides remain a practical reference for measures and ROI [22]. Industry-wide benchmarking–e.g., the Cornell Hotel Sustainability Benchmarking (CHSB) Index–provides comparable energy, water and carbon data at property and portfolio level [23]. Methodologies such as the Hotel Carbon Measurement Initiative (HCMI) standardise how hotels calculate the carbon footprint per occupied room and per meeting-space hour, enabling like-for-like comparisons and progress tracking, and informing sectoral decarbonisation pathways (e.g., 66% absolute emissions cuts by 2030 and 90% by 2050 in the Global Hotel Decarbonisation Report) [24].

Taken together, these technologies have operational (labour productivity, predictive maintenance), experiential (personalisation, accessibility, immersive storytelling) and sustainability (reduced energy/carbon, better indoor-environment quality) implications. However, scholarly reviews also highlight risks and contingencies–notably interoperability and data-privacy issues in smart environments, staff acceptance and service-recovery design for chatbots, and the need to align AR/VR content with authentic interpretation in heritage settings.



2.3 Balancing Technology and Authenticity

The question of how to integrate technology into heritage hotels without diminishing their historical value has become one of the most pressing debates in tourism and hospitality studies. Authenticity has long been recognised as a cornerstone of heritage tourism, shaping visitors’ satisfaction, attachment, and long-term loyalty. Recent empirical evidence demonstrates that perceived authenticity significantly enhances mindful tourism experiences, including learning, enjoyment, and escapism, and indirectly strengthens satisfaction and revisit intention [25]. This perspective highlights that authenticity is not confined to the physical preservation of walls and facades but is increasingly understood as experiential authenticity–a construct tied to emotions, cultural immersion, and the guest’s perception of being part of a meaningful historical narrative. In the setting of heritage hotels, this means that innovation must be carefully weighed against the risk of eroding the intangible dimensions of authenticity that guests seek.

Heritage management theory provides a useful framework for navigating these tensions. Ashworth and Tunbridge have argued that heritage is not static but socially constructed and constantly reinterpreted, and therefore heritage sites must remain dynamic to sustain relevance. If heritage hotels are preserved as if they were frozen in time, they risk becoming detached from the needs of contemporary travellers. This problem is often referred to as museumification, the process by which heritage sites turn into static exhibits that no longer engage with social or cultural life.

While museumification protects the physical artefacts, it alienates modern audiences by reducing heritage to spectacle rather than lived experience. Studies of heritage properties demonstrate that guests are highly sensitive to this risk, often criticising environments that feel staged or overly commodified [26]. By contrast, hotels that allow for both conservation and adaptive reuse–such as redesigning interiors for comfort while preserving historic facades–tend to strike a balance that guests perceive as both authentic and relevant.

Technology can play an ambivalent role in this process. On one hand, poorly implemented digital tools can accelerate the process of museumification by creating superficial, theme-park-like experiences that trivialise cultural value. On the other hand, when technologies are strategically employed, they can enrich interpretation, facilitate storytelling, and extend the sense of place beyond what static material culture can convey. For example, studies of AR and VR applications in heritage contexts have shown that immersive technologies can enhance emotional engagement, deepen learning, and provide visitors with layered narratives that strengthen their sense of authenticity [27].

Importantly, these effects depend on how technology is framed: when used as a supplementary interpretive tool that contextualises architectural or cultural elements, technology can reinforce heritage; but when used as an attraction in itself, it risks overshadowing the very cultural assets it seeks to highlight.

The role of storytelling has become central to bridging authenticity and innovation. Scholars of cultural heritage interpretation emphasise that heritage must be actively narrated in ways that resonate with visitors’ identities and expectations. Timothy notes that interpretation transforms static spaces into living heritage, enabling guests to connect emotionally with place [4]. Similarly, Tzeng and Shen demonstrate that interactive media can support multi-vocal narratives, presenting multiple perspectives and engaging visitors in co-creation rather than passive consumption [28].

In practice, this means that heritage hotels should not adopt digital tools merely to modernise their image but to provide interpretive layers that allow guests to access deeper cultural meanings. Mobile apps with historical narratives, AR overlays on architectural details, or digital archives presented through in-room tablets are examples of how technology can be harnessed to expand the storytelling capacity of heritage hotels without compromising authenticity.

Recent empirical research supports this balance-oriented approach. A 2022 study on adaptive reuse of heritage houses in the Middle East found that while digital technology can enrich memorable experiences, it also moderates the relationship between authenticity and loyalty, sometimes diluting the impact if guests perceive the technology as intrusive [9]. Similar findings emerge in European case studies, where staff in heritage hotels reported that subtle, context-sensitive technologies improved both guest satisfaction and cultural interpretation, but intrusive or highly visible digital systems were often rejected by guests seeking an “authentic” stay [4].

Another strand of literature emphasises the importance of invisible, back-end technologies such as energy management systems or IoT-enabled comfort controls, which improve sustainability and efficiency while leaving the historic atmosphere untouched [6]. These findings point to a layered approach: visible technologies should be limited to interpretive storytelling, while invisible systems should support comfort and sustainability without interfering with cultural perception.

Balancing technology and authenticity is therefore less about rejecting innovation and more about orchestrating it carefully within the heritage management framework. Hotels must evaluate not only the economic or operational benefits of digitalisation but also its impact on experiential authenticity and cultural value. Technologies should be selected according to their capacity to facilitate engagement, co-create narratives, and strengthen emotional bonds with place. When implemented with sensitivity, innovations can transform heritage hotels into living environments where the past and present co-exist harmoniously, avoiding the pitfalls of museumification and ensuring that guests leave with both cultural enrichment and modern satisfaction.

2.4 Guest Preferences and Age Groups

A consistent theme in contemporary hospitality research is that age cohort strongly conditions how guests evaluate accommodation attributes and, consequently, how they sort between product classes such as serviced apartments, boutique/tech-forward hotels, and luxury heritage properties. Younger travellers (Gen Z and younger Millennials) typically prioritise frictionless digital touchpoints, self-service optionality, social connectivity and design-led spaces, whereas older travellers display higher utilities for comfort, quiet, service reliability, cleanliness and safety–attributes historically associated with upscale and luxury hotels. These patterns have direct implications for this study’s primary data, given that the survey sample is concentrated in the 18–24 age band, and thus is likely to overweight preferences for hi-tech and apartment-style formats relative to older cohorts.
On the senior end of the spectrum, a growing empirical literature shows that older tourists anchor their choices in comfort, service assurance and low-effort experiences. Using a large sample of seniors, Albayrak and Caber identify asymmetric effects of hotel attributes on satisfaction: cleanliness, staff courtesy and room comfort act as “must-be” factors for seniors, meaning that deficits in these basics trigger disproportionate dissatisfaction even if other features are present [29].

Complementing these findings, Sie et al. show that senior tourists’ self-determined motivations (relaxation, relatedness, autonomy) feed into tour and accommodation preferences that maximise ease, safety and curated service, and that these choices are linked to more memorable experiences and life satisfaction during travel [30]. At the product-class level, a 2024 article in the International Journal of Hospitality Management demonstrates that when senior travellers choose between hotels and Airbnb, knowledge-seeking and socialisation motives matter, but traditional hotels retain a comparative advantage when seniors prioritise predictability, service and security; Airbnb gains ground only when seniors explicitly pursue community interaction and local immersion [31]. Broader destination work reaches similar conclusions: senior-friendly environments privilege barrier-free access, safety, tranquillity, hygiene and staff support–criteria that map closely onto luxury or upper-upscale hotel propositions rather than peer-to-peer or highly self-service formats [32]. Taken together, these studies explain why luxury heritage hotels–offering spacious rooms, classic service rituals and quiet atmospheres–tend to resonate with older guests. In historic properties, this segment often values restrained use of visible technology (e.g., concealed climate control, unobtrusive lighting automation) while responding positively to service-led storytelling–concierge-delivered history walks, printed heritage notes, or staff-led narratives–over app-heavy experiences.

By contrast, Gen Z and younger Millennials evidence strong preferences for digital and social design. A 2024 critical synthesis in the International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management characterises Gen Z as mobile-first, highly influenced by social media in both inspiration and choice, and expectant of seamless digital journeys–from search and booking to in-stay messaging and virtual concierge–along with personalisation and rapid response [33]. A systematic review of smart-hotel research corroborates that younger cohorts are the primary adopters and beneficiaries of guest-facing technologies (mobile check-in, smart rooms, chatbots), provided that systems are reliable and privacy risks are managed [34]. Experimental and survey evidence focused specifically on Gen Z’s guest-facing technology preferences finds relatively high acceptance of self-service kiosks, mobile keys and in-room casting, with lower tolerance for full automation in high-touch encounters (e.g., robotic front desks), which are perceived as impersonal unless offset by superior convenience or speed [35].

These behavioural priors help explain the growing pull of aparthotels/serviced apartments for younger travellers who combine leisure with work or study: the format offers autonomy, embedded tech (strong Wi-Fi, smart TVs, app-based services) and social/common areas that support community and content creation. Industry evidence shows that Europe’s serviced-apartment sector outperformed expectations in occupancy in 2024, driven by leisure and longer-stay demand–including younger, digitally enabled guests–while operators pivot design and amenities to “tomorrow’s guest” cohorts identified in the Global Serviced Apartments Industry Report (GSAIR) [36, 37]. Related research links accommodation type to in-destination behaviour, indicating that guests choosing apartment-style lodging are more independent and activity-oriented, whereas traditional hotel guests spend more time on-property and place higher value on service touchpoints–patterns consistent with generational splits [38].

Age also shapes values and sustainability preferences, which increasingly intersect with product choice. Recent work comparing generational cohorts suggests Gen Z articulate strong pro-sustainability attitudes and are attentive to hotels’ environmental signals, although an attitude–behaviour gap persists (e.g., willingness to endorse green features is higher than willingness to sacrifice convenience) [39]. For hotel selection, however, visible eco-efficiency (smart energy controls, refill amenities, room sensors) bundled into a slick, mobile-mediated experience does raise perceived value for Gen Z; for older cohorts, sustainability features are welcomed when they do not compromise comfort (temperature control, bedding quality, noise levels) or service. In heritage hotels specifically, these differences imply that front-stage digital content (AR overlays or mobile heritage guides) will likely appeal more to Gen Z/younger Millennials, while back-stage technology (quiet HVAC upgrades, lifts, accessibility aids) will matter more to older guests–provided interpretive content remains human-centred and non-intrusive.

In summary, the literature shows that guest preferences in hospitality are strongly age-dependent rather than universal. Younger cohorts, particularly Gen Z and Millennials, gravitate towards hi-tech, flexible, and socially oriented formats such as serviced apartments, aparthotels, or hybrid hostels that integrate digital convenience with community spaces. Older travellers, by contrast, prioritise comfort, cleanliness, personalised service, and tranquillity, often expressed through a preference for luxury heritage hotels and traditional full-service properties. This divergence highlights the importance of segment-specific strategies in hotel management: technology-forward solutions and immersive digital storytelling can enhance appeal for younger audiences, while restrained, invisible technologies and service-rich interpretation resonate more strongly with senior travellers. The overarching consensus in the literature is that fit-for-segment digitalisation–tailoring the technological profile of hotels to generational expectations–offers a more sustainable path to satisfaction and loyalty than indiscriminate adoption of the latest innovations.

2.5 Gaps in the Literature

Across hospitality and heritage studies, there has been substantial progress on (i) defining heritage/historical hotels and adaptive reuse, (ii) mapping “smart hotel” technologies and guest-facing digital services, and (iii) exploring immersive interpretation through AR/VR. Yet a close reading of this corpus reveals three structural gaps that are directly relevant to Saint-Petersburg and to heritage hotels in the Russian Federation: a geographical gap (scarcity of studies set in Russia and Saint-Petersburg specifically), a substantive gap (few papers examine the balance between technology and authenticity in heritage hotels, as opposed to treating either technology adoption or heritage preservation in isolation), and a measurement/policy gap (limited use of validated constructs and sectoral metrics adapted to Russian regulatory conditions). This subsection synthesises what is known and, crucially, what remains under-researched.

First, most empirical and review papers on hotel digitalisation and “smart hospitality” are globally framed but concentrated outside Russia. The influential ecosystem view of smart hospitality by Buhalis and Leung [15] and the recent bibliometric synthesis on smart hotels by Liu et al. [14] set the agenda for interconnectivity, interoperability and guest personalisation, yet their evidence base largely reflects Asia–Pacific, North America and Western Europe. Similarly, the systematic reviews on service chatbots and AI-driven digital concierges in hospitality synthesise adoption antecedents, benefits and risks, but provide little or no coverage of Russian or Eastern European hotel markets. In the immersive-tech stream, comprehensive reviews of AR/VR for tourism and hospitality–and even application-focused guides for managers–document growth in museums, attractions and destination marketing, but case material overwhelmingly comes from Western Europe, East Asia and the Middle East rather than Russia. This geographical skew matters: adoption costs, infrastructure, guest expectations and regulatory constraints differ across markets; generalisations from other regions may therefore misstate feasibility, ROI and guest reception in Saint-Petersburg’s heritage hotels.

Second, even where research touches Russia, it rarely targets heritage hotels or the trade-off between innovation and authenticity. Russian-language legal and sector papers tend to address classification and regulation (e.g., evolution of hotel classification; typologies within federal standards) rather than guest experience in historically protected buildings. Federal Law No. 73-FZ sets stringent conditions for works within objects of cultural heritage (ОКН), shaping what heritage hotels may do to façades, interiors and engineering systems; however, peer-reviewed analyses that empirically examine how hotels operationalise technology under 73-FZ constraints are scarce. By contrast, many international studies discuss technology–experience links but outside protected-building contexts–for example, loyalty effects moderated by digital technology in adaptively reused heritage houses in the Middle East, or conceptual frameworks for smart-enhanced cultural experiences in general heritage settings. The intersection problem–studying modern technologies inside legally protected hotels–remains under-explored for Russia and Saint-Petersburg.

Third, there is a measurement and methods gap. International scholarship commonly uses validated scales for perceived authenticity, memorability, place attachment and revisit intention, as well as structured adoption models for digital services; however, very few studies apply or adapt these instruments to Russian heritage hotels. Large reviews show rapid progress on constructs for smart-hotel satisfaction and technology acceptance among younger cohorts, but cross-cultural validation in Slavic/Russian contexts is largely absent. Similarly, energy/carbon benchmarking and reporting in hospitality has been standardised globally–through the Hotel Carbon Measurement Initiative (HCMI) and the Cornell Hotel Sustainability Benchmarking (CHSB) index–yet published benchmarks for Russian heritage hotels are not available. Without localised baselines, it is difficult to compare the performance of refurbished historical buildings (e.g., where fabric conservation limits envelope upgrades) with modern properties, or to quantify the marginal gains from discreet retrofits (heat recovery, variable-speed drives, BMS fine-tuning) that are critical in protected fabric.

A fourth gap concerns segmentation and age cohorts in heritage contexts. There is fast-growing evidence that Gen Z and Millennials prefer high-tech, flexible formats and app-mediated service, while older travellers prioritise comfort, reliability and service assurance; however, these cohort findings are derived largely from non-Russian samples across North America, Western Europe and Asia [14–16]. Little is known about whether Russian guests–particularly in cities with strong heritage identities such as Saint-Petersburg–assign similar utilities to heritage ambience, invisible technology, or digital storytelling. Moreover, while international work has begun mapping how AR/VR and mobile interpretation affect emotions, learning and satisfaction in heritage settings, studies that test these effects in hotel environments (as opposed to museums or archaeological sites) are limited, and Russia-based experiments are virtually absent.

Fifth, the literature presents an evidence asymmetry between visible and invisible technologies. Research on guest-facing features–mobile keys, chatbots, smart-room controls–is abundant, whereas empirical work on back-of-house retrofits vital to heritage buildings (e.g., plant-room modernisation inside historic shells, concealed cabling, structural vibration limits for lifts, acoustic interventions compatible with protected interiors) is sparse and mostly reported in practitioner documents rather than peer-reviewed papers. Given that 73-FZ compliance often necessitates reversible or non-intrusive solutions, this is a consequential gap for Saint-Petersburg hotels operating in classed buildings.

Sixth, there is a policy–operations gap. While Russia has a comprehensive legal framework for heritage protection and separate regulations for hotel operations (e.g., Decree No. 1853 on the provision of hotel services), peer-reviewed analyses linking these regimes to concrete technology choices in hotels are lacking. For example, global AR/VR frameworks for visitor interpretation recommend in-situ overlays and indoor positioning, but there is little guidance on how such systems should be engineered within Russian protected interiors (e.g., constraints on drilling, sensors on historic surfaces, electromagnetic compatibility with legacy materials), or how hotels demonstrate due diligence to heritage authorities. Similarly, although HCMI/CHSB offer common carbon/energy metrics, there is limited discussion of how Russian grid factors, climate severity, and building stock specificities (thick masonry, high ceilings, historic glazing) affect paybacks and benchmarking for heritage properties in Saint-Petersburg.

Seventh, methodology is often single-method and case-thin for heritage hotels. Many global studies are cross-sectional surveys or conceptual frameworks; mixed-methods designs that triangulate guest perceptions, technical audits of building systems, and archival analysis of conservation permits remain rare. This limits causal inference about whether a given technology enhances or dilutes authenticity in protected hotels. The few empirical examples–e.g., loyalty mediated by memorability and moderated by digital technology in heritage houses [10]–come from non-Russian contexts and may not transfer where regulatory and cultural conditions diverge.
Finally, there is a visibility gap in the international record. Russian-language research output and industry reports are under-indexed in major international databases. Articles discussing Russian hotel classification and standards exist, and federal legal texts are accessible, but English-language, Scopus/Web-of-Science-indexed work on Russian heritage hotels remains minimal. This language and indexing barrier perpetuates the appearance of absence–even when some grey literature or local studies exist–and constrains international comparative analysis.

The literature needed to guide heritage hotels in Saint-Petersburg toward a harmonious balance between innovation and conservation is fragmented. Global reviews articulate what technology can do in hotels and at heritage sites; Russian sources define what is legally permissible in protected buildings and how hotels are classified [7–9]; but the empirical bridge–showing how Russian heritage hotels actually integrate technology under legal, technical and experiential constraints, and with which outcomes for different age cohorts–is largely missing. Addressing these gaps calls for context-specific, mixed-methods research: (i) mapping Saint-Petersburg’s heritage-hotel types; (ii) auditing visible and invisible technology within 73-FZ limits; (iii) measuring perceived authenticity, comfort and sustainability with adapted, validated scales; and (iv) analysing segment responses (Gen Z/Y vs. older travellers) to fit-for-segment digitalisation in protected hotel environments