MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2515976618 · doi:10.14398/urpr.3.1

Rehabilitation Methods and Revitalization Strategies in the Old Inner-City Areas of Rapid Growth Cities in Asia

2016· article· en· W2515976618 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Teh Yee Sing, Yoh Sasaki

Bibliographic record

VenueUrban and Regional Planning Review · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicCultural Heritage Management and Preservation
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversiti Sains Malaysia
KeywordsGeographySustainabilityCultural heritageSociocultural evolutionPopulationTourismQuarter (Canadian coin)Old townEconomic growthEnvironmental planningSocioeconomicsPolitical scienceSociologyArchaeologyMedicineEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Rapid population growth is putting increasing pressure on Asian countries. Rehabilitating and revitalizing old inner-city areas in Asian countries have become essential to preserving cultural assets. With the development of old inner-city areas as urban heritage sites, determining which sustainability approach is optimal has also been a concern. Many countries in Asia have aggressively developed unique strategies for heritage conservation. In order to define the differences of rehabilitation methods and revitalization strategies in different cities and determine the implication to the area, this study is conducted for the following aims: i) To compare rehabilitation methods and revitalization policies and strategies in the old inner-city areas of rapidly growing cities in Asia by referring to four cases: Penang (George Town), Hanoi (Ancient Quarter), Shanghai (Tianzifang and Xintiandi), and Tokyo (Yanaka District); ii) To study the trends in the use of historical buildings in the cities. Target comparative in this study are “physical and manmade environment”, “sociocultural environment”, and “economic environment” in the four cities. This research uses primary data obtained in site visits and secondary data collected from archive departments, libraries, online database and local authorities. Site survey was conducted to observe the site according to the elements of the current condition and impact of heritage conservation and tourist. Observation was done by watching the site condition, and recorded in qualitative format (note-taking and photographing for case study). In addition, short interviews were engaged with local authorities and related organizations, residents and shop owner or staffs as well. In conclusion, two types of methods have generated different results. Firstly, by preserving the building structure with strict conservation rules and regulations, it has sustained a distinguishable identity and landscape feature for the places. Proper physical spatial planning and environment preservation framework are implemented. These cities specialize in tourism sector with new and creative commercial activities. It has encouraged the development of traditional craft industry through the production of innovative products. Consequently, job opportunities for local people have increased and thus boosted the local economy. However, conflict between tourism activities and the lifestyle of local community has occurred. Secondly, preserving the entire environment by using management or control of urban planning / land use method, and consensus building method have encouraged community activities and generated authentic ambience in the cities. Socio cultural elements that are compatible and harmonized with local business (traditional industry) remain as the main attraction for tourists. However, issues related to living condition and the inconsistency in implementing the preservation effort need to be tackled. Therefore, this study has concluded that both preservation methods have brought different kinds of tourism effect for the cities. It could be a reference for other cities when making decision to preserve its cultural heritage site.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.821
Threshold uncertainty score0.163

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.115
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.200 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations15
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUrban and Regional Planning ReviewSame topicCultural Heritage Management and PreservationFrench-language works237,207