Stakeholders' perception on sustainability indicators for urban heritage sites in Kuala Lumpur and George Town, Malaysia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose To manage heritage cities for locals' needs, a contextualized indicator to measure the sustainability of urban heritage is needed because it is often neglected. This study aims to identify the stakeholders’ perceptions on sustainability indicators of urban heritage sites in Kuala Lumpur and George Town, Malaysia. Design/methodology/approach This study applied a qualitative method by interviewing stakeholders (governmental, experts and communities) who are involved in urban heritage sites. A thematic analysis is used to group the data patterns into themes. Findings The existing site management and attention to heritage conservation are varied for both sites. The discussions of the stakeholders on the practicality of indicators, challenges in using indicators and suggestions to improve indicators monitoring provided a richness of concerns for monitoring the sustainability of urban heritage sites in the future. Thus, it is concluded that indicators cannot be generalized and require adaptation to diverse cultural contexts. Research limitations/implications Perceptions from local stakeholders can raise concerns when developing indicators in the future. However, this study is only related to two locations with a limited sample size. Deeper conversations or surveys are necessary to identify the criteria for sustaining heritage sites. Originality/value This paper reveals the importance of communities’ inclusiveness and their voices for a good urban heritage management policy. Subsequently, it supports the fulfillment towards Sustainable Development Goal 11.4 that highlights the protection of cultural and natural heritage.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".