The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

[Link]

Adaptive reuse of historic Reuse of

historic
buildings: connecting the links buildings:
tourist visits
between tourist appreciation
and visitation 531
Adlin Baizura Ariffin Received 2 April 2019
Revised 30 November 2019
Faculty of Hotel and Tourism Management, USCI University-Sarawak Campus, 22 March 2020
Kuching, Malaysia, and Accepted 5 May 2020

Mohd Salehuddin Mohd Zahari and Mohd Hafiz Hanafiah

Faculty of Hotel and Tourism Management, Universiti Teknologi MARA,
Puncak Alam, Selangor, Malaysia

Abstract
Purpose – This article aims to illustrate the influence of the adaptive reuse of historic buildings on tourists’
appreciation and actual visitation.
Design/methodology/approach – This study surveyed the perception of tourists on the adaptive reuse of
historic buildings activity in Kuching city, Malaysia, via the causal research design and self-administered
questionnaire. Two hundred forty-two respondents participated in this survey.
Findings – This study found that the tourists highly acknowledged the practices of adaptive reuse of the
historic buildings. Their positive behaviour is evident when most of the tourists perceived the adaptive reuse of
the historic buildings influence their level of appreciation and subsequently translated it into their actual
visitation.
Practical implications – Based on these findings, this study proposes that the adaptive reuse of historic
buildings be marketed as a heritage tourism product. This promising indication from the tourists will
undoubtedly draw several practical implications to the local authority policy on the practices of historic
buildings adaptive reuse and how it benefits the heritage tourism development.
Originality/value – This study confirms that adaptive reuse is an excellent initiative as it is not only
preserving the historical treasures for future generations but is a catalyst for tourism development and helps to
generate income for the community.
Keywords Adaptive reuse, Historic buildings, Tourist, Appreciation, visitation
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
Modernisation is commonly associated with urbanisation and industrial development, and in
a broader perspective, it involves an inclusive growth of the economy, lifestyle, education and
technology. Historians link modernisation to the process of urbanisation, industrialisation
and the spread of education (Lerner, 1967; Mosoarca et al., 2017; Rashid and Ahmad, 2011;
Robertson and Lechner, 1985). Modernisation has also influenced family life in terms of its
socioeconomic conditions, cultural values, education and communication (Hasan and Nair,
2017; Inglehart and Welzel, 2005; Schaffer, 2016). The historic cultural values and customs
have undergone significant changes in these contemporary times. This phenomenon is
evident when many artefacts, landmarks, heritage sites and historic buildings are
dilapidated, suffer abandonment and demolition resulting in losses (Larsen and Logan,
2018; Starzmann, 2008; Timothy and Nyaupane, 2009). Property Management
The issue of whether old buildings should be demolished and replaced has long been a Vol. 38 No. 4, 2020
pp. 531-541
controversial issue among the public and the government (Ashworth, 2011; Langston et al., © Emerald Publishing Limited
0263-7472
2008; Yung et al., 2014). Many of these heritage buildings have been neglected, leading to DOI 10.1108/PM-04-2019-0019
PM scores of dilapidations and abandonment. While some believe that the buildings are vital due
38,4 to their historical value (Fredheim and Khalaf, 2016; Pracchi, 2014; Smith et al., 2017), others
believe they should not stand in the way of modernisation (Mosoarca et al., 2017; Rashid and
Ahmad, 2011; Schaffer, 2016). In most of the developing countries, the thrust of heritage
conservation of historic buildings was undertaken solely by the government (Abdullah et al.,
2017; Harun, 2011; Tan et al., 2018).
One of the practices to preserve valuable historic buildings is through adaptive reuse,
532 which has become increasingly popular among local governments around the world
(Hanafi et al., 2018; Mısırlısoy and G€ unçe, 2016; Rodrigues and Freire, 2017; Tan et al.,
2018; Wong, 2016). Adaptive reuse is the process of taking an old building or site and
reusing it for a purpose other than that for which it was designed (Shipley et al., 2006).
Typically, in cities with a rich history, it is closely related to historical preservation and
conservation. Adaptive reuse of old historic building had been practised in many
tourism destinations and, it is promoted as heritage tourism (Adiwibowo et al., 2015;
Ariffin et al., 2017; Gholitabar and Costa, 2018; Lee, 2015; Tam et al., 2016; Tan
et al., 2016).
Heritage tourism is a growing and profitable businesses (Bowitz and Ibenholt, 2009; Çela
et al., 2009; Graham et al., 2016; Harvey, 2001) and one of the vital components of the tourism
industry and drawing attention from the international tourist (Hanafiah and Zulkifly, 2019;
Jovicic, 2016; Light, 2015; Wu et al., 2015; Yang and Lin, 2011). Heritage building
conservation initiatives involve a continuing process of compromising between protecting
the building character while at the same time improving it for public safety and comfort
(Scott, 2015). In line with heritage tourism demand, various initiatives have been
undertaken to preserve heritage buildings in tourism destinations around the world
(Larsen and Logan, 2018; Light, 2015; Mısırlısoy and G€ unçe, 2016; Smith et al., 2017;
Timothy and Nyaupane, 2009). As a result, the historic structures in matured cities like
Paris, Amsterdam, London, Hong Kong and Edinburgh were well preserved, and their
communities have much to gain from adaptively reusing their historic buildings (Ashworth
and Tunbridge, 2000; Black, 1990; Graham et al., 2016; Jovicic, 2016; Larsen and
Logan, 2018).
Although Malaysia has lots of heritage buildings all over the country, the
understanding of heritage building conservation practice is vague and unclear (Hanafi
et al., 2018; Harun, 2011; Tan et al., 2016). Even the public attitude towards local heritage
building conservation has remained rather dismal (Mohd-Isa et al., 2011) due to rapid
modern development with many pre-colonial buildings having been demolished for
modern development (Chun et al., 2005; Hanafi et al., 2018; Hasan and Nair, 2017; King,
2008; Mohamed et al., 2000; Tan et al., 2016). Since the 1990s, the Malaysian government,
through the Department of National Heritage, has taken several initiatives to protect and
conserve Malaysian heritage buildings (Hanafi et al., 2018). Many buildings and
monuments have been preserved and restored by them. Besides that, historic buildings
in UNESCO World Heritage Sites such as Penang and Melaka and other places such as
the Sultan Abdul Samad building, Old Courthouse, the Square Tower and Kuching
Waterfront have been classified as part of the heritage zone by the Malaysian
government (Hanafi et al., 2018; Mohamed et al., 2001).
The conservation and adaptive reuse of heritage buildings are becoming the main
agenda, especially with the booming of the Malaysian tourism industry. The public and
academician become more concerned with the benefits of conservation and adaptive
reuse of heritage buildings. Their interest is not only for the benefits of preservation of
the historic buildings but also for the conservation and adaptive reuse process and the
final appearance of the heritage building. Thus, this study explores the influence of
adaptive reuse of historic buildings (ARHB) towards tourists’ visitation to heritage
buildings and assess whether adaptively reusing historic buildings could benefit the Reuse of
community, historic
buildings:
2. Adaptive reuses of historic buildings tourist visits
Many researchers have investigated and discussed the significant benefits of the adaptive
reuse of heritage buildings for future generation (Bullen and Love, 2011; Mısırlısoy and
G€unçe, 2016; Plevoets and Van Cleempoel, 2011). According to Bullen and Love (2011), rather 533
than being demolished and reconstructed, adaptative reuse of the historic building may
contribute to economically viable building usage. Further, adaptive reuse enables
preservation of the building (Abdullah et al., 2017; Ashworth, 2011) and it is practical and
environmentally sustainable to adapt the existing old building rather than build a new one
from scratch (Shipley et al., 2006; Tan et al., 2018). The old buildings were considered reusable
resources and the adaptation of these buildings for new uses while maintaining their historic
features would add charm and human scale to a city and neighbourhood (Adiwibowo
et al., 2015).
Black (1990) and Bullen and Love (2011) explains that when the original usage of the
historic building is no longer relevant or viable, it is wise to adopt new uses. The conversion of
the old buildings to new use has been frequently perceived as cost-effective (Shipley et al.,
2006; Abdullah et al., 2017). On the other hand, Shipley et al. (2006) found that adaptive reuse
appeared to outweigh the advantages of demolition and new development and historic
buildings provide a foundation for the regeneration of many cities which can reinforce a sense
of community, contribute to the local economy and act as a catalyst for improvements to the
broader area. Meanwhile, Adiwibowo et al. (2015) revealed that the restoration of old historic
buildings had been a catalyst for the development of Bandung, a historic Indonesia town. The
retention of the building not only provides the basis for accommodation and associated the
visitor services but also for cultural tourism, creating opportunities for employment and
development of the local tourism industry (Gholitabar and Costa, 2018; Jovicic, 2016; Lee,
2015; Wu et al., 2015).
Based on the above arguments, this study, therefore, proposes three hypotheses:
H1. The adaptive reuse of historic buildings (ARHB) attributes significantly influences
the tourist’s visitation.
H2. The adaptive reuse of historic buildings (ARHB) attributes significantly influences
the tourist’s appreciation.
H3. Appreciation of historic buildings significantly affects tourist’s visitation to adaptive
reuse of historic buildings.
The hypothesised relationships are summarised in Figure 1. This research framework
depicts the hypothesised causal relationships between adaptive reuse of the historic building,
appreciation and, actual visitation.

H1

Adaptive reuse of historic

building attributes
H2 H3
Appreciation Actual visitation
Clarity of purpose
Visual elements Figure 1.
Knowledge Research framework
PM 3. Methodology
38,4 3.1 Sampling and population
A quantitative approach through a cross-sectional time horizon has been applied with a self-
reported and self-administered questionnaire survey. The population and the unit of analysis
were drawn from people visiting historic places with the age range between 18 years and 60
years old and above. Based on data reported by the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies in
2015, there are around 570,407 of the total population of the city (Swee-Hock, 2015). The
534 convenience sampling was chosen due to its advantage of easy access to the study unit of
analysis (Erkmen, 2019). The respondents were approached at different tourist locations,
specifically the China House (former Old Court House) and the Magenta Restaurant (former
Square Tower), Kuching City, Sarawak, Malaysia.

3.2 Research instrument

The survey was divided into four major sections. Each section except the demographic
background contained instruments addressing each hypothesis. Survey instruments are
adapted from previous literature (Adiwibowo et al., 2015; Ahn, 2007; Ariffin et al., 2017; Black,
1990; Hsu and Huang, 2010) with the modification made to suit the research objectives.
Section A dealt with the respondent’s demographic profile, such as age, gender, origins,
educational level and occupation. Section B, with sixteen items, is designed to measure the
tourist’s view of the adaptive reuse of historic buildings (ARHB) attributes (Ahn, 2007; Ariffin
et al., 2017; Black, 1990). Section C, with eight items, examines the level of appreciation among
the residents (Adiwibowo et al., 2015), while Section D, with eight items, measured the
residents’ actual visitation as the dependent variable (Hsu and Huang, 2010).
A five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 5 strongly disagree to 5 5 strongly agree was
utilised. The questions used are simple and easily understood with the minimal reading and
writing required, considering the differences in respondent profiles. In other words, the
respondents were able to skim an item and select an answer without any difficulty. Besides,
the survey items used simple words and language to reduce any potential ambiguities. A pilot
study was then conducted to verify and confirm the reliability and validity of the items used.
The pilot study involved the distribution of the survey to 30 respondents at the Kuching
Waterfront area. Cronbach’s alpha reliability test was operationalised, and the instruments
were confirmed as valid and reliable for actual data collection.

3.3 Data collection and analysis

The survey was administered by the researchers, particularly at the China House (former Old
Court House) and the Magenta Restaurant (former Square Tower), Kuching City, Sarawak,
Malaysia. The data was collected from October 2018 to February 2019 using the convenience
sampling technique. The selection of respondents is based on the stipulated age ranges, and
they are were selected through their appearance. With the full cooperation and commitment
given by most of the respondents, 300 questionnaires were successfully distributed, but only
242 of the surveys are valid for analysis. The Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS)
version 23 was used to perform data analyses. First, descriptive profiles of the respondents
were reported. Next, an inspection of the internal consistency of each construct utilising
Cronbach’s alpha analysis and Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) indicated acceptable levels
of reliability. Finally, three sets of regression analyses were performed to test the hypotheses.

4. Analysis and results

4.1 Respondent’s profile
A total of 300 respondents were interviewed in this survey. After data cleaning, only 242
questionnaires were computed and analysed. Table 1 reports the demographic profiles of the
respondents.
 Based on frequency, 51.7% (n 5 125) of the respondents were male as opposed to female Reuse of
(48.3%; n 5 117). Most of the tourists or 88% (n 5 213) were domestic tourists from other historic
states of Malaysia, while 12% (n 5 29) were foreign travellers. In terms of age, 39.7% (n 5 96)
were between 21 and 30 years old while 33.9% (n 5 82) within the age range of 31–40 years
buildings:
old. This is followed by the age range of 41–50 years old, which represents 12.4% (n 5 30). tourist visits
10.7% (n 5 26) with an age range of 18–20 years old, and finally, 3.3% (n 5 8) of them were
within the age range between 51 and 60 years old and above.
On the other hand, 56.2% (n 5 136) of the respondents were single as opposed to 43.8% 535
(n 5 106) of them who are married. Regarding their level of education, 52.1% (n 5 126) of the
respondents obtained an undergraduate qualification (pre-diploma, diploma or bachelor’s
degree), followed by secondary school education with 29.3% (n 5 71) and 18.6% (n 5 45) of
them are with a post-graduate degree. Of the profession, 31.4% (n 5 76) of them were working
as private employees, and 24.4% (n 5 59) of the are working as government employees. Next,
17.8% (n 5 43) of them are students, and 11.6% (n 5 28) of them are self-employed.

Profile Frequency %

Gender
Male 125 51.7
Female 117 48.3
Type of tourist
Domestic 213 88
International 29 12
Occupation
Employed 277 69.3
Unemployed 123 30.8
Age
18–20 years old 21 10.7
21–30 years old 96 39.7
31–40 years old 82 33.9
41–50 years old 30 12.4
51–60 years old 8 3.3
Gender
Male 160 40.0
Female 240 60.0
Marital Status
Single 136 56.2
Married 106 43.8
Educational attainment
Primary school
Secondary school 71 29.3
Undergraduate 126 52.1
Postgraduate 45 18.6
Profession
Private employees 112 46.2
Government employees 59 24.4
Students 43 17.8 Table 1.
Self-employed 28 11.6 Demographic
Note(s): N 5 242 information
PM 4.2 Instrument reliability and validity
38,4 The underlying relationships between items in each stipulated construct were statistically
tested with an exploratory factor analysis as most of the item wordings were modified to suit
the scope of this study. Using the Principal Component Analysis (PCA) (Kline, 2014) with
varimax rotation and Kaiser Normalisation on the 39 items with a factor loading of 0.50, five
factors were extracted with four items deleted. Table 2 reports the PCA findings.
The five factors retained were Clarity of Purpose (CP 5 8 items, KMO, 0.871), Visual
536 Elements (VE 5 6 items, KMO, 0.886), Appreciation (AP 5 8 items, KMO, 0.889), Actual
Visitation (AV 5 8 items, KMO, 0.822) and Knowledge (KNW 5 5 items, KMO, 0.772). In
addition, the reliability test was also undertaken, and the results demonstrated that the
research instrument is reliable (>0.70). Section B producing a coefficient alpha value of 0.88
for Clarity of Purpose (CP) and a coefficient alpha value of 0.85 for Visual Elements (VE).
Section C, which measured the residents’ Appreciation (AP), produced a coefficient alpha
value of 0.86. In contrast, Section D, which assessing the residents’ Knowledge (KNW) on the
historical building’s background, produced 0.77 of the coefficient alpha value. Finally, the
Actual Visitation (AV) construct produces a coefficient alpha value of 0.76.

4.3 Hypotheses testing

In response to the objectives and the hypotheses of the study, regression analysis was used to
test the three main hypotheses.
4.3.1 Relationship between adaptive reuse of historic buildings (ARHB) and tourist actual
visitation (AV). Table 3 reports the output of regression analysis between adaptive reuse of
historic buildings (ARHB) attributes and actual visitation. It is important to note that before
the regression analysis, the construct of clarity of purpose (CP), visual elements (VE) and
knowledge (KNW) was computed and collapsed into a single construct entitled adaptive
reuse of historic buildings (ARHB).
Looking at Table 3, the independent or predictor variable, which is the adaptive reuse of
historic buildings (ARHB) accounted 34.7% (R2 5 0.347, F-change 5 127.816***) of the
variance in actual visitation (AV). The positive beta value (β 5 0.589***) indicated that the

Code Construct Items KMO Cronbach Alpha value

CP Clarity of Purpose* 8 (2) 0.871 0.88

VE Visual Elements 6 0.886 0.85
AP Appreciation 8 0.889 0.86
Table 2. AV Actual Visitation 8 0.822 0.76
Instruments reliability KNW Knowledge* 5 (2) 0.772 0.77
and validity Note(s): *deleted items

Predictors Model 1

Dependent variable: Tourists’ actual visitation (AV)

Independent variable: Adaptive reuse of historic buildings (ARHB) 0.589***
Table 3. R2 0.347
Regression analysis Adjusted R2 0.345
between adaptive reuse R2 Change 0.347
of the historic building F- Change 127.816***
and actual visitation Note(s): *p < 0.10, **p < 0.05, ***p < 0.01
adaptive reuse of historic buildings (ARHB) significantly and positively contributes to the Reuse of
tourists’ actual visitation (AV). In other words, adaptive reuse of historic buildings (ARHB) historic
attributes (clarity of purpose, visual elements and knowledge) influences the tourists’ actual
visitation. Thus, hypothesis one (H1) is strongly supported.
buildings:
4.3.2 Relationship between adaptive reuse of historic buildings (ARHB) and appreciation tourist visits
(AP). The second hypothesis (H2) evaluates the relationship between the adaptive reuse of
historic buildings (ARHB) and tourists’ appreciation (AP). Table 4 reports the output of
regression analysis between adaptive reuse of historic buildings (ARHB) towards 537
appreciation (AP).
The result shows that the adaptive reuse of historic buildings (ARHB) can explain 58.5%
(R2 5 0.585, F-change 5 338.273***) of the variance in tourists’ appreciation (AP). The results
also show that adaptive reuse of historic buildings (ARHB) (β 5 0.765***) was found to have
a significant impact and positively influence the tourists’ appreciation (TA). In other words,
the adaptive reuse of historic buildings (ARHB) attributes (clarity of purpose, visual elements
and knowledge) influences tourists’ appreciation. Thus, the second hypothesis (H2) is
supported.
4.3.3 Relationship between appreciation (AP) and tourist actual visitation (AV). The third
hypothesis (H3) evaluates the relationship between tourists’ appreciation (AP) and their
actual visitation (AV). Table 5 reports the output of regression analysis between tourists’
appreciation (AP) and actual visitation (AV).
The result of the analysis revealed that the tourists’ appreciation (AP) was able to explain
32.8% (R2 5 0.328, F-change 5 116.979***) of the variance in their actual visitation (AV). The
beta value (β 5 0.572***) indicated tourists’ appreciation (AP) significantly and positively
influenced their actual visitation (AV). In other words, tourists’ appreciation towards
adaptive reuse of historic buildings (ARHB) attributes affects their actual visitation. Hence,
the third hypothesis (H3) is well supported.

Predictors Model 1

Dependent variable: Tourists’ appreciation (AP)

Independent variable: Adaptive reuse of historic buildings (ARHB) 0.765***
Table 4.
R2 0.585
Regression analysis
Adjusted R2 0.583 between adaptive reuse
R2 Change 0.585 of historic buildings
F- Change 338.273*** (ARHB) and tourists’
Note(s): *p < 0.10, **p < 0.05, ***p < 0.01 appreciation (AP)

Predictors Model 1

Dependent variable: Tourists’ appreciation (AP)

Independent variable: Tourists’ actual visitation (AV) 0.572***
R2 0.328 Table 5.
Adjusted R2 0.325 Regression analysis
R2 Change 0.328 between tourists’
F- Change 116.979*** appreciation (AP) and
Note(s): *p < 0.10, **p < 0.05, ***p < 0.01 actual visitation (AV)
PM 5. Research implications
38,4 Recapitulating the study findings, adaptive reuse of historic buildings (ARHB) brought sense
to the tourist, based on the clarity of purpose, effect on visual elements and knowledge
transmission, which created a pleasing experience for them. Their optimistic perception of
adaptive reuse, visual elements and knowledge diffusion enhanced their level of appreciation.
Most importantly, based on the regression analysis, their appreciation of the adaptive reuse
activities of the historic buildings is further translated into actual visitation. Based on the
538 findings, this study firstly confirms that adaptive reuse can extend the usefulness of a
building by changing its function whilst keeping its structure. Secondly, reusing these
historic buildings can create a sustainable and safe environment within elevating the
historical values of the building itself. Third, the adaptive reuse of heritage buildings creates
a positive perception and has a role in tourists’ intention to visit the building, supporting the
buildings as a heritage tourism destination.
The outcomes of this study explicitly highlight the importance of preserving, protecting
and retaining valuable historical assets of the historic buildings. One of the ways is through
the adaptation or re-functioning for commercial purposes. In other words, if a historic
building is appropriately planned with the right and resources for its adaptive reuse, it may
provide benefits to the public, local authorities, states and country as a whole. This promising
finding strongly supports the previous literature that adaptive reuse of historic buildings
(ARHB) not only promotes the long-term sustainability and preservation effort for heritage
assets but provides strong evidence for potential increase tourist arrivals, which directly gain
financial benefits to the country. However, there are drawbacks to adaptive reuse in the sense
of financial risk, lengthy regulatory processes in complying with building codes and issues
related to structural rehabilitation.
With the rapid urbanisation and modernisation happening around Kuching City, there is a
growing need to safeguard our historical heritage. The initiative of creating a heritage zone
and re-functioning or adaptive reusing some of the historic buildings in the city of Kuching as
a commercial centre is considered an appropriate policy by the Sarawak state government.
This excellent initiative is not only preserving the historical treasures for future generations
but is a catalyst for the city’s future economic and tourism development, and helps to generate
income for the community. As stated by various scholars, besides saving costs, the adaptive
reuse of historic buildings (ARHB) in the commercial centre, in particular, provides job
opportunities, promotes sustainable environments and generating existing revenue from
local and international visitors. The principal goal of adaptive reuse is to utilise the existing
resources, minimise adverse impacts and to maximise the gains, especially from tourism
activities. In conclusion, the adaptive reuse of historic buildings (ARHB) not only generates a
positive image for the city and the community living in the town but provides strong evidence
of the potential increasing tourist activities in Kuching City.

6. Conclusion
The sustainability of historic buildings in this modern era could be one of the challenges for
encouraging heritage tourism. The adaptive reuse of historic buildings (ARHB) is a multi-
disciplinary field, which involves inputs from various professionals. It is a complex issue
because it involves a broad range of social, economic and environmental implications. Thus,
it would be meaningful if there are a mutual understanding and excellent cooperation
between the stakeholders on this issue, or we may find significant values, and our legacy of
the past will dissolve in a matter of time. The conservation and adaptive reuse of heritage
buildings require a further awareness and knowledge dissemination among the public.
Besides, more efforts need to be undertaken by the government sectors to educate the
community leaders and the younger generation about the value of historic buildings.
References Reuse of
Abdullah, F., Basha, B. and Soomro, A.R. (2017), “Sustainable heritage: analytical study on the historic
viability of adaptive reuse with social approach, case study of asia heritage row, Kuala
Lumpur”, Advanced Science Letters, Vol. 23 No. 7, pp. 6179-6183.
buildings:
Adiwibowo, R.S., Widodo, P. and Santosa, I. (2015), “Correlations between public appreciation of
tourist visits
historical building and intention to visit heritage building reused as retail store”, Procedia-
Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 184, pp. 357-364.
539
Ahn, Y.K. (2007), Adaptive Reuse of Abandoned Historic Churches: Building Type and Public Perception
(Doctoral Dissertation), Texas A&M University, Texas, USA.
Ariffin, A.B., Zahari, M.S.M., Radzi, S.M. and Kutut, M.Z. (2017), “Adaptive reuse of historical
buildings and local residents’ actual visitation”, Journal of Tourism, Hospitality and Culinary
Arts, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 35-46.
Ashworth, G. (2011), “Preservation, conservation and heritage: approaches to the past in the present
through the built environment”, Asian Anthropology, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 1-18.
Ashworth, G.J. and Tunbridge, J.E. (2000), The Tourist-Historic City, Routledge, NY.
Black, N.L. (1990), “A model and methodology to assess changes to heritage buildings”, Journal of
Tourism Studies, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 15-23.
Bowitz, E. and Ibenholt, K. (2009), “Economic impacts of cultural heritage–Research and
perspectives”, Journal of Cultural Heritage, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 1-8.
Bullen, P.A. and Love, P.E. (2011), “Adaptive reuse of heritage buildings”, Structural Survey, Vol. 29
No. 5, pp. 411-421.
Çela, A., Lankford, S. and Knowles-Lankford, J. (2009), “Visitor spending and economic impacts of
heritage tourism: a case study of the silos and smokestacks national heritage area”, Journal of
Heritage Tourism, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 245-256.
Chun, H.K., Hasan, A.S. and Noordin, N.M. (2005), “An influence of colonial architecture to building
styles and motifs in colonial cities in Malaysia”, Paper Presented at the 8th International
Conference of the Asian Planning Schools Association.
Erkmen, E. (2019), “Managing restaurant attributes for destination satisfaction: what goes beyond
food? ”, Administrative Sciences, Vol. 9 No. 1, p. 19.
Fredheim, L.H. and Khalaf, M. (2016), “The significance of values: heritage value typologies re-
examined”, International Journal of Heritage Studies, Vol. 22 No. 6, pp. 466-481.
Gholitabar, S. and Costa, C. (2018), “Adaptive reuse in cultural heritage building”, Revista Turismo
and Desenvolvimento, No. 30, pp. 73-91.
Graham, B., Ashworth, G. and Tunbridge, J. (2016), A Geography of Heritage: Power, Culture and
Economy, Routledge, United Kingdom.
Hanafi, M.H., Umar, M.U., Razak, A.A. and Rashid, Z.Z.A. (2018), “Essential entities towards
developing an adaptive reuse model for organization management in conservation of heritage
buildings in Malaysia”, Environment-Behaviour Proceedings Journal, Vol. 3 No. 7, pp. 265-276.
Hanafiah, M. and Zulkifly, M. (2019), “Tourism destination competitiveness and tourism performance:
a secondary data approach”, Competitiveness Review, Vol. 29 No. 5, pp. 592-621, available at:
[Link]
Harun, S. (2011), “Heritage building conservation in Malaysia: experience and challenges”, Procedia
Engineering, Vol. 20, pp. 41-53.
Harvey, D.C. (2001), “Heritage pasts and heritage presents: temporality, meaning and the scope of
heritage studies”, International Journal of Heritage Studies, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 319-338.
Hasan, A.R. and Nair, P.L. (2017), “Urbanisation and growth of metropolitan centres in Malaysia”,
Malaysian Journal of Economic Studies, Vol. 51 No. 1, pp. 87-101.
PM Hsu, C.H. and Huang, S. (2010), “Formation of tourist behavioral intention and actual behavior”, Paper
Presented at the 2010 7th International Conference on Service Systems and Service Management.
38,4
Inglehart, R. and Welzel, C. (2005), Modernization, Cultural Change, and Democracy: The Human
Development Sequence, Cambridge University Press, United Kingdom.
Jovicic, D. (2016), “Cultural tourism in the context of relations between mass and alternative tourism”,
Current Issues in Tourism, Vol. 19 No. 6, pp. 605-612.
540 King, R. (2008), Kuala Lumpur and Putrajaya: Negotiating Urban Space in Malaysia, NUS Press,
Singapore.
Kline, P. (2014), An Easy Guide to Factor Analysis, Routledge, NY.
Langston, C., Wong, F.K., Hui, E.C. and Shen, L.-Y. (2008), “Strategic assessment of building adaptive
reuse opportunities in Hong Kong”, Building and Environment, Vol. 43 No. 10, pp. 1709-1718.
Larsen, P.B. and Logan, W. (2018), World Heritage and Sustainable Development: New Directions in
World Heritage Management, Routledge, NY.
Lee, Y.-J. (2015), “Creating memorable experiences in a reuse heritage site”, Annals of Tourism
Research, Vol. 55, pp. 155-170.
Lerner, D. (1967), “Comparative analysis of processes of modernization”, The city in modern Africa,
Vol. 1, p. 38.
Light, D. (2015), Heritage and Tourism the Palgrave Handbook of Contemporary Heritage Research,
Springer, New York, USA, pp. 144-158.
Mohamed, B., Ahmad, A.G. and Badarulzaman, N. (2000), “Challenges of historic cities in the new
millennium: lesson from Malaysia”, Paper Presented at the International Symposium Future
Cities, Universiti Sains Malaysia.
Mohd-Isa, A., Zainal-Abidin, Z. and Hashim, A. (2011), “Built heritage maintenance: a Malaysian
perspectives”, Procedia Engineering, Vol. 20, pp. 213-221.
Mosoarca, M., Keller, A.I., Petrus, C. and Racolta, A. (2017), “Failure analysis of historical buildings
due to climate change”, Engineering Failure Analysis, Vol. 82, pp. 666-680.
Mısırlısoy, D. and G€unçe, K. (2016), “Adaptive reuse strategies for heritage buildings: a holistic
approach”, Sustainable Cities and Society, Vol. 26, pp. 91-98.
Plevoets, B. and Van Cleempoel, K. (2011), “Adaptive reuse as a strategy towards conservation of
cultural heritage: a literature review”, Structural studies, repairs and maintenance of heritage
architecture XII, Vol. 118 No. 12, pp. 155-163.
Pracchi, V. (2014), “Historic buildings and energy efficiency”, The Historic Environment: Policy and
Practice, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 210-225.
Rashid, R.A. and Ahmad, A.G. (2011), “Overview of maintenance approaches of historical buildings in
Kuala Lumpur–a current practice”, Procedia Engineering, Vol. 20, pp. 425-434.
Robertson, R. and Lechner, F. (1985), “Modernization, globalization and the problem of culture in
world-systems theory”, Theory, Culture and Society, Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 103-117.
Rodrigues, C. and Freire, F. (2017), “Adaptive reuse of buildings: eco-efficiency assessment of retrofit
strategies for alternative uses of an historic building”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 157,
pp. 94-105.
Schaffer, R.J. (2016), The Weathering of Natural Building Stones, Routledge, NY.
Scott, D.A. (2015), “Conservation and authenticity: interactions and enquiries”, Studies in
Conservation, Vol. 60 No. 5, pp. 291-305.
Shipley, R., Utz, S. and Parsons, M. (2006), “Does adaptive reuse pay? A study of the business of
building renovation in Ontario, Canada”, International Journal of Heritage Studies, Vol. 12 No. 6,
pp. 505-520.
Smith, G.S., Messenger, P.M. and Soderland, H.A. (2017), Heritage Values in Contemporary Society,
Routledge, NY.
Starzmann, M.T. (2008), “Cultural imperialism and heritage politics in the event of armed conflict: Reuse of
prospects for an ‘activist archaeology’”, Archaeologies, Vol. 4 No. 3, p. 368.
historic
Swee-Hock, S. (2015), The Population of Malaysia, 2nd ed., Institute of Southeast Asian Studies,
Singapore.
buildings:
Tam, V.W., Fung, I.W. and Sing, M.C. (2016), “Adaptive reuse in sustainable development: an
tourist visits
empirical study of a Lui Seng Chun building in Hong Kong”, Renewable and Sustainable Energy
Reviews, Vol. 65, pp. 635-642.
541
Tan, S.Y., Olanrewaju, A. and Lee, L.T. (2016), “Maintenance of heritage building: a case study from
ipoh, Malaysia”, MATEC Web of Conferences, EDP Sciences, Vol. 47.
Tan, Y., Shuai, C. and Wang, T. (2018), “Critical Success Factors (CSFs) for the adaptive reuse of
industrial buildings in Hong Kong”, International Journal of Environmental Research and Public
Health, Vol. 15 No. 7, p. 1546.
Timothy, D.J. and Nyaupane, G.P. (2009), Cultural Heritage and Tourism in the Developing World: A
Regional Perspective, Routledge, NY.
Wong, L. (2016), Adaptive Reuse: Extending the Lives of Buildings, Birkh€auser, Basel.
Wu, T.-C.E., Xie, P.F. and Tsai, M.-C. (2015), “Perceptions of attractiveness for salt heritage tourism: a
tourist perspective”, Tourism Management, Vol. 51, pp. 201-209.
Yang, C.-H. and Lin, H.-L. (2011), “Is UNESCO recognition effective in fostering tourism? A comment
on Yang, Lin and Han: reply”, Tourism Management, Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 455-456.
Yung, E.H., Langston, C. and Chan, E.H. (2014), “Adaptive reuse of traditional Chinese shophouses in
government-led urban renewal projects in Hong Kong”, Cities, Vol. 39, pp. 87-98.

Corresponding author
Mohd Hafiz Hanafiah can be contacted at: hafizhanafiah@[Link]

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
[Link]/licensing/[Link]
Or contact us for further details: permissions@[Link]

View publication stats