1# RECORD 07b241fa57ce2f3e40926461143e077561f2a1cd2# TITLE: Urban Heritage and its Socioeconomic Impacts in Seoul, South Korea: An Empirical Study Using Residential Environmental Satisfaction and Housing Price as Indicators3# YEAR: 2022.0 VENUE: Journal of people, plants, and environment DOI: 10.11628/ksppe.2022.25.3.3114# AUTHORS: Minki Sung; Mary R. Brooks5# PAGES: 18 CANDIDATE TABLE PAGES (1-based): [10, 11, 12]6# ABSTRACT: Background and objective: Recent research has highlighted the need for urban heritage conservation due to rapid urbanisation, especially in Asian cities; however, few studies have investigated the socioeconomic impacts of heritage assets in urban contexts. This study examined urban heritage sites in Seoul Metropolitan City from the perspective of residents' environmental satisfaction and housing prices.Methods: A spatial regression model was developed to examine the associations between urban heritage sites and their corresponding protected areas as the independent variables (nationally assigned cultural heritage, city-assigned cultural heritage, nationally registered cultural heritage, nationally assigned cultural heritage protected area, and city-assigned cultural heritage protected area) and residential environmental satisfaction and housing prices as the dependent variables. The model investigated how urban heritage sites influence housing prices through the mediating effect of residential environmental satisfaction.Results: The results confirmed the impact of urban heritage sites on housing prices and the mediating effect of residential environmental satisfaction. Moreover, depending on their urban heritage classifications, noticeable differences were evident in the impact of urban heritage sites.Conclusion: These findings provide an intellectual foundation for public policies, offering insights into how they might achieve an optimum balance between private and public interests in matters of heritage conservation.789===== PAGE 1 (score 9, numeric-paren 0, table-words 0, var-words 9) =====1011MinKi Sung and Mary Brooks12Journal of People, Plants, and Environment Vol. 25, No. 3, 2022∙31113Introduction14More than two-thirds of the world's population now lives 15in urban areas (UNESCO, 2019, 2020). Urban heritage sites 16are under considerable pressure due to rapid urbanisation 17and development. Growing literature demonstrates that ur-18ban heritage sites in Asian cities are particularly vulnerable 19to rapid urbanisation because public policies tend to favour 20building infrastructure rather than preservation projects 21(Kiruthiga and Thirumaran, 2019; Logan, 2020; Pai, 2013; 22Tan and Ti, 2020). Urban heritage is often targeted for 23transformation during rapid transitions to urbanisation 24(Kiruthiga and Thirumaran, 2019). Similarly, uncontrolled 25development dramatically impacts urban areas, leading to 26the fragmentation and deterioration of heritage sites and 27seriously impacting their value (UNESCO, 2019).28Considering this intense pace of demolition and re-29development (Tan and Ti, 2020), urban heritage sites need 30J. People Plants Environ. Vol. 25 No. 3: 311-328, June 202231https://doi.org/10.11628/ksppe.2022.25.3.31132JPPE33Urban Heritage and its Socioeconomic Impacts in Seoul, South Korea:34An Empirical Study Using Residential Environmental Satisfaction and 35Housing Price as Indicators36MinKi Sung1* and Mary Brooks2371Doctoral student, School of Architecture, Planning and Landscape, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE1 7RU, United Kingdom382Associate Professor, Department of Archaeology, Durham University, Durham DH1 3LE, United Kingdom39ABSTRACT40Background and objective: Recent research has highlighted the need for urban heritage conservation due to rapid urbanisation,41especially in Asian cities; however, few studies have investigated the socioeconomic impacts of heritage assets in urban 42contexts. This study examined urban heritage sites in Seoul Metropolitan City from the perspective of residents' environmental43satisfaction and housing prices.44Methods: A spatial regression model was developed to examine the associations between urban heritage sites and their45corresponding protected areas as the independent variables (nationally assigned cultural heritage, city-assigned cultural 46heritage, nationally registered cultural heritage, nationally assigned cultural heritage protected area, and city-assigned 47cultural heritage protected area) and residential environmental satisfaction and housing prices as the dependent variables.48The model investigated how urban heritage sites influence housing prices through the mediating effect of residential 49environmental satisfaction.50Results: The results confirmed the impact of urban heritage sites on housing prices and the mediating effect of residential51environmental satisfaction. Moreover, depending on their urban heritage classifications, noticeable differences were 52evident in the impact of urban heritage sites.53Conclusion: These findings provide an intellectual foundation for public policies, offering insights into how they might 54achieve an optimum balance between private and public interests in matters of heritage conservation.55Keywords: conservation areas, cultural values, heritage management, heritage valuation56This paper is based on my master’s dissertation at Durham University. I would like to thank Mrs Clare Carr in the Durham Centre for Academic57Development for her advice on the draft of the master’s dissertation. I also thank my classmates in the course of International Cultural Heritage58Management at Durham University for supportive discussions and feedback as was developing Master’s dissertation topic.59Received: April 27, 2022, Revised: May 11, 2022, Accepted: May 16, 202260*First author & Corresponding author: MinKi Sung, mingi5678@nate.com, 61 https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6665-938362Ⓒ 2022 by the Society for People, Plants, and Environment. This is a Peer-Reviewed Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative 63Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, 64distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.656667===== PAGE 10 (score 71, numeric-paren 33, table-words 11, var-words 3) =====6869Urban Heritage and its Socioeconomic Impacts in Seoul, South Korea: An Empirical Study Using Residential Environmental Satisfaction and Housing Price as Indicators70320∙Journal of People, Plants, and Environment Vol. 25, No. 3, 202271and local Moran's I levels (Fig. 2) and higher values for 72R2 and log-likelihood, compared to the OLS model, the 73study also employed spatial regression models.74The results indicated that the SLM was the most suitable 75model for single-unit and apartment housing types whereas 76SEM was the most appropriate model for multi-unit hous-77ing prices. First, both the SLM and SEM approaches con-78firmed that nationally and city-assigned cultural heritage 79sites positively influence all types of housing prices. 80Second, nationally assigned cultural heritage areas neg-81atively influence multi-unit and single-unit housing prices. 82Last, nationally assigned cultural heritage protected areas 83did not have a negative influence on apartment housing 84prices. Table 7 summarises the major findings of this study, 85including the best model and the statistically significant 86independent variables for each dependent variable, to in-87vestigate further the mediating effects of residential envi-88ronmental satisfaction.89The proposed best models for each dependent variable 90are illustrated in Table 7. To examine the relationship between 91residential environmental satisfaction and housing prices, 92the urban heritage sites that influence residential environ-93mental satisfaction and housing prices were determined. 94The results demonstrated that nationally and city-assigned 95Dependent variable96Residential environmental satisfaction97Housing environmental 98satisfaction99Social environmental satisfaction100Educational environmental 101satisfaction102OLS103SLM104SEM105OLS106SLM107SEM108OLS109SLM110SEM111Constant1126.164***1135.840***1146.189***1155.668***1166.833***1175.623***1185.502***1195.667***1205.499***121Urban 122heritage123Nationally assigned cultural 124heritage1259.647**1269.652**1279.700***1281.498**1291.453***1301.320***1318.470*1328.318**1338.046**134City-assigned cultural heritage1356.5941366.618*1376.502*1381.201*1391.213**1401.237**1415.8881425.8291435.671144Nationally registered cultural 145heritage1462.3901472.1551481.5091491.0711501.2021511.9131521.4521531.4931541.587155Protected 156area157Nationally assigned cultural 158heritage protected area159-4.11*160-4.134**161-4.321**162-5.705*163-5.632**164-5.747***165-4.319*166-4.286**167-4.308**168City-assigned cultural heritage 169protected area170-4.873171-1.062172-2.714173-8.5571742.1591755.9011763.5931776.8341781.278179Rho1800.053181-0.208182-0.030183Lambda1840.201185-0.368*186-0.060187R21880.3751890.3771900.3971910.4431920.4751930.5171940.3201950.3211960.322197Adj. R21980.2101990.2972000.141201Log-likelihood2029.1792039.2142049.4092051.1762061.6712072.2102087.4952097.5042107.510211Akaike information criterion212-6.358213-4.427214-6.8192159.64721610.6582177.58218-2.989219-1.008220-3.021221Schwarz criterion2220.95512234.1052240.49422516.96122619.19022714.8932284.3242297.5252304.293231Jarque-Bera2322.0472332.3652341.580235Koenker-Bassett2366.7922378.5922382.942239Breusch-Pagan2405.7212416.8562426.2242436.6692447.61724510.2352464.6692472.9182483.104249White test25024.10325124.09525221.500253Lagrange multiplier (lag)2540.0592550.7322560.013257Robust LM (lag)2580.2122590.0322600.002261Lagrange multiplier (error)2620.2062631.0602640.011265Robust LM (error)2660.3582670.3612680.000269Likelihood ratio test2700.0692710.4612720.9892732.0682740.0192750.032276Note. *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001. Abbreviations: Adj.: adjusted, OLS: ordinary least squares, SLM: spatial lag model, SEM: spatial error model, and 277LM: Lagrange multiplier.278Table 5. Analysis of residential environmental satisfaction279280281===== PAGE 11 (score 72, numeric-paren 41, table-words 8, var-words 2) =====282283MinKi Sung and Mary Brooks284Journal of People, Plants, and Environment Vol. 25, No. 3, 2022∙321285cultural heritage sites influenced residential environmental 286satisfaction and all types of housing prices. These sites 287were therefore chosen for further analysis.288The results demonstrated the mediating effects of resi-289dential environmental satisfaction on housing prices using 290the SEM (Table 8). Nationally assigned cultural heritage 291sites and their corresponding protected areas influenced 292housing, social, and educational environmental satisfaction, 293while city-assigned cultural heritage sites influenced housing 294and social environmental satisfaction. Consequently, the me-295Dependent variable296Housing prices297Multi-unit housing price298Single-unit housing price299Apartment housing price300OLS301SLM302SEM303OLS304SLM305SEM306OLS307SLM308SEM309Constant3102.082***3113.183***3121.988***3136.715***3149.736***3156.530***3164.233***3176.220***3184.058***319Urban 320heritage321Nationally assigned cultural 322heritage32332.894*32426.428**32522.759**326149.256*327128.683**328122.364**32965.303*33052.128*33147.444*332City-assigned cultural heritage333615.622***334569.628***335588.366***3363506.27***3373272.31***3383269.85***3391123.6**3401036.71***3411034.77***342Nationally registered cultural 343heritage3445643.460*3455193.710***3466355.0903473564.8603482926.8703494787.6103506600.3203516017.5303527568.770353Protected 354area355Nationally assigned cultural 356heritage protected area357-79.246358-80.974359-66.361***360-434.961361-426.940*362-430.480*363-128.721364-128.812365-147.212366City-assigned cultural heritage 367protected area368-161.24369-4.750***37019.971371-141.567372419.925373377.239374-338.17637530.136376131.417377Rho378-0.461379-0.399380-0.438381Lambda382-0.489**383-0.333384-0.404*385R23860.6183870.7153880.7203890.6903900.7533910.7233920.4453930.5543940.530395Adj. R23960.5183970.6093980.300399Log-likelihood400-484.199401-481.736402-481.662403-520.156404-518.212405-519.378406-506.858407-505.190408-505.683409Akaike information criterion410980.397411977.471412975.3244131052.3104141050.4204151050.7604161025.7204171024.3804181023.370419Schwarz criterion420987.711421986.003422982.6374231059.6204241058.9604251058.0704261033.0304271032.9104281030.680429Jarque-Bera43010.038**43122.559***4329.851**433Koenker-Bassett4342.6734356.4844364.120437Breusch-Pagan4386.0184395.4094405.6794412.1774425.7704435.0244441.9664454.6224463.199447White test44824.33944924.96945024.766451Lagrange multiplier (lag)4523.1064532.3594541.818455Robust LM (lag)4560.1064572.1574581.183459Lagrange multiplier (error)4603.2114610.7894621.107463Robust LM (error)4640.2104650.5874660.472467Likelihood ratio test4684.926*4695.073*4703.888*4711.5564723.3364732.350474Note. *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001. Abbreviations: Adj.: adjusted, OLS: ordinary least squares, SLM: spatial lag model, SEM: spatial error model, and LM: Lagrange 475multiplier.476Table 6. Analysis of housing prices477Dependent variables478Spillover effects of independent variables479Best model480Positive influence481Negative influence482Housing environmental satisfaction483SEM484NA (***), CA (*)485NAP (**)486Social environmental satisfaction487SEM488NA (***), CA (**)489NAP (***)490Educational environmental satisfaction491SEM492NA (**)493NAP (**)494Multi-unit housing price495SEM496NA (**), CA (***)497NAP (***)498Single-unit housing499SLM500NA (**), CA (***)501NAP (*)502Apartments503SLM504NA (*), CA (**)505N/A506Note. *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001. Abbreviations: SEM, spatial error model; SLM, spatial lag model; NA, nationally assigned cultural heritage; CA, city-assigned cultural 507heritage; NAP, nationally assigned cultural heritage conservation area.508Table 7. Summary of overall findings509510511===== PAGE 12 (score 39, numeric-paren 23, table-words 4, var-words 2) =====512513Urban Heritage and its Socioeconomic Impacts in Seoul, South Korea: An Empirical Study Using Residential Environmental Satisfaction and Housing Price as Indicators514322∙Journal of People, Plants, and Environment Vol. 25, No. 3, 2022515diating effects of housing, social, and educational environ-516mental satisfaction were analysed, focusing on nationally 517assigned cultural heritage and its protected areas and city-as-518signed cultural heritage. Statistically, social and educational 519environmental satisfaction had a perfect mediating effect 520on the influence of nationally assigned cultural heritage 521sites on housing prices, whereas social environmental sat-522isfaction had only a partial mediating effect on the influ-523ence of city-assigned cultural heritages on housing prices 524(Table 9).525Nationally assigned cultural heritage protected areas 526negatively influenced multi-unit, single-unit, and apartment 527housing prices via the perfect mediating effect of social 528and educational environmental satisfaction. This suggests 529that there is a public perception that conservation areas 530impose on personal property rights and restrict local devel-531opment (Ko, 2015; Veldpaus et al., 2013). Educational en-532vironmental satisfaction had no effect on the relationship 533between city-assigned cultural heritage and housing prices.534Fig. 4 presents the overall findings that illustrate how 535urban heritage sites influence housing prices through resi-536dential environmental satisfaction using parallel coordinate 537plots. The parallel plots of A to B demonstrate how urban 538heritage sites influence residential environmental satisfaction, 539while those of B to C illustrate how residential environ-540mental satisfaction affects housing prices.541Model542SEM543Mediating variable544Housing environmental satisfaction545Social environmental satisfaction546Educational environmental satisfaction547Dependent variable548Multi-unit549Single-unit550Apartment551Multi-unit552Single-unit553Apartment554Multi-unit555Single-unit556Apartment557Constant558-3.191559-2.731560-1.063561-5.380*562-2.956*563-1.563**564-5.522*565-4.023**566-2.264***567Urban heritage568Nationally assigned cultural 569heritage57016.67857183.39657229.7595737.39557449.7955754.75657616.50257772.64957819.213579City-assigned cultural heritage580535.809***5813014.900***582898.745583432.113***5842678.360***585631.303*586542.489***5872923.720***588841.219***589Nationally registered cultural 590heritage5915805.4005922408.1005936329.155946016.930***5953192.1005966844.7405976042.030***5982989.9305996562.250600Protected area601Nationally assigned cultural 602heritage protected area603-39.514604-225.843605-58.9126065.005607-71.73660854.715609-12.551610-77.06361149.292612City-assigned cultural heritage 613protected area614-46.37761547.102616-51.838617-89.799618-50.780619-139.232620-93.454621-104.570622-178.300623Residential 624environmental 625satisfaction626Housing environmental 627satisfaction6288.4936295.521*6302.402631Social environmental 632satisfaction6331.313**6346.402***6353.502**636Educational environmental 637satisfaction6381.370*6398.522***6404.869***641Note. *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.642Table 8. Mediating effect analysis summary643Independent variables644Mediating analyses645Mediating variables646Dependent variables647Results648NA, CA, NAP649Housing environmental satisfaction650Multi-unit housing prices651N/A652Single-unit housing prices653Apartment prices654NA, CA, NAP655Social environmental satisfaction656Multi-unit housing prices657NA, NAP: Perfect mediating effect, CA: Partial 658mediating effect659Single-unit housing prices660Apartment prices661NA, NAP662Educational environmental satisfaction663Multi-unit housing prices664NA, NAP: Perfect mediating effect665Single-unit housing prices666Apartment prices667Note. NA, nationally assigned cultural heritage; CA, city-assigned cultural heritage; NAP, nationally assigned cultural heritage protected area.668Table 9. Summary of mediating effects669670671===== PAGE 13 (score 6, numeric-paren 0, table-words 1, var-words 4) =====672673MinKi Sung and Mary Brooks674Journal of People, Plants, and Environment Vol. 25, No. 3, 2022∙323675Conclusion676The study's findings confirm that urban heritage sites 677in Seoul influence housing prices, with residential environ-678mental satisfaction having a mediating effect. Differences 679in the influence of the different categories of urban heritage 680sites (Fig. 4) were also noted. Nationally assigned heritage 681sites positively influenced all types of residential environ-682mental satisfaction, consequently affecting the prices of all 683housing types. Only social and educational environmental 684satisfaction positively influenced housing prices via a per-685fect mediating effect, implying that housing environmental 686satisfaction is an indicator of individual benefits that have 687not been transformed into economic benefits. This result 688is also consistent across nationally and city-assigned cul-689tural heritage sites. Thus, nationally assigned heritage sites 690have positive socioeconomic benefits.691According to the Korea Cultural Heritage Protection Act 692(2018), city-assigned heritage sites are local heritage sites 693that have fewer recognised values. Although they do influ-694ence housing prices via social environmental satisfaction, 695they only have a partial mediating effect on them, possibly 696because they have a lower ranking. They do not positively 697influence educational environmental satisfaction; this is 698consistent with current practices, as most educational inter-699pretive activities and school trips take place in or around 700nationally assigned cultural heritage sites (Korea Culture 701and Tourism Institute, 2012; Kim, 2021).702Nationally registered cultural heritage sites did not have 703a statistically significant influence on residential environ-704mental satisfaction and housing prices (Table 7). These 705sites are also known as modern cultural heritage―cultural 706assets dated between 1876 and 1971 (50 years before the 707current year)―that contain remnants of Seoul's modernisa-708tion process (Pan and Min, 2009). These sites have consid-709erable potential for teaching modern Korean history in the 710form of school trips, as they offer reference points between 711Seoul's past and present (Shipley and Snyder, 2013); how-712ever, these sites are generally not recognised as cultural 713resources, as they are considered an unwanted legacy of 714Japanese colonial rule (Pan and Min, 2009). Consequently, 715many of these sites have been neglected and allowed to 716fall into disrepair (Park, 2021). Thus, future research should 717focus on developing the untapped potential of these sites 718Fig. 4. Overall research findings.719