HTTPS://JOURNALS.UMS.AC.ID/INDEX.PHP/FG/ ISSN: 0852-0682 | E-ISSN: 2460-3945 Sustainability Level of Heritage Cities in Malaysia Yazid Saleh 1,*, Hanifah Mahat 1, Mohmadisa Hashim 1, Nasir Nayan 1, Samsudin Suhaily 2, Mohamad Khairul Anuar Ghazali 1 1 Department of Geography and Environment, Faculty of Human Sciences, Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris, 35950, Tanjung Malim, Perak, Malaysia 2 Institute of Malay Civilization, Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris, 35950, Tanjung Malim, Perak, Malaysia *) Citation: Saleh, Y., Mahat, H., Hashim, M., Nayan, N., Suhaily, S., & Ghazali, M. (2022). Sustainability Level of Heritage Cities in Malaysia. Forum Geografi, 36(1). Article history: Received: 27 July 2021 Accepted: 4 April 2022 Published: 31 July 2022 Correspondence: yazid@fsk.upsi.edu.my Abstract This article aims to measure the level of sustainability of heritage cities in Malaysia. A thousand residents of ten selected heritage cities throughout Malaysia were selected as the respondents based on the cluster sampling and simple random methods to complete the questionnaire. A Likert scale on questionnaires 1 to 5 was used to elicit feedback. Five sustainability constructs were used: economic, social, environmental, cultural heritage, and government/community role. The results showed that the items in each study construct achieved an acceptable reliability level, with a Cronbach Alpha value greater than 0.70, and also met the normality test requirements. Descriptive analyses of the frequencies, percentages, and average mean values were used to establish each construct's level of sustainability. The results of the study show that the cities that attracted high scores were Georgetown (3.94), Taiping (4.00), Melaka City (3.76), and Muar (3.71). Meanwhile, the cities that attracted moderate scores were Kuala Kubu Bharu (3.36), Jugra (3.23), Tampin (3.37), Kuala Lipis (3.28), Kota Bharu (3.65) and Kuching (3.51). The implications of this study can be used to indicate the actual situation of the level of sustainability of heritage cities and be a reference to carry out the process of improvement towards a more sustainable city by 2030. Keywords: heritage city, sustainability level, sustainability construct, cultural heritage, Malaysia 1. Introduction Various countries have widely used indicators of sustainable urban development, including the Global Cities Indicator (CHS, 2004), City Data Book (ADB, 2001), Sustainable Cities Index (Australian Conservation Foundation, 2010), Thailand Sustainable Development Index (ESCAP, 2007), and others. These indicators are intended to measure the sustainability of the city by assessing various parts of it. The Malaysian Urban-Rural Sustainable Development Indicator Network (MurniNet 2.0) (Arifin et al., 2014) measures urban sustainability in Malaysia; however, the indicators of sustainable urban development used by most countries, including Malaysia, only involve economic, social, environmental and institutional indicators (the role of the government and community), without including cultural heritage indicators. The United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), originally announced in 2015, emphasize the importance of cultural heritage indicators in sustainable urban development, particularly in historical cities (UNESCO, 2017). Thus, Appendino (2017) has added another indicator for sustainable heritage cities: the cultural heritage indicator is equivalent to the economic, social, environmental, and institutional indicators, making five indicators in total. Leus and Verhelst (2018), Wang and Gu (2020), Pham et al. (2019), Poon (2019), Karoglou et al. (2019), Salvatore (2018), and Wiktor-Mach (2019) all support the inclusion of this indicator, stating that cultural heritage indicators should be included in the measurement of sustainability because the current failure of sustainable urban development is due to the marginalization of cultural heritage. Copyright: © 2022 by the authors. Submitted for possible open access publication under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Saleh et al. Therefore, this research uses and introduces a new indicator, namely, cultural heritage, for measuring the level of sustainability of heritage cities in addition to using the existing indicators, namely, the economic, social, environmental and institutional indicators. The determination of the five indicators used in this research is based on the requirements and policies of sustainable development related to the SDGs (United Nation, 2019), New Urban Agenda (NUA) (Habitat III, 2016), Agenda 21 (United Nations Sustainable Development, 1992), Healthy Cities Movement (HCM) (Barton and Grant, 2012), and the 11th Malaysia Plan (Department of Town and Country Planning, 2018). According to this policy, sustainable development directly encompasses economic, social, environmental factors, cultural heritage, and the role of the government and community. By using the base of indicators provided by Murninet 2.0 and cultural heritage indicators introduced by Appendino (2017), Leus and Verhelst (2018), Wang and Gu (2020), Pham et al. (2019), Poon (2019), Karoglou et al. (2019), Salvatore (2018), Wiktor-Mach (2019) and others, an instrument containing five complete constructs was developed. Therefore, in this study, a combination of these five indicators is used as a variable for measurement which, in turn, can rank the heritage cities in Malaysia based on their respective levels of sustainability. Page 9 Forum Geografi, 36(1), 2022; DOI: 10.23917/forgeo.v36i1.15287 2. Literature Review Sustainable development is defined as development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs. Sustainable development combines promoting economic, social, and environmental sustainability with poverty eradication and income distribution equity as its key goals (Chamhuri et al., 2014). Limit to Growth (1972) (Meadows et al., 1972), the Brundland Report (1987) (Brundtland, 1987), the Rio Summit (1992) (UNESCO, 2017), the Decade of Education for Sustainable Development (2004-2014) (UNESCO, 2017), and, more recently, the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) with 17 key goals on which each country must act (United Nation, 2019). Sustainable development in urbanization has resulted in several changes to the global urbanization agenda, including the Healthy Cities Movement, Local Agenda 21 (Local Agenda 21), and the New Urban Agenda. The New Urban Agenda aims to achieve a better, more sustainable future (Satterthwaite, 2016; Habitat III, 2016). The New Urban Agenda was adopted at the United Nations Conference on Housing and Sustainable Urban Development to create sustainable cities by 2030 (Caprotti et al., 2017). According to Fatimah et al. (2008) and Abdul Samad et al. (2004), sustainable urban development is a joint decision-making process by the stakeholders in urban planning, such as Local Authorities, local business associations, Non-Governmental Organizations and consumers, who seek to ensure that economic activities, population welfare (including health), and ecosystems are all given integrated consideration so that current and future generations will be able to meet their needs on an ongoing basis. Essential criteria for the formation of a sustainable city are the economic, social and environmental factors, combined with the local authority's ability to make efforts to achieve the planned mission and vision of sustainable development. In addition to the strong links existing between urbanization and job creation, livelihood opportunities, and improved quality of life, the New Urban Agenda also prioritizes cities' natural and cultural heritage as the key components of urban planning, including the best conservation and preservation efforts plus the promotion, and dissemination of knowledge about the tangible and intangible cultural heritage (Habitat III, 2016). This proves that the cultural heritage has been recognized as a key component of creating a sustainable city. Scholars such as Runnalls (2007), Tweed and Sutherland (2007), and Bandarin et al. (2011) define cultural heritage as the fifth dimension of sustainable development, whereas Appendino (2017) has demonstrated a shift in the paradigm towards the foundation of sustainability by identifying heritage as one of the main pillars for achieving sustainability. Since Malaysia is committed to implementing the SDG agenda and adopting the New Urban Agenda in the context of sustainable urban development, as in the Second Principle of the 11th Malaysia Plan, which is designed to improve the well-being of the people, besides focusing on the National Urbanization Policy Vision 2 (DPN 2), which aims to provide Sustainable cities for Prosperity and also the National Heritage Act 2005 (Part II- Policies relating to conservation and preservation of heritage), it is important for Malaysia to possess data that measure the level of sustainability of its heritage cities. This is because 162 cities in Malaysia can be considered as heritage cities, based on the uniqueness and features of each city, including a row of historic buildings and traditional shophouses built before the Second World War (WW2). The term “sustainable heritage city” applies not only to heritage cities that are recognized by UNESCO but also includes all cities with unique cultural characteristics (Syed Zainol, 1992). A sustainable heritage city can provide safe living facilities, adequate recreation sites, efficient water, electricity and telecommunications supplies, employment opportunities, and an efficient transportation system. At the same time, it is also able to preserve the heritage that exists because it is part of empowering the identity of a nation known for its architectural, ethnic, cultural, language and religious complexity (Hizbaron et al., 2020; Graham et al., 2016). The urban heritage, whether in tangible or intangible form, is a uniqueness that is unlikely to exist in other cities. 3. Methods 3.1. Study Area The study area covers ten selected heritage cities in Malaysia. All of the cities were selected based on an inventory of heritage cities in Malaysia by Syed Zainol (1992). All of the selected cities represent the various hierarchies of cities in Malaysia. They were also selected from five study zones, namely: The Northern Zone (Penang-Georgetown and Perak-Taiping); Central Zone (Se- Saleh et al. Page 10 Forum Geografi, 36(1), 2022; DOI: 10.23917/forgeo.v36i1.15287 langor-Kuala Kubu Bharu and Jugra); Southern Zone (Negeri Sembilan-Tampin, Melaka-Bandaraya Melaka and Johor-Muar); East Coast Zone (Pahang-Kuala Lipis, Kelantan-Kota Bharu); and East Malaysia Zone (Sarawak-Kuching) (Figure 1). The selection of these ten cities was based on criteria obtained from the Operational Guideline for Implementation (ICCROM et al., 2011; UNESCO, 2019b). The criteria available on the heritage cities selected in Malaysia are: (i) a city inhabited since the 1400s to the present day by a multicultural society resulting from external influences such as Malay, Chinese, Indian, Peranakan Chinese, Jawi Peranakan, Eurasian, Siam and Arab Peranakan; (ii) a city that highlights the importance of the changes in human values over time or within the scope of world cultures, such as architectural or technological developments, unique monuments, town planning and landscape design (Figure 2); (iii) a city that is unique due to or strongly influenced by cultural traditions or surviving or lost civilizations; and (iv) a city that serves as a reference and example, especially with regard to building design, architectural style, technological development, and landscape, highlighting the cultural and historical influence of human civilization on other cities that emerged later. Figure 1. Study area (source: fieldwork 2021). Figure 2. An example of the uniqueness of the traditional Malay architecture found in the heritage building of the Masjid Kampung Laut in Kota Bharu, one of the heritage cities in Malaysia. This is the oldest mosque in Malaysia, which is a national heritage site, tourist attraction and reference for architecture study (source: fieldwork 2021) Saleh et al. Page 11 Forum Geografi, 36(1), 2022; DOI: 10.23917/forgeo.v36i1.15287 3.2. Population and Sample The study involved 1,000 respondents from various levels of society in Malaysia, all of whom were aged over 18 years old. The selection of the study sample consisted of residents living or working in heritage urban areas, as they act as the local communities that drive the economy and witness developmental change, policy practitioners, and the recipients of both the positive and negative impacts of heritage city sustainability. To determine the number of samples required based on the total population, three criteria were used, namely: (i) Krecjie and Morgan’s (1970) sample table, (ii) Cohen’s (1992) table (which suggests that, if ten study variables are used for the multiple regression analysis at a significance level of 0.05, then the total sample should be 833 people); and (iii) based on the rule of thumb of Tabachnick and Fidell (1996), the appropriate sample size for the factor analysis would be 300 respondents, or 50 respondents per factor. Meanwhile, Comrey and Lee (1992) offered the following guidelines, that suggest that a sample of size 1,000 is an excellent choice. Therefore, based on the guidelines of the three conditions, this study set the total sample as up to 1,000 people. The study sample was selected based on the cluster sampling procedure, because the characteristics of the study area and population are too large and involve many subjects so, according to Chua (2006), group sampling is the best option to use in order to obtain significant results in this situation. In the first stage, five zones were selected. In the second stage, ten heritage cities were randomly selected as the study areas, based on the simple random sampling method The number of samples required is 1,000 people, based on the population of the area (Table 1). Next, in the third stage, a total of 100 samples were selected using the simple random technique in each study area, covering various demographics, such as gender, age, race, and population status. Table 1. Total study population and sample City Georgetown Taiping Kuala Kubu Bahru Jugra Tampin Bandaraya Melaka Muar Kuala Lipis Kota Bharu Kuching Total Residents 207,743 212,562 26,648 7,371 32,917 331,790 152,255 16,285 491,237 658,549 2,137,357 Sample 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 1000 3.3. Instrument The research instrument used is a questionnaire was subjected to factor analysis, namely: exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmation factor analysis (CFA). Factor analysis was performed to identify and rearrange many of the questionnaire items into components under each specific variable and achieve model matching accuracy (Chua, 2014). The questionnaire consists of six sections: sections A-F (Table 2). Each section contains information related to the study constructs, namely: Section A (Economic Prosperity), Section B (Social Well-Being), Section C (Environmental Well-Being), Section D (Cultural Heritage), Section E (Role of Government and Community) and Section F (Respondent's profile). 3.4. Instrument Reliability Table 3 shows the reliability of the heritage urban sustainability constructs with the Cronbach's Alpha values to measure the internal consistency level of the constructs. The Cronbach's Alpha values are based on the reliability index classification: a value of 0.90-1.00 is very high, 0.70-0.89 is high, 0.30-0.69 is moderate, and 0.00-0.30 is low (Babbie, 1992). Good reliability values lie between 0.70 and above (Mohamad et al., 2015). The analysis results show that the Cronbach's Alpha value is 0.70-0.95, which is high to very high. Therefore, the instrument employed for this study has a high level of reliability according to the classification set by Babbie (1992). 3.5. Method for the Data Analysis Data were analyzed using descriptive methods to obtain the values of the frequencies, percentages and means of each variable plus the average means. The level of each variable is separated into Saleh et al. Page 12 Forum Geografi, 36(1), 2022; DOI: 10.23917/forgeo.v36i1.15287 three categories to facilitate understanding: low level, moderate level, and high level. Cut-off points were utilized to make it easier to understand these levels (Table 4). Table 2. Questionnaire information Section A Construct Economic Prosperity B Social WellBeing C Environmental Well-Being D Cultural Heritage E Role of Government and Community F Respondent's Profile Construct Explanation Economic prosperity refers to human mobility, business/investment activities and economic growth contributing to employment opportunities, income, and human influx. Social well-being refers to basic amenities, communications and utilities, safety and public order. Basic facilities lead to the infrastructure being provided for all residents. Safety and public order are related to social problems in society and communication/utilities are related to transportation networks and domestic services, such as the water and electricity supply, that will lead to social well-being. Environmental quality refers to physical health, which is the element of air, sound, smell, congenital diseases and clean water supply. Secondly, land use involves saturated built-up areas that will improve the quality of the environment. Cultural heritage refers to a tangible culture, that is culture that can be seen and touched, such as buildings, monuments and others. In contrast, intangible culture is culture that cannot be seen and touched, such as practices, customs, art, and so on, as well as the preservation and conservation of heritage that involves restoration, repainting, modification, and other actions to ensure the survival of the cultural heritage. The role of the government and community refers to community involvement, environmental management, tourism and heritage management, and risk management, as efforts to preserve the cultural heritage. Information on the participants’ gender, race and population status. Item No. 13 9 Source Adapted from the Department of Town and Country Planning (2019) and Choon et al. (2011) Adapted from the United Nations Sustainable Development (1992) and Choon et al., (2011) 8 Adapted from Takano (2003); O’neill and Simard (2006); Lafond and Heritage (2009) 9 Adapted from Appendino (2017); Abdul Aziz (2011) and Syed Zainol (1992) 18 Adapted from the Local Agenda 21 (1992) and Tan et al., (2018) 3 Designed according to the needs of the study Table 3. Values of the alpha coefficient Construct Economic Prosperity Social Well-Being Environmental Well-Being Cultural Heritage Government and Community Role Source: fieldwork 2021 Item No. 13 9 8 9 18 Alpha Coefficient Value .878 .898 .745 .914 .974 Table 4. Cut-off point levels for each study construct Scale Score 1.00 - 2.33 Score 2.34 - 3.66 Score 3.67 - 5.00 Source: Chua (2006) Saleh et al. Level Low Moderate High Page 13 Forum Geografi, 36(1), 2022; DOI: 10.23917/forgeo.v36i1.15287 4. Results 4.1. Respondent's Background Table 5 lists the 1,000 respondents from the ten cities that were selected for this study. The analysis results show that a total of 361 people were male and 639 people were female. The race breakdown shows that 846 people were Malay, 56 were Chinese, 62 were Indian, 30 were Sarawak natives, three were natives of Sabah, and three were other races. The population status was that 780 people were born locally and raised in the study area, while the remaining 220 people were non-locals, who had come to live in the area for work, study and other reasons. Table 5. Respondent’s background Respondent’s Background Gender Race Population Status Male Female Malay Chinese Indian Sabah Native Sarawak Native Others Locals Non-Local Residents Frequency 361 639 846 56 62 3 30 3 780 220 Percentage (%) 36.1 63.9 84.6 5.6 6.2 0.3 3.0 0.3 78.0 22.0 Source: fieldwork 2021 4.2. Georgetown As a result of the descriptive analysis, the level of sustainability of Georgetown according to each construct is shown in Table 6. The economic prosperity construct shows a high average level, with a mean value of 4.38, and the social well-being construct has a mean value of 4.10 on average. Meanwhile, the environmental well-being construct showed a moderate average level, with a mean value of only 2.71. The cultural heritage and government and community role constructs also showed a high average level of mean values of 4.03 and 4.50, respectively. Finally, the overall level of sustainability that combines the five constructs is high, at 3.94. Table 6. Sustainability levels in Georgetown Construct Low N % 6 6.0 Moderate N % 7 7.0 17 17.0 93 93.0 Economic Prosperity Social Well-Being Environmental Well-Being Cultural Heritage 22 Government and Com9 munity Role The Level of Sustainability of the Entire City Source: fieldwork 2021 22.0 9.0 High N % 93 93.0 83 93.0 1 1.0 Mean SD 4.38 4.10 2.71 .53416 .46300 .29617 Average Level High High Medium 78 91 4.03 4.50 .58486 .57787 High High 3.94 .49121 High 78.0 91.0 4.3. Taiping The economic prosperity construct in Taiping shows a high average level, with a mean value reading of 4.54. Similarly, the social well-being construct also showed a high average level and a mean value reading of 4.01. The environmental well-being construct showed a moderate average level, with a slightly lower mean reading of only 2.79. Meanwhile, the cultural heritage construct for Taiping showed a high average level, with a mean reading of 4.08, and the government and community role construct also showed a high average level of 4.56. The overall level of sustainability of Taiping is high, with a mean value of 4.00 (Table 7). 4.4. Kuala Kubu Bharu (KKB) The analysis results found that the average level of all of the constructs for Kuala Kubu Bharu is moderate, as shown in Table 8. The economic prosperity construct showed a mean reading of 3.19, and the social well-being construct is 3.63. Next, the environmental well-being construct is 3.36, the cultural heritage construct is 3.30 and the government and community role construct is Saleh et al. Page 14 Forum Geografi, 36(1), 2022; DOI: 10.23917/forgeo.v36i1.15287 3.31. Finally, the overall level of sustainability of Kuala Kubu Bharu is moderate, with a mean reading of 3.36. Table 7. Sustainability level of Taiping Construct Low N % 2 2.0 3 3.0 Moderate N % 6 6.0 11 11.0 94 94.0 Economic Prosperity Social Well-Being Environmental WellBeing Cultural Heritage 14 14.0 Government and Com- 9 9.0 munity Role The Level of Sustainability of the Entire City Source: fieldwork 2021 High N % 94 94.0 87 87.0 3 3.0 Mean SD Average Level 4.54 4.01 2.79 .52454 .51998 .32840 High High Medium 86 91 4.08 4.56 .46078 .57814 High High 4.00 .48237 High 86.0 91.0 Table 8. Sustainability level of Kuala Kubu Bharu Construct Low N % 9 9.0 1 1.0 1 1.0 Moderate N % 72 72.0 60 60.0 77 77.0 Economic Prosperity Social Well-Being Environmental Well-Being Cultural Heritage 7 7.0 67 Government and Commu- 6 6.0 69 nity Role The Level of Sustainability of The Entire City Source: fieldwork 2021 67.0 69.0 High N % 19 19.0 39 39.0 22 22.0 Mean SD 3.19 3.63 3.36 .55496 .55411 .42821 Average Level Moderate Moderate Moderate 26 25 3.30 3.31 .63365 .61241 Moderate Moderate 3.36 .55667 Moderate 26.0 25.0 4.5. Jugra Table 9 shows the level of each sustainability construct tested in Jugra. All of the constructs tested showed only a moderate average level. The economic prosperity construct has a mean reading of 3.12, the social well-being construct has 3.37, the environmental well-being construct has 3.36, the cultural heritage construct has 3.34, and the government and community role construct has only 2.99. Finally, the overall level of sustainability Jugra is moderate, with a mean reading of only 3.23. Table 9. Sustainability level of Jugra Construct Low N % 5 5.0 3 3.0 8 8.0 12 12.0 Economic Prosperity Social Well-Being Environmental Well-Being Cultural Heritage Government and Community Role The Level of Sustainability of the Entire City Source: fieldwork 2021 Moderate N % 83 83.0 77 77.0 80 80.0 68 68.0 80 80.0 High N % 12 12.0 20 20.0 20 20.0 24 24.0 8 8.0 Mean SD 3.12 3.37 3.36 3.34 2.99 .43379 .47559 .37406 .58383 .57624 Average Level Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate 3.23 .48870 Moderate 4.6. Tampin Table 10 shows the levels of each sustainability construct in Tampin. The economic prosperity construct has a moderate average level, with a mean reading of 3.34, and the social well-being construct has only a moderate average level, with a mean reading of 3.60. The environmental well-being construct also has a moderate average level, with a mean reading of 3.02. In addition, the cultural heritage and the role of government and community constructs also had moderate average levels, with mean readings of 3.44 and 3.48, respectively. Finally, the overall level of sustainability of Tampin is moderate, with a mean reading of only 3.37. 4.7. Bandaraya Melaka Table 11 shows that the level of economic prosperity in Bandaraya Melaka has a high average level, with a mean value of 4.32. Furthermore, the level of social well-being has a high average Saleh et al. Page 15 Forum Geografi, 36(1), 2022; DOI: 10.23917/forgeo.v36i1.15287 level and a mean value of 3.92. However, the level of environmental well-being in Bandaraya Melaka has only a moderate level, with a mean value of 2.76. The study's findings also found that the average level of the cultural heritage sustainability and the role of government and community constructs are high, with mean values of 3.93 and 3.87, respectively. Finally, the overall level of sustainability for Bandaraya Melaka is high, with a mean reading of 3.76. Table 10. Sustainability level of Tampin Construct Low N % 8 8.0 3 3.0 2 2.0 6 6.0 4 4.0 Economic Prosperity Social Well-Being Environmental Well-Being Cultural Heritage Government and Community Role The Level of Sustainability of the Entire City Source: fieldwork 2021 Moderate N % 63 63.0 52 52.0 91 91.0 63 63.0 58 58.0 High N % 29 29.0 45 45.0 7 7.0 31 31.0 38 38.0 Mean SD 3.34 3.60 3.02 3.44 3.48 .70001 .70646 .40742 .77697 .76142 Average Level Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate 3.37 .67046 Moderate Table 11. Sustainability level of Bandaraya Melaka Construct Low N % 1 1.0 4 4.0 1 1.0 - Economic Prosperity Social Well-Being Environmental Well-Being Cultural Heritage Government and Community Role The Level of Sustainability of The Entire City Source: fieldwork 2021 Moderate N % 9 9.0 30 30.0 96 96.0 29 29.0 40 40.0 High N % 91 91.0 69 69.0 70 70.0 60 60.0 Mean SD 4.32 3.92 2.76 3.93 3.87 .52660 .47602 .28718 .53794 .56100 Average Level High High Moderate High High 3.76 .47774 High 4.8. Muar The level of sustainability of each construct in Muar is shown in Table 12. The economic prosperity construct has a high average level, with a mean value of 3.93. The social well-being construct also has a high average level, with a mean reading of 3.95. Meanwhile, the environmental well-being construct has a moderate average level, with a slightly lower mean reading of 2.98. Next, the cultural heritage construct has a high average level and a mean reading of 3.82. The government and community role construct also has a high average level, with a mean reading of 3.87. Finally, the overall level of sustainability of Muar is high, with a mean reading of 3.71. Table 12. Sustainability level of Muar Construct Low N % 4 4.0 5 5.0 2 2.0 3 3.0 Economic Prosperity Social Well-Being Environmental Well-Being Cultural Heritage Government and Community Role The Level of Sustainability of the Entire City Source: fieldwork 2021 Moderate N % 22 22.0 28 28.0 90 90.0 38 38.0 31 31.0 High N % 78 78.0 68 68.0 5 5.0 60 60.0 66 66.0 Mean SD 3.93 3.95 2.98 3.82 3.87 .52060 .67653 .42451 .62361 .65222 Average Level High High Moderate High High 3.71 .57949 High 4.9. Kuala Lipis Table 13 shows the level of sustainability of each construct in Kuala Lipis. All of the constructs have a moderate average level in Kuala Lipis. The mean reading for the economic prosperity construct is 3.12; the social well-being construct is 3.41; the environmental well-being construct is 2.97, the cultural heritage construct is 3.50, and the government and community role construct is 3.39. Finally, the overall level of sustainability of Kuala Lipis is moderate, with a mean reading of only 3.28. Saleh et al. Page 16 Forum Geografi, 36(1), 2022; DOI: 10.23917/forgeo.v36i1.15287 Table 13. Sustainability level of Kuala Lipis Construct Low N % 9 9.0 3 3.0 6 6.0 6 6.0 3 3.0 Economic Prosperity Social Well-Being Environmental Well-Being Cultural Heritage Government and Community Role The Level of Sustainability of the Entire City Source: fieldwork 2021 Moderate N % 74 74.0 66 66.0 89 89.0 55 55.0 65 65.0 High N % 17 17.0 31 31.0 5 5.0 39 39.0 32 32.0 Mean SD 3.12 3.41 2.97 3.50 3.39 .59151 .63365 .42270 .68430 .67118 Average Level Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate 3.28 .59466 Moderate 4.10. Kota Bharu Table 14 shows the level of sustainability of each construct of Kota Bharu. The economic prosperity construct has a high average level, with a mean reading of 3.93. The social well-being construct also has a high average level, with a mean reading of 3.68. Meanwhile, environmental well-being has a moderate average level, with a mean reading of only 2.85. Next, the cultural heritage construct has a high average level, with a mean reading of 3.97, while the government and community role construct has a high average level, with a mean reading of 3.84. Finally, the overall level of sustainability of Kota Bharu is moderate, with a mean reading of only 3.65. Table 14. Sustainability level of heritage City in Kota Bharu Construct Low N % 1 1.0 5 5.0 5 5.0 1 1.0 5 5.0 Economic Prosperity Social Well-Being Environmental Well-Being Cultural Heritage Government and Community Role The Level of Sustainability of The entire City Source: fieldwork 2021 Moderate N % 26 26.0 40 40.0 88 88.0 25 25.0 25 25.0 High N % 73 73.0 55 55.0 7 7.0 74 74.0 70 70.0 Mean SD 3.93 3.68 2.85 3.97 3.84 .50761 .60817 .47686 .56044 .65226 Average Level High High Moderate High High 3.65 .56106 Moderate 4.11. Kuching The findings for Kuching are shown in Table 15. The economic prosperity construct has a high average level, with a mean value reading of 3.80. The social well-being construct is only at a moderate level, with a mean value of 3.50, and the environmental well-being construct is moderate, with a mean value reading of 2.92. Meanwhile, the cultural heritage construct is at a high average level with a mean value of 3.70. Finally, the construct of government and community roles is only at a moderate average level, with a mean value of 3.65. Finally, the overall level of sustainability of Kuching is moderate, with a mean reading of only 3.51. Table 15. Sustainability level of Kuching Construct Low N % 3 3.0 6 6.0 8 8.0 5 5.0 5 5.0 Economic Prosperity Social Well-Being Environmental Well-Being Cultural Heritage Government and Community Role The Level of Sustainability of the Entire City Source: fieldwork 2021 Moderate N % 29 29.0 58 58.0 89 89.0 37 37.0 39 39.0 High N % 68 68.0 36 36.0 3 3.0 58 58.0 56 56.0 Mean SD 3.80 3.50 2.92 3.70 3.65 .63483 .71040 .39957 .76376 .76330 Average Level High Moderate Moderate High Moderate 3.51 .65437 Moderate 4.12. The Level of Sustainability of the Entire Heritage City in Malaysia The heritage cities that were found to have a high level of sustainability are Georgetown, Taiping, Melaka City and Muar only. Taiping recorded the highest average mean value of 4.0. The heritage cities that were found to have a moderate level of sustainability are Kuala Kubu Bharu, Jugra, Tampin, Kuala Lipis, Kota Bharu and Kuching. Jugra had the lowest average mean value, of only 3.23 (Figure 3). Overall, there is still a lot of work to be done to ensure that the sustainability level Saleh et al. Page 17 Forum Geografi, 36(1), 2022; DOI: 10.23917/forgeo.v36i1.15287 of these heritage cities improves. The authorities need to focus on constructs that record the moderate average values in each city and find solutions about how to increase those levels. Increasing the level of sustainability of each construct will have a positive impact on the community life in the heritage city, making it more prosperous and livable, in line with the SDGs. Georgetown 3.94 Kuching Taiping 4 3.51 Kota Bharu 3.65 3.36 3.28 3.23 Kuala Lipis Jugra 3.37 3.71 Muar Kuala Kubu Bharu 3.76 Tampin Bandaraya Melaka Figure 3. The level of sustainability (source: fieldwork 2021) Acknowledgements This research has been carried out under Fundamental Research Grants Scheme (FRGS/1/2019/SS07/UPSI/02/1) provided by Ministry of Education Malaysia. The authors would like to extend their gratitude to Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris (UPSI) that helped manage the grants. 5. Conclusion In conclusion, the descriptive analysis findings for the level of sustainability in the ten selected heritage cities of Malaysia shows that most are at a high or medium level, with a mean score between 2.34 and 5.00. Their overall levels of sustainability are: Georgetown (3.94 = high), Taiping (4.00 = high), Kuala Kubu Bharu (3.36 = moderate), Jugra (3.23 = moderate), Tampin (3.37 = moderate), Melaka City (3.76 = high), Muar (3.71 = high), Kuala Lipis (3.28 = moderate), Kota Bharu (3.65 = moderate) and Kuching (3.51 = moderate). In light of these findings, all parties, especially the local authorities of those cities with only moderate levels of sustainability, need to take steps to plan and develop their cities to ensure a better future, without neglecting the constructs already discussed here. This coincides with the effort to make the heritage city an inclusive, livable, and prosperous city for the community by 2030, as targeted by the SDGs. In conclusion, the level of sustainability of heritage cities needs to be constantly improved to have a positive impact on the lives of the communities in heritage cities, as recommended by the SDGs. This is because cultural heritage supports sustainable economic development, the formation of prosperous communities, the nurturing of a conducive environment and so on. Cultural heritage is able to generate an economy based on heritage tourism, form a harmonious society by cultivating a sense of belonging as a result of the identification of origins, conserve the use of natural resources by reusing existing heritage elements and so on. The values brought by cultural heritage cross borders and complement every existing dimension of sustainable urban development. References Abdul Aziz, H. (Ed.). (2011). Pemuliharaan dan pemeliharaan warisan di Malaysia. Pulau Pinang: Universiti Sains Malaysia.[in Malay] Abdul Samad, H., Shaharudin, I., & Abdul Hadi, H. S. (2004). Persekitaran bandar lestari untuk kesejahteraan komuniti. Malaysia Journal of Environmental Management, 5, 3–29.[in Malay] ADB. (2001). Urban indicators for managing cities : city data book. Manila: Asia Development Bank. Appendino, F. (2017). Balancing Heritage Conservation and Sustainable Development–The Case of Bordeaux. World Multidisciplinary Civil Engineering-Architecture-Urban Planning Symposium- WMCAUS 2017, Jun 2017. https://doi.org/:10.1088/1757-899X/245/6/062002 Australian Conservation Foundation. (2010). Sustainable Cities Index—Ranking Australia's 20 Largest Cities in 2010. Retrieved from http://www.acfonline.org.au/sites/default/?les/resources/2010_ACF_SCI_ Report_ComparativeTable_and_Fact-Sheets.pdf [5 July 2020] Ariffin, A., Ibrahim, N., Desa, G., Ujang, U., Ali, H. M., Malik, T. A., & Mukhelas, H. K. (2014). A framework of local geospatial data infrastructure for sustainable urban development. Jurnal Teknologi, 71(4). Saleh et al. Page 18 Forum Geografi, 36(1), 2022; DOI: 10.23917/forgeo.v36i1.15287 Babbie, E. (1992). The practice of social research. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company. Bandarin, F., Hosagrahar, J., & Albernaz, F. (2011). Why development needs culture. Journal of Cultural Heritage Management and Sustainable Development, 1(1), 15–25. Barton, H., & Grant, M. (2012). Urban planning for healthy cities a review of the progress of the european healthy cities programme. Journal of Urban Health, 90(1). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11524-011-9649-3 Brundtland, G. H. (1987). Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: Our Common Future. Retrieved from https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/5987our-common-future.pdf [12 February 2021] Caprotti, F., Cowley, R., Datta, A., Broto, V. C., Gao, E., Georgeson, L., & Joss, S. (2017). The new urban agenda: key opportunities and challenges for policy and practice. Urban Reasearch & Practice, 10(3), 367–378. Chamhuri, S., Rospidah, G., & Sharina, A. H. (Eds.). (2014). Pembangunan lestari di Malaysia: harapan dan kenyataan. Kuala Lumpur: Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka.[in Malay] Choon, S. W., Chamhuri, S., Pereira, J. J., Jemain, A. A., Hashim, H. S., & Hadi, A. S. (2011). A sustainable city index for Malaysia. International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology, 18(1), 28–35. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504509.2011.543012 CHS. (2004). Urban indicators guidelines: monitoring the Habitat Agenda and the Millennium Development Goals. Nairobi: United Nations Centre for Human Settlements. Chua, Y. P. (2006). Kaedah dan statistik penyelidikan: kaedah penyelidikan (1st ed.). Kuala Lumpur: McGraw-Hill (Malaysia).[in Malay] Chua, Y. P. (2014). Kaedah dan statistik penyelidikan Buku 5: ujian regresi, analisis faktor dan analisis SEM (2nd Ed). Kuala Lumpur: McGraw-Hill (Malaysia).[in Malay] Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioural science (2nd ed.). New York: Academic Press. Comrey, A. L., & Lee, H. B. (1992). A first course in factor analysis (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Department of Statistics. (2020). MyCensus 2020. Retrieved December 30, 2021, from Federal Government Adminisitrative Centre, Putrajaya, Malaysia website: https://www.mycensus.gov.my ESCAP. (2007). Some sustainable development indicators sets and indices. Bangkok: United Nation Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pasific. Fatimah, Y., Katiman, R., & Zikri, M. (2008). Bandar Berdaya Saing vis-a-vis Pembangunan Bandar Lestari: Suatu wacana tentang pembangunan bandar di Malaysia. Geografia-Malaysian Journal of Society and Space, 4(1), 85– 98.[in Malay] Graham, B., Ashworth, G., & Tunbridge, J. (2016). A geography of heritage: power, culture and economy. Routledge. Habitat III. (2016). New urban agenda. Retrieved from http://habitat3.org/the-new-urban-agenda/ [3 Mac 2021] Hizbaron, D. R., Lukafiardi, R., Aprilianti, C., & Jati, R. (2020). Utilizing vulnerability and risk indexes for cultural heritage in Yogyakarta and Central Java. Forum Geografi, 34(2), 161–172. ICCROM, ICOMOS, IUCN, & UNESCO World Heritage Centre. (2011). World heritage resource manual: Preparing world heritage nominations (2nd ed.). Paris: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. Jabatan Perancangan Bandar dan Desa. (2018). Kompendium PLAN Malaysia. Retrieved from https://www.townplan.gov.my/kompendium/[3 Mac 2021][in Malay] Jabatan Perancangan Bandar dan Desa. (2019). Jaringan Penunjuk Pembangunan Mampan Bandar-Luar Bandar Malaysia (MurniNet 2.0). Retrieved from http://murninet.townplan.gov.my/murninetsv2/[18 Mac 2021] [in Malay] Karoglou, M., Kyvelou, S. S., Boukouvalas, C., Theofani, C., Bakolas, A., Krokida, M., & Moropoulou, A. (2019). Towards a preservation-sustainability nexus: Applying LCA to reduce the environmental footprint of modern built heritage. Sustainability, 11(21), 6167. https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su11216147 Krejchie, R. V., & Morgan, D. W. (1970). Determining sample size for research activities. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 30(3), 607–610. Lafond, L. J., & Heritage, Z. (2009). National networks of healthy cities in Europe. Health Promotion International, 24(1). https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1093/heapro/dap060 Leus, M., & Verhelst, W. (2018). Sustainability assessment of urban heritage sites. Buildings, 8(8), 107. https://doi.org/doi:10.3390/buildings8080107 Meadows, D. H., Meadows, D. L., Randers, J., & Behrens III, W. W. (1972). The Limit to growth. New York: Universe Books. Mohamad, M. M., Sulaiman, N. L., Sern, L. C., & Salleh, K. M. (2015). Measuring the validity and reliability of research instruments. 4th World Congress on Technical and Vocational Education and Training (WoCTVET), 5th-6th November 2014, Malaysia, 164–171. Malaysia. O'neill, M., & Simard, P. (2006). Choosing indicators to evaluate healthy cities projects: a political task? Health Promotion International, 21(2), 145–152. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1093/heapro/dal006 Pham, V. M., Nghiem, S. V., Bui, Q. T., Pham, T. M., & Pham, C. V. (2019). Quantitative assessment of urbanization and impact in the complex of Hue Monuments, Vietnam. Applied Geography, 112(40). https://doi.org/https://agris.fao.org/agris search/search.do?recordID=US202000023546 Poon, S. T. F. (2019). Reimagining the place and placelessness: heritage symbolism and hospitality architectural designs. Place Branding and Public Diplomacy, 15(4), 288–296. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1057/s41254-01900133-7 Runnalls, C. (2007). Choreographing community sustainability: The importance of cultural planning to community viability. Canada: Centre of Expertise on Culture and Communities, Simon Fraser University. Salvatore, C. L. (Ed.). (2018). Cultural Heritage Care and Management: Theory and Practice. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield. Satterthwaite, D. (2016). A new urban agenda? Environment and Urbanization, 28(1), 3–12. Syed Zainol, A. I. (1992). Pemuliharaan warisan rupa bandar. Kuala Lumpur: Badan Warisan Malaysia.[in Malay] Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (1996). Using multivariate statistics (3rd ed.). New York: Harper Collins. Takano, T. (Ed.). (2003). Healthy Cities and Urban Policy Research. London and New York: Spon Press. Tan, S. K., Tan, S. H., Kok, Y. S., & Choon, S. W. (2018). Sense of place and sustainability of intangible cultural heritage – The case of George Town and Melaka. Tourism Management, 67, 376–387. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2018.02.012 Tweed, C., & Sutherland, M. (2007). Built cultural heritage and sustainable urban development. Landscape and Urban Planning, 83(1), 62–69. UNESCO. (2017). Sustainable Development Goal. Retrieved from UNESCO website: http://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment [21 April 2021] UNESCO. (2019). Operational guidelines for the implementation of the World Heritage Convention. Paris: UNESCO. Saleh et al. Page 19 Forum Geografi, 36(1), 2022; DOI: 10.23917/forgeo.v36i1.15287 United Nation. (2019). Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Retrieved from United Nation website: https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/ [21 April 2021] United Nation Sustainable Development. (1992). Agenda 21. United Nations Conference on Environment & Development Rio de Janerio, Brazil, 3 to 14 June 1992, 1–351. Rio De Jenerio, Brazil. Wang, S., & Gu, K. (2020). Pingyao: The historic urban landscape and planning for heritage-led urban changes. Cities, 97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2019.102489 Wiktor-Mach, D. (2019). Cultural heritage and development: UNESCO's new paradigm in a changing geopolitical context. Third World Quarterly, 1593–1612. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/01436597.2019.1604131 Saleh et al. Page 20