Analysis of the Influencing Factors of Social Participation Awareness on Urban Heritage Conservation: The Example of Suzhou, China

Abstract

Social participation is an important tool in heritage conservation, but levels remain low in developing countries. To increase social-participation awareness of urban-heritage conservation, this study aimed to find an effective method to determine the factors that affect participation awareness, with a focus on the magnitude of each influence. Through literature analysis we developed hypotheses about the factors affecting participation awareness, and then developed a linear regression model. In order to test the reliability of the model, we selected Suzhou as the research object and obtained the following conclusions: (1) Suzhou’s social-participation awareness was positively correlated with place identity, urban memory, subjective cognition, objective knowledge, and place identity. (2) The factor that had the strongest impact on Suzhou’s place identity was public space, with residence time and community sentiment also influencing place identity. (3) The factors that influenced the urban memory of Suzhou were residence time, urban transformation, and urban events with the most influential factor being lifestyle transformation. (4) Urban-heritage conservation social-participation awareness was higher among Suzhou people living in the old city than in the new city.

1. Introduction

Since the 1972 adoption of the Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage, scholars in many countries have recognized and discussed the importance of cultural landscapes, including their geographical, historical, and sociological aspects [1]. In 2008, UNESCO clearly defined cultural landscapes as those that “are part of the natural and cultural heritage of the world” [2]. In this context, the term is used in the fields of geography, ecology, and heritage studies to describe the existence of symbiosis between human activities and the environment. According to the World Heritage Committee, such a landscape is “a cultural property that represents a complex work of nature and human creation” [2]. To date, most relevant studies have focused on natural and historical heritage in the traditional sense [3]. However, recent progress in urban modernization has influenced more scholars to investigate urban cultural landscapes. In November 2011, UNESCO published the Recommendation on the Historic Urban Landscape [4], wherein such landscapes are described as replacing the heritage of buildings and building groups within a city, with a unified view of the entire environment as urban heritage in the context of dynamic urban development. This provides a better conservation framework that incorporates a landscape perspective and heritage preservation as a means and method under broader urban development. In this research, urban heritage is understood as urban areas that extend beyond the concept of “historic centers” or “groups” to include a broader urban context and its geography, and which result from the historical accumulation of cultural and natural values and characteristics [4]. At the same time, there is growing acceptance that urban heritage is an important element of social capital and that heritage conservation provides economic, cultural, and social benefits to urban communities, and may contribute to a more sustainable urban environment [5,6].

The Recommendation on the Historic Urban Landscape also mentions social participation, identifies the important values of urban areas, and discusses diversity. In this regard, it advocates for a vision that reflects diversity, sets goals, promotes the protection of heritage, and encourages sustainable development. In other words, we can identify a shift from the perspective in which “historical heritage” is seen from afar to one that is focused on self-discovery and active preservation through citizen involvement. This view will help people understand the origins of their culture and why it should be preserved, thus promoting a place identity and pride. History not only carries the memory of urban development, which allows it to exist in the past, but also brings it to life in the present, such that it is integrated into daily life. This calls for sustainable preservation and development.

Since the European Landscape Convention was approved in 2000 [7], social participation has become one of landscape’s defining concepts, providing opportunities for the public, stake-holder groups, experts, and decision-making officials to express preferences, share information and knowledge, debate, persuade, and learn [8]. During the same period, community-development activities were conducted throughout Japan, with support for various forms of participation among residents [9]. Mahdavinejad et al. [10] studied public participation in recent urban planning and renovation projects in Iran. Amersfoort Local Municipality implemented the workbench spatial-quality method to enhance participation in green-planning processes [11]. Donagh Horgan et al. [12] focused on tools and technologies used for participatory processes in sustainable urban planning. Other scholars also discussed the importance of public participation in landscape conservation and community development [13,14,15,16,17,18] and many countries continue to demonstrate insufficient social participation in urban-heritage conservation [19,20,21]. In fact, many people do not even realize that opportunities exist for them to participate in such endeavors [22]. According to Mihaylov and Perkins [23], acceptable levels of interaction lead to “neighborhood relations, social participation, and ultimately community mobilization and collective action,” thus increasing the “implementation of community revitalization or development”. These studies collectively demonstrate the importance of researching social participation and enhancing awareness. As such, this study employed a linear regression model to investigate influencing factors in the relationship between social-participation awareness and urban-heritage conservation, with the ultimate aim of finding suitable methods to enhance social-participation awareness.

2. Materials and Methods

There are many factors that may influence the awareness of social participation. Based on a study of individuals living in different communities in Hamilton, Ontario, Kitchen et al. [24] discussed how geographic differences affect place identity. Chen examined the relationship between urban memory and lifestyle changes [25], while Yang et al. [26] focused on the importance of urban memory through social participation in community development. Shirayanagi’s [27] work titled “Analysis of the impact of knowledge of local history on townscape preservation attitudes” points out that local historic knowledge impacts community development. Therefore, in this study, we focussed on how place identity, urban memory, subjective cognition, and objective knowledge of local history impact social-participation awareness of urban-heritage conservation.

2.1. Place Identity

Matsumoto et al. [28] defined place identity as the “objective state of being a resident of a certain area, i.e., inhabitancy, as well as the subjective state of being a member of that community”, and he discussed the importance of place identity for community development. According to Okamoto [29], this will promote the establishment of local identities and facilitate the creation of prosperous communities where individuals can live with pride; indeed, the greatest benefit of using local culture is that it helps residents develop a prideful sense of attachment to their community. Joong-Hwan et al. [30] examined the relationship between age or aging and local social bonds based on friendship, social cohesion and trust, informal social control, and participation in local organizations. Nagazumi [31] proved that co-attributional feelings significantly impacted place identity, while Sghati’s [32] cognitive analysis showed that public spaces help individuals gain positive perceptions of cities. Finally, Zhao [33] used Engel’s coefficient to investigate the impacts of place identity based on data from 31 Chinese cities.

In light of these findings, we propose:

Hypothesis 1 (H1). 

Place identity is related to the length of residence time, community sentiment, public space, and Engel’s coefficient; all factors are positively correlated.

2.2. Urban Memory

Chacko et al. [34] examined how Hispanic immigrants claimed public spaces in Washington, DC, thus affirming the existence of a place identity toward both the city and nation through annual celebrations during the Hispanic festival known as La Fiesta DC. Given the critical importance of linking urban contexts and histories with immaterial experiences and meaning in cities, Beth Perry and L. Ager et al. [35] argued that festivals could illuminate wider concerns. Wang examined the relevance of urban transformation to urban memory, thus verifying that all urban memory should be supported by local groups [36]. Gurler [37] emphasized how memory sites contributed to social memory and urban identity, therein highlighting the societal effects of designing memorials integrated into daily urban life from the design perspective. Urbinati et al. [38] explored how Kaunas’ urban transformation affected the collective memory of a local population, thus shaping the cultural identity of the city. Wang et al. [39] investigated personal cognition and urban memory during a period of urban transformation, finding that stability and temporary elements were most cognized. Collins et al. [40] reported that a sense of civic pride and belonging could increase participation in community-development activities, whereas an excessive sense of civic pride in belonging could influence resistance to local change, contribute to insular attitudes that uncritically promote the image of the place in which people believe, and even raise the risk of intraregional conflict. Overall, the literature shows that an overly strong place identity may actually reduce social-participation awareness.

Given this evidence, we propose:

Hypothesis 2 (H2). 

Urban memory is related to residence time, urban transformation, urban events, and lifestyle transformation; all factors are positively correlated.

2.3. Subjective Cognition and Objective Knowledge

Yamada et al. [27] found that residents aware of the history of local resources (e.g., traditional skills, the natural environment, and historical landscape) had a greater sense of proactive involvement in community-development activities. Scholars have also noted that regional perceptions that are not supported by objective knowledge may lead to a form of extremism that is incompatible with the views of others [41]. Krosnick et al. [42] reported that forming a certain attitude in the presence of both uncertainty and ambiguity could facilitate knowledge in which the individual could adjust various factors related to stability in attitudes such as extremes, thereby mitigating the effects of falling into negative attitudes. In addition, Takagi and Komori divided individual scientific knowledge into subjective (i.e., perceived) and objective (i.e., factually correct) components, further pointing out that knowledge levels affect awareness. In sum, social-participation awareness is closely related to subjective perceptions and interests in the local area. Therefore, we hypothesized that social-participation awareness is influenced by both subjective cognition and objective knowledge about urban heritage.

2.4. The Possible Influencing Factors of Social-Participation Awareness

Based on the literature review above, we propose:

Hypothesis 3 (H3). 

Factors that influence the awareness of citizen participation are related to place identity, urban memory, the subjective cognition of local history, and objective knowledge of local history; all factors are positively correlated.

2.5. Methods

To test H1, H2, and H3, we first collected data through a questionnaire survey with four main sections, including “place identity,” “urban memory,” “subjective cognition of local history,” and “objective knowledge of local history.”

Table 1. Main questionnaire contents on impact factor.

Type		Main Questionnaire
Personality attributes		Foreign or local resident?
		Area of residence?
		Residence time?
Participation awareness of urban-heritage conservation		Would you like to voice your opinion on how to improve local urban heritage?
		Would you like to participate in activities to improve local urban heritage?
		Would you be willing to participate in events to learn about local urban heritage?
Place identity		Do you feel lonely when you are not in the residential district where you live now?
		Do you feel secure in the residential district where you live now?
		Do you feel that you belong in the residential area where you live now?
		Would you like to continue to live in the district where you live now?
		Do you have anything to be proud of in the district where you live now?
	Subdivision Items
	Community sentiment	Would you like to discuss “community development” issues with your neighbors?
		Would you like to help each other with neighbors in your community?
	Public space	Do you visit local parks often?
		Do you interact with others in your local public space?
		Please evaluate your satisfaction with local museums.
		Please evaluate your satisfaction with local sports facilities.
		Please evaluate your satisfaction with local public space.
	Engel’s coefficient	What is your approximate range of income and the percentage of income spent on food?
Urban Memory		Is there a place you miss that has disappeared in the district where you live now?
		Do you miss the ambiance of the old streets?
		Do you want to introduce a local characteristic place to outsiders?
		Do you want to introduce local history to outsiders?
	Subdivision Items
	Urban transformation	Please evaluate your satisfaction with changes in the local infrastructure.
		Please evaluate your satisfaction with changes in the local cityscape and landmark.
	Urban events	Do you have a profound impression of local events?
	Lifestyle transformation	Please evaluate your satisfaction with changes in your economic situation in recent years.
		Please evaluate your satisfaction with changes in the pace in urban life.
		Please evaluate your satisfaction with changes in community relationships.

lists the main questions related to place identity, urban memory, and local attachment, which we arranged in reference to previous studies [24,30,33,38,43,44,45,46]. The sections on subjective cognition and objective knowledge of local historical issues contained different questions depending on the region.

In statistics, linear regression is an approach for modelling the interdependent quantitative relationship between a scalar response and one or more explanatory variables. It means that linear regression models can analyze the linear relationship between variables; in reality, the factors that affect citizens/residents’ awareness of urban-heritage conservation might be non-linear and even more complex. However, according to Taylor’s theorem, we can use linear models to approximate the linear relationship between variables as long as the change in independent variables is small [47]. In addition, the study by Zhang et al. [48] pointed out that informing decision makers through quantitative models is an effective way to optimize overall social resources. Therefore, in this study, we quantified the questionnaire results and proposed linear regression Model 1 to test H1, Model 2 to test H2, and Model 3 to test H3. To investigate how subjective cognition and objective-knowledge levels affected social-participation awareness, we divided the surveyed population into two groups, including high and low levels. Dividing a group evenly in half may lead to individuals in the middle having nearly the same values but being placed in different groups; therefore, we avoided this by grouping the sample according to a cluster analysis. To increase the accuracy of the model, we also added the correction items β₃ y_1i y_2i for place identity and urban memory and β₆ y_3i y_4i for subjective cognition and objective knowledge in Model 3.

Table 2. Individual factors.

Parameter	Factors
x1i	Evaluation of resident i’s residence time
x2i	Evaluation of resident i’s community sentiment
x3i	Evaluation of resident i’s public space
x4i	Evaluation of resident i’s Engel’s coefficient
μ0	Constant term
μ1~μ4	Unknown parameter
x5i	Evaluation of resident i’s urban transformation
x6i	Evaluation of resident i’s urban events
x7i	Evaluation of resident i’s lifestyle transformation
ω0	Constant term
ω1~ω4	Unknown parameter
Zi	Resident i’s social-participation awareness of urban-heritage conservation
y1i	Resident i’s place identity
y2i	Resident i’s urban memory
y3i	Resident i’s subjective-cognition level
y4i	Resident i’s objective-knowledge level
β0	Constant term
β1~β6	Unknown parameter

lists individual factors represented in the model.

$$y_{1i}={\mu }_0+{\mu }_1{x}_{1i}+{\mu }_2{x}_{2i}+{\mu }_3{x}_{3i}+{\mu }_4{x}_{4i}$$

(1)

Model 1. The possible influencing factors of place identity

$$y_{2i}={\omega }_0+{\omega }_1{x}_{1i}+{\omega }_2{x}_{5i}+{\omega }_3{x}_{6i}+{\omega }_4{x}_{7i}$$

(2)

Model 2. The possible influencing factors of urban memory

$$z_i={\beta }_0+{\beta }_1{y}_{1i}+{\beta }_2{y}_{2i}+{\beta }_3{y}_{1i}{y}_{2i}+{\beta }_4{y}_{3i}+{\beta }_5{y}_{4i}+{\beta }_6{y}_{3i}{y}_{4i}$$

(1)

(3)

Model 3. The possible influencing factors of social-participation awareness

2.6. Study Area and Data

Suzhou (31°17′59.99′′ N, 120°35′59.99′′ E.) is a prefecture-level city in southeast Jiangsu Province, China. It is located around the middle of the Yangtze River Delta, near Shanghai to the east and Zhejiang to the south (Figure 1). Suzhou City was built in 514 BC, more than 2500 years ago [49]. It has maintained the pattern of “parallel water and land, adjacent rivers and streets”, and is known as the Venice of the East, one of the first 24 famous historical and cultural cities in China [50]. Local UNESCO World Heritage Sites include the Suzhou Classical Gardens, which are representative of Chinese private gardens, and the Suzhou section of the Grand Canal of China [51]. However, most current urban-heritage conservation activities in China are led by the government, which prioritizes economic interests [52,53]. Moreover, the current planning process in Suzhou is often dominated by experts and government departments, which can lead to conflicts with the public during the implementation of planning [54], and there is virtually no social participation [55], so it is essential to raise awareness among Suzhou’s residents.

Meanwhile, local urban-heritage conservation is very characteristic; the old city has retained its original cultural atmosphere, but the new city is very modern [54]. Because of this arrangement, we divided the survey respondents into two regional categories by Suzhou City Planning [56]: old city (Gusu District, where is the ancient Suzhou is located) and new city (other districts of Suzhou). We distributed 208 questionnaires to Suzhou residents from 20 October to 20 November 2022, and 183 were returned, of which 58 were invalid and 125 were valid.

Table 3. Main questionnaire contents on subjective cognition and objective knowledge pertaining to Suzhou.

Type	Main Questionnaire
Subjective cognition	Do you think you know the history of the formation of Suzhou City?
	Do you think you know the history of Suzhou Classical Garden?
	Do you think you know the history of Suzhou Guanqian Street?
	Do you think you know the characteristics of traditional buildings in Suzhou?
	Do you think you know the nature of urban-heritage conservation in Suzhou?
	Do you think the traditional streetscape of Suzhou should be preserved?
Objective knowledge	Suzhou is one of the first 24 China national historical and cultural cities.
	During the Spring and Autumn Period, the capital of the Wu Kingdom was located in Suzhou.
	Suzhou Kunqu is not on the World Intangible Cultural Heritage List.
	Suzhou embroidery is on the World Intangible Cultural Heritage List.
	“Wumen” is the former name of Suzhou.
	Suzhou Lion Mountain belongs to the China National Cultural Relics Protection Unit.

lists items from the questionnaire on subjective cognition and objective knowledge pertaining to the history of Suzhou, all of which were judgment questions. We developed these items based on previous research [26,28,30] and by referring to the Suzhou Local Chronicles Compilation Committee [50].

3. Result

The results of the questionnaire are shown in the

Table 4. Individual characteristics.

Age Group	0–20	20–40	40–60	Above 60
Numbers	29	44	37	15
Gender	Male	Female	Other
Numbers	57	68	0
District	Old city	New city
Numbers	54	71
Average residence time	27.38 years

, and after removing the invalid questionnaires, there were 125 valid questionnaires. Of the respondents, 88.00% were under 60 years old, 57 were male and 68 were female, and 54 lived in the old city and 71 in the new city. The average length of residence was 27.38 years.

3.1. Place Identity in Suzhou

Table 5. The results for factors that influenced place identity in Suzhou.

Parameter	Type	μ	t
μ0	Constant term	0.743	1.676
μ1	Residence time	0.203	3.651
μ2	Community sentiment	0.212	2.341
μ3	Public space	0.376	2.735
μ4	Engel’s coefficient	0.028	0.331
R		0.581
R2		0.338
			p < 0.05

lists the results for factors that influenced place identity in Suzhou. As shown, μ was positive for all such factors. The highest influence was imposed by public space, with a mean of 0.376, while the lowest was found for Engel’s coefficient, with a mean of 0.028. However, because Engel’s coefficient produced a very low impact compared to other factors, we can assume that it barely affected place identity. Thus, H1 was unsupported (i.e., residence time, community sentiment, and public space influence place identity among residents of Suzhou).

3.2. Urban Memory in Suzhou

Table 6. The results for factors that influenced urban memory in Suzhou.

Parameter	Type	ω	t
ω0	Constant term	0.369	0.994
ω1	Residence time	0.165	2.387
ω2	Urban transformation	0.138	1.147
ω3	Urban events	0.203	2.272
ω4	Lifestyle transformation	0.367	3.499
R		0.603
R2		0.364
			p < 0.05

lists the results for factors that influenced urban memory in Suzhou. The highest influence was imposed by lifestyle transformation, with a mean of 0.367, while the lowest was found for urban transformation, with a mean of 0.138. As shown, ω was positive for all factors. Thus, H2 was supported (i.e., residence time, urban transformation, urban events, and lifestyle transformation influence urban memory among residents of Suzhou).

3.3. Subjective Cognition and Objective Knowledge in Suzhou

Table 7. The results of subjective-cognition-level grouping for Suzhou respondents.

Group	Number	Answer = Y’s Rate	Social-Participation Awareness, Average Value
High subjective-cognition level	75	73%	3.31
Low subjective-cognition level	50	43%	2.82

and

Table 8. The results of objective-knowledge-level grouping for Suzhou respondents.

Group	Number	Correct Rate	Social-Participation Awareness, Average Value
High objective-knowledge level	98	76%	3.29
Low objective-knowledge level	27	38%	2.48

list the results of our cluster analysis. As shown, 75 and 50 respondents were placed into the high and low subjective-cognition groups, respectively, while 98 and 27 were placed into the high and low objective-knowledge groups, respectively. We found higher social-participation awareness in the high subjective-cognition group (3.31) when compared to the low subjective-cognition group (2.82) as well as in the high objective-knowledge group (3.29) when compared to the low objective-knowledge group (2.48).

3.4. Social-Participation Awareness in Suzhou

Table 9. The results for factors that influenced social-participation awareness in Suzhou.

Parameter	Type	β	t
β0	Constant term	0.800	0.966
β1	Place identity	0.304	1.086
β2	Urban memory	0.108	0.280
β3	Correction items for place identity and urban memory	0.066	0.606
β4	Subjective-cognition level	0.076	0.727
β5	Objective-knowledge level	0.045	0.624
β6	Correction items for subjective-cognition and objective-knowledge levels	−0.013	−0.569
R		0.674
R2		0.455
			p < 0.05

lists the results for factors that influenced social-participation awareness in Suzhou. The highest influence was imposed by place identity, with a mean of 0.304, while the lowest was found for objective-knowledge level, with a mean of 0.045. As shown, β was positive for all factors. Thus, H3 was supported (i.e., place identity, urban memory, subjective cognition, and objective-knowledge level influence social participation awareness among residents of Suzhou).

3.5. Comparison of Suzhou’s Old and New Urban Areas

The results of comparison of influencing factors on place identity are show in

Table 10. Comparison of influencing factors on place identity’s average value.

	Old City	New City
Residence time	3.19	2.21
Community sentiment	3.44	3.30
Public space	3.53	3.50
Engel’s coefficient	2.44	2.49

. The residence time of respondents living in the new city (3.19) was significantly lower than that of the old city (2.21). There was a higher average value for community sentiment about the value of public space from respondents living in the old city, especially from those living close to the new city. However, the Engel’s coefficient in the new city (2.49) was slightly higher than in the old city (2.44).

In terms of urban memory, we found higher values for residence time, urban transformation, urban events, and lifestyle transition in the old city than in the new city (

Table 11. Comparison of factors that influenced urban memory (average value).

	Old Area	New Urban Area
Residence time	3.19	2.21
Urban transformation	3.38	3.27
Urban events	3.31	2.75
Lifestyle transition	3.28	3.15

).

Table 12. Average social-participation awareness in Suzhou’s old and new urban areas.

	Old Area	New Urban Area
Social-participation awareness	3.25	3.00
Place identity	3.42	3.37
Urban memory	3.22	2.90
Subjective cognition answer = Y’s Rate	66%	57%
Objective knowledge correct rate	72%	65%

shows the results for social-participation awareness in Suzhou’s old and new urban areas. As shown, this factor was higher for residents in the old area (3.25) than for those in the new urban area (3.00). Regardless of place identity or urban memory, we also found that residents in the old area had higher subjective cognition and objective knowledge than those in the new urban area.

4. Discussion and Conclusions

In Suzhou, H1 was unsupported, and the greatest influence on place identity was public space (0.376), where places and meanings embedded in existing social and cultural settings had been transformed through urban regeneration [57]. According to Gospodini’s [58] study of European cities, public space contributes to place identity, creating experimental new types of public space both enhancing place identity and promoting economic development of cities. This is also consistent with the results of this study. Public spaces tend to evoke place identity. For example, the traditional Suzhou gardens are both a source of urban heritage and a unique public space that represents the habits of residents, reflects local human relations, and exemplifies the strong character of the daily life environment [54]. Interestingly, we also found higher values for social-participation awareness and its various influencing factors in the old area when compared to the new urban area. The traditional Suzhou gardens still exist as fee-paying attractions. Most are located in the old area, which explains why place identity is stronger among its residents. As a common source of heritage for all Suzhou people, the Suzhou traditional gardens should abolish fees to increase public awareness, allow easier access, and create more space for local people to communicate. Urban heritage and cultural values are preserved and promoted when individuals develop a place identity with them. A strong sense of local identity facilitates the establishment of sustainable development models, as sustainable development is often based on the promotion of local identity [59].

At the same time, efforts should be made to enhance community sentiment by regular community activities (such as local history/cultural lectures, community cleanups, etc.) to shape a strong place identity, thus increasing local social-participation awareness. It is important to note that in multicultural countries such as America, community activities should respect different cultures, otherwise they may be counterproductive [60]. Pretty [61] believes that individual and shared community sentiments contribute to residents’ intention to stay in their town, which is an acceptable place in which to situate their sense of self.

Furthermore, as shown in Table 4, Engel’s coefficient had a significantly lower influence on place identity when compared to other factors in Suzhou, which is a side indication that income barely affects social-participation awareness in the context of urban-heritage conservation. This may be due to the fact that Suzhou is an economically developed city and people do not experience problems with food and clothing, which may be different in some third-world countries.

With respect to the aspect of urban memory, H2 was supported and lifestyle transformation had the greatest impact. Since China’s reform and opening up, rapid economic development has induced dramatic life changes for residents. However, those living in the same original communities have developed a common understanding, and are thoroughly aware of each other’s habits due to long periods of coexistence [62]. This form of mutual understanding is only achieved after a long time, and is very difficult to change. However, if the quantitative model of this study is applied to other countries with highly accomplished urbanization, lifestyle transformation may be less pronounced.

The average value of urban events was significantly higher in the old area of Suzhou when compared to the new urban area. This is likely because most traditional events (e.g., dragon-boat races and temple fairs) are held in the old area. More events should be considered in the new urban context. Combining the influences of lifestyle transformation, urban activities, and urban transformation on urban memory, we found that individual personal experiences had a stronger influence on urban memory, while transformations in the objective environment had a weaker influence. In addition to city events, this suggests that community development, local cultural lectures, and other experiential activities can also enhance urban memory. Ishimori [63] found that many people who experience community development begin to look forward to the next instance, possibly due to an increased sense of local pride inspired by such events. Moreover, the length of residence positively affected place identity and urban memory; in other words, the longer people live in a given place, the greater their social-participation awareness. In this regard, residents in Suzhou’s older areas have lived in the city longer than those in new urban areas, which has strengthened their place identity and urban memory.

Although subjective cognition and objective knowledge had weaker impacts than place identity and urban memory (Table 9), our cluster analysis showed a difference of 0.49 between the high and low subjective-cognition groups, as well as a difference of 0.71 between the high and low objective-knowledge groups. Thus, social-participation awareness significantly differed between groups (Table 7 and Table 8). These findings suggest that both subjective cognition and objective knowledge can strongly improve participation awareness in Suzhou. In addition, this supports Takase and Dorothea, who found that enhanced cognition could increase social-participation awareness in conversation activities [64,65]. However, Shirayanagi et al. [66] noted that too much objective knowledge may negatively impact social-participation awareness, although this did not occur in this study. This may be due to differences in the study sample, as Shirayanagi’s [66] research was conducted in the Japanese context, while this study surveyed Chinese respondents. To explain further, individuals who reside in different countries often have differences in thinking, basic education, and living environments. In this regard, the current study model will likely produce different results when applied to other areas.

Wang’s [67] study using the political analysis framework of “general will–particular will”, proposed that coordination between the cognitive level and the practical level is key to evaluating the level of public participation in participatory video intervention in urban planning. Pawlewicz [68] evaluated public participation in the rural municipalities of the Region of Warmia and Mazury and to analyze the influence of different participation categories, which describe local residents’ involvement in public affairs on the four levels of public participation: public action, public involvement, electoral participation, and obligatory participation. In contrast, this study provides a quantitative model of social-participation awareness of urban-heritage conservation. allowing a more objective determination of whether factors influence participation awareness and analysis of the magnitude of its influence. In a practical sense, experts can use this model to expand the possible influencing factors according to different regions (e.g., adding religious factors in countries with different faiths and adding identification with different cultures in multicultural countries), conduct surveys to quickly find the most influential factors, develop targeted policies based on the results, and increase the local social-participation awareness of urban-heritage conservation, thus promoting conservation efforts.

Focusing on conditions in Suzhou, H3 was supported and this study found that social-participation awareness affected urban-heritage conservation through positive correlations with place identity, urban memory, subjective cognition, and objective knowledge. Of these factors, place identity had the strongest impact, while the objective knowledge about local history had the weakest. From this perspective, enhancing place identity is the best way to increase social-participation awareness among residents of Suzhou.

This study also had some limitations, as we did not consider all known factors that may affect social-participation awareness about urban-heritage conservation. In order to mitigate the limitations present in the article and improve the effectiveness of the analysis developed, the authors plan to employ the following lines of future research: (1) Make more questionnaires and consider more impact factors such as the social status of the residents (gender, residency, age, etc.). (2) Establish a public evaluation system for existing urban-heritage conservation efforts, as satisfaction with existing efforts may also influence public awareness.