*2.2. Hypothesis*

On the premise of conforming to the law of Chinese Cultural Relics, according to the Coase Theorem, an operational model can be established to properly maintain the historical buildings as far as possible. In this governance model (Figure 1), the government is responsible for the management and maintenance of the historical buildings with public property rights, while the private property owners are responsible for the maintenance of their buildings. In this research, Pingjiang Historic Block is selected to test the feasibility of this model.

**Figure 1.** Governance Model for Historic Buildings Conservation. **Figure 1.** Governance Model for Historic Buildings Conservation.

### **3. Methodology 3. Methodology**

This research selected Pingjiang Historic Block as the test-bed object because the historical buildings in this district cover nearly all modes of property rights existing in China, which are highly concentrated in the current reconstruction of old cities, as well as in the protection and renewal of historical blocks in China [23]. The government has taken numerous effective measures to protect the historic block, such as the Protection and Restoration of Historical Buildings Project. It was highly praised for the revitalisation project. In 2005, UNESCO awarded the Asia-Pacific Heritage Award to the Pingjiang Historic Block. According to the organising committee, *'The revitalisation project is a commendable example of integrated urban rehabilitation, which has restored the physical, social and commercial fabric of one of China's most well-known waterway historic towns'* [24]. However, certain renovation projects still have been delayed owing to property rights issues. Pingjiang Historic Block is highly representative and is of prohibitive research value. The present study fo-This research selected Pingjiang Historic Block as the test-bed object because the historical buildings in this district cover nearly all modes of property rights existing in China, which are highly concentrated in the current reconstruction of old cities, as well as in the protection and renewal of historical blocks in China [23]. The government has taken numerous effective measures to protect the historic block, such as the Protection and Restoration of Historical Buildings Project. It was highly praised for the revitalisation project. In 2005, UNESCO awarded the Asia-Pacific Heritage Award to the Pingjiang Historic Block. According to the organising committee, *'The revitalisation project is a commendable example of integrated urban rehabilitation, which has restored the physical, social and commercial fabric of one of China's most well-known waterway historic towns'* [24]. However, certain renovation projects still have been delayed owing to property rights issues. Pingjiang Historic Block is highly representative and is of prohibitive research value. The present study focuses on the discussion of historical buildings with complex property rights structures.

cuses on the discussion of historical buildings with complex property rights structures. There are a total of 63 historic sites arranged along both sides of the street (Figure 2), including one material cultural World Heritage Site, one nonmaterial cultural World Heritage exhibit place, three national-level cultural relic protection units, and 15 provincial and municipal cultural relic protection units and controlled and protected buildings (as of 2015). The property rights analysis conducted in this study was based on real and accurate data. These sites provided a considerable number of research subjects [25,26]. Official data obtained from functional government departments would have been the best choice. However, the government claimed that it lacks accurate property rights data. Based on the literature, the property rights structure of several historical buildings in Suzhou are only recorded in the 'Protection and Utilisation of Controlled and Protected Buildings in the Ancient City of Suzhou'. However, obtaining property data that genuinely and thoroughly reflect the current state was difficult. Therefore, to fill this gap, the authors selected the Pingjiang Historic Block, which is a representative historic quarter, as a pilot for a field investigation for two years and discovered and sorted out information There are a total of 63 historic sites arranged along both sides of the street (Figure 2), including one material cultural World Heritage Site, one nonmaterial cultural World Heritage exhibit place, three national-level cultural relic protection units, and 15 provincial and municipal cultural relic protection units and controlled and protected buildings (as of 2015). The property rights analysis conducted in this study was based on real and accurate data. These sites provided a considerable number of research subjects [25,26]. Official data obtained from functional government departments would have been the best choice. However, the government claimed that it lacks accurate property rights data. Based on the literature, the property rights structure of several historical buildings in Suzhou are only recorded in the 'Protection and Utilisation of Controlled and Protected Buildings in the Ancient City of Suzhou'. However, obtaining property data that genuinely and thoroughly reflect the current state was difficult. Therefore, to fill this gap, the authors selected the Pingjiang Historic Block, which is a representative historic quarter, as a pilot for a field investigation for two years and discovered and sorted out information that contradicted certain literature descriptions.

that contradicted certain literature descriptions. The survey was based on the latest version of the Suzhou Pingjiang Historical and Cultural Street Protection Plan (2014) issued by the Suzhou Municipal Planning Bureau. In conjunction with the 'List of Suzhou Controlled and Protected Buildings' of the same year provided by the Suzhou Bureau of Cultural Relics, a field investigation was conducted in the 63 existing national, provincial, and municipal cultural relic protection units and controlled and protected buildings, which were set up by the Suzhou municipal government. Registered property right structures, households, resident compositions, the current protection situation, existing functions, and other aspects were also investigated.

Face-to-face interviews were conducted with experts, administrators, and residents (Table 1). The authors also visited competent government departments in Suzhou, including the Department of Housing Management; Department of Planning, Land and Resources Bureau; and Urban Construction Archives Bureau. A massive amount of firsthand material was obtained, documents with approximately 80,000 characters transcribed from audio recordings were compiled, and nearly 3000 photos and videos were sorted. The investigation lasted for two years of 2017–2019, and the data were updated in August 2019.

The survey was based on the latest version of the Suzhou Pingjiang Historical and

Cultural Street Protection Plan (2014) issued by the Suzhou Municipal Planning Bureau. **Table 1.** Interviewees in face-to-face interviews.


### **Category Name of Interviewees or Institutions 4. Results**

### Experts AA (expert in ancient city protection) *4.1. Survey Results*

 BB (director of China's Famous Historic and Cultural City Protection Research Academy) CC (expert in ancient city protection in Suzhou) DD (general manager of Suzhou Ancient City Investment and Construction Co., Ltd.) EE (director of Suzhou Pingjiang Historic District Protection and Maintenance Co., Ltd.) FF (director of Department of Planning of Suzhou University of Science and Technology) GG (founder of Cat's Castle in the Sky Concept Book Store) Departments Department of Housing Management Urban Construction Archives Bureau Department of Planning, The research results presented certain views that verified and corrected published literature. In the actual situation, records of the 63 historical relics in Pingjiang showed that 35 buildings were publicly owned, accounting for 55.6% of the total number of buildings. A total of 22 publicly and privately owned buildings had property rights, accounting for approximately 35%. However, six buildings were privately owned, accounting for 9.5% of the total (Table 2). Among the controlled and protected buildings, 40 public houses were under the direct administration of the Housing Management Department, accounting for 63.5% of all historical relics. This portion was mainly used as low-rent houses provided for low-income families in Suzhou.


**Table 2.** Property rights of historical relics in Pingjiang Historic Block (summarised by the authors).

These survey results indicated that the property rights of the privately owned buildings, which accounted for 9.5%, were clear and that these buildings were in a satisfactory condition and beautiful after proper maintenance. Moreover, these buildings were the most fortunate of the 63 buildings in terms of protection. As for public houses and buildings under controlled protection with property rights shared by public and private entities, which accounted for 63.5% of the total number of buildings, excessive use by numerous residents was apparent. Meanwhile, given the unclear property rights of owners and users, the severe shortage of protection funds, and serious inappropriate construction issues, the completeness, appearance, and structural stability of buildings under controlled protection were considerably affected.

According to the actual situation surveyed, the hypothesis model should be expanded. There are three forms of property rights in this model: publicly owned, privately owned and publicly and privately owned. Among them, the public property rights were owned by the Housing Administration Bureau, Public Institutions, and jointly owned by the Housing Administration Bureau and Public Institutions. Private property rights remained unchanged, that is, those of private property owners. The public and private ownership rights were owned by the Housing Administration Bureau and the private property owners, jointly owned by Public Institutions and the private property owners, and jointly owned by the Housing Administration Bureau, Public Institutions and the private property owners (see Table 2).
