Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Historic neighborhoods are crucial repositories of a city’s cultural heritage. However, during urban renewal and development, the emphasis often falls on physical preservation and renovation, leading to the neglect of the “collective memory” inherent in this cultural heritage. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the current status of collective memory conservation and inheritance in historic neighborhoods and try to analyze the influencing factors to contribute to the development of more effective strategies for collective memory inheritance. To achieve this, an in-depth survey was conducted among 165 residents of the Huilongwo Historic Neighborhood in Xuzhou, Jiangsu Province, China. The results reveal three key findings: (1) There is a significant positive correlation between the age of memory subjects and the preservation and transmission of collective memory objects; (2) The age of the collective subject can notably impact the preservation and dissemination of certain non-material collective memory objects; and (3) The preservation and inheritance of material memory objects tend to be more robust compared to non-material memory objects. Finally, this study explores the potential of immersive technologies, such as mixed reality (MR) and virtual reality (VR), in enhancing the preservation and dissemination of collective memory in historic neighborhoods.

Keywords

cultural heritage Huilongwo historic neighborhood collective memory immersive technologies preservation and inheritance

Introduction

Historical neighborhoods are an important part of the basic urban landscape. They are usually located in the center of the city and represent the foundational locus where its identity takes shape (Jiang et al., 2023). Serving as structural evidence of urban heritage, these neighborhoods possess not only historic and cultural significance but also embody distinctive architectural and lifestyle characteristics (Mehanna & Mehanna, 2019). Because their cultural richness often makes them key tourist destinations and focal points for heritage-based tourism (Jiang et al., 2023). In 2015, the United Nations General Assembly adopted the Sustainable Development Goals, which include a specific target to “strengthen efforts to protect and safeguard the world’s cultural and natural heritage” (Petti et al., 2020). For example, the European Union designated Matera as the 2019 European Capital of Culture to promote cultural heritage preservation and economic growth. Similarly, in Iran, the historic and cultural heritage of Hamedan has contributed to local economic development, while economic prosperity, in turn, has stimulated the revitalization of Hamedan’s historic core, reinforcing collective memory and enhancing the overall quality of the region (Mehanna & Mehanna, 2019).

The essence of collective memory lies in its status as a form of social heritage (Bădescu, 2019). Collective memory is a representation of the past shared by members of a group, such as a generation or people of a country. French sociologist Maurice Halbwachs, the father of this concept, stated in 1925 that “… remembering is shaped by participation in collective life and that different groups generate different accounts of the past” (Halbwachs, 1925). It has applications in various fields, including the study of nationalism, ritualization, and commemoration in anthropology and sociology (Lak & Hakimian, 2019). The collective memory system is composed of a memory subject and a memory object (Assmann, 2009). Chinese scholars Zhu and Wu (2013) have defined the concepts of the subject and object of collective memory: “The memory subject refers to the collective of individuals engaged in actions and social practices within a specific region; the memory object pertains to the content recorded and preserved by different social groups as they document the history of life during long-term social activities in a particular area.” The needs and social behaviors of the memory subject are shaped by specific environmental contexts. Influenced by factors such as changes in the natural environment, population mobility, and cultural background, the memory subject develops material and cultural social needs. The memory subject acts on the memory object through social behavior (Wang & Sun, 2015). The unity and interaction of the two constitute a collective memory system. For this study, the investigated memory objects are divided in accordance with the aforementioned conceptual distinction between “memory subjects” and “memory objects.”

Today, the rapid urban development has resulted in considerable changes in the natural environment, activities, and place experiences (Lak & Hakimian, 2019). The historic neighborhoods are also changing, the cultural heritage and emotional connections they embody remain intact. These elements are integral to the collective memory of local residents and serve as a crucial foundation for their emotional experience within the space. The collective memory within the neighborhood is also a part of the city’s cultural heritage. Currently, Architectural heritage is regarded as the tangible manifestation of historic culture (Hu et al.,2024). It should be noted that cultural heritage is regarded as a collection encompassing both material and immaterial objects (Viejo-Rose, 2015). Therefore, merely emphasizing the protection and renewal of material heritage is insufficient to achieve the reproduction and dissemination of the collective memory of historic neighborhoods (Azad & Partovi, 2012). Currently, intangible cultural heritage is increasingly being promoted through digital technologies (Hou et al., 2022), including augmented reality (AR), virtual reality (VR), and mixed reality (MR) and 3D modeling technologies (Champion & Rahaman, 2019; Velhinho & Almeida, 2023). For instance, in a children’s literature museum in the United Kingdom, AR serves as an interactive medium facilitating collaboration between experts and young visitors (ages 7–11) (Arrigoni et al., 2020). Similarly, a VR/AR multi-modal application has been developed to enhance the experience of a cultural heritage monument on Jeju Island, South Korea (Jung et al., 2020).

Although digital technologies have been extensively applied in the documentation and presentation of cultural heritage, particularly in large-scale digital museums. However, less attention has been paid to the “living inheritance” of collective memory within specific historic neighborhoods. Therefore, this study chose the Huilongwo historic neighborhood, a renowned historic area in China, as the research area. The study was conducted from two aspects: the collective memory subjects and the memory objects of the Huilongwo historic neighborhood. It also aimed to answer the following three questions:

Which collective memory objects of the existing collective memory objects in the Huilongwo historic neighborhood are better preserved and inherited?

Which aspect of the memory subject would affect the inheritance of collective memory objects in the Huilongwo historic neighborhood?

Which digital technology should be utilized to enhance the preservation and dissemination of collective memory in the Huilongwo historic neighborhood?

Literature Review and Research Framework

Preservation and Inheritance of Historic Neighborhoods

UNESCO (1972) World Heritage Center has defined “Word Heritage” as “Heritage is our legacy from the past, what we live with today, and what we pass on to future generations.” In August 1933, the Athens Charter defined the concept of historic neighborhoods (Corbusier & Eardley, 1973). Due to the large number of ancient buildings in Italy, its domestic architects proposed to increase the protection of valuable buildings and neighborhoods. In this period, the protection of historic buildings was taken as the theme.

Urban historic heritage is mainly comprised of monuments, historic residential areas, historic city centers and non-tangible elements, with a role for the articulation of use of space and the built environment. The authorities of China have enacted relevant policy for approving the establishment of “traditional historic neighborhoods” and proposed protection objects, that are “neighborhoods, buildings, towns and villages that be concentrated on cultural relics or can fully reflect the traditional feature and local characteristics during a historic period” (T. Zhou et al., 2017) . In China, the official adoption of the concept of “Historical and cultural neighborhoods” originated from “Law of the People’s Republic of China on the Protection of Cultural Relics” passed in October 2002 (Rong & Li, 2023) . Since then, the maintenance of historic neighborhoods has been recognized by law, and its definition is more clearly defined in the 2005 “Standard of Conservation Planning for historic City.” According to the document’s specification of the characteristics of “Historical neighborhoods,” it can be summarized into the following aspects:

It has a relatively complete historic landscape;

Most of the buildings and environments within the scope of historic features should be original objects left over from history;

The area of the historic neighborhoods shall not be less than 1 hectare;

The area of cultural relics and historic buildings in the historic protection area should meet more than 60% of the total land area.

According to residents’ opinion, and based on the codes and respecting to the values, change in historic neighborhood are four criteria “Respecting for and preservation of historic and cultural value of the neighborhood,”“Preservation and upgrading the current value of the neighborhood,”“Public participation,” and “The use of criteria what value to building of neighborhood for new design” (Poursarrajian, 2015). Consequently, the developmental path of historic neighborhoods must revolve around preserving their urban identity, safeguarding existing heritage, and addressing the needs of residents (Mehanna & Mehanna, 2019). The accumulated memory of historic neighborhoods can be leveraged to establish a profound interactive relationship with the public and enhance public appreciation of history and culture. Ultimately, the preservation and continuation of culture can be realized.

Preservation and Inheritance of Collective Memory

It is the French sociologist Maurice Halbwachs (1925) who first proposed the concept of “collective memory.” He also argues that urban space is the structure of collective memory: “the space a group occupies is not like a blackboard, where one may write and erase the figures at will.” It also asserts that “collective memory is inherently social and communal experiences serve as its foundation” (Halbwachs, 1992). Mumford (1961) once mentioned in his masterpiece The City in History that cities exist by memory. Each memory is anchored in a specific group of people within a particular time and space (Confino, 1997). Similarly, Sak argues that the interaction between urban space and its inhabitants is central to the formation of collective memory (Sak & Senyapili, 2019). The systematic composition of collective memory includes memory subject and memory object (Assmann, 2009), which are affected by time factors and continuously carry out the construction process of collective memory generation, continuation, and reconstruction. In “The Image of the City,”Kevin Lynch (1964) introduced the concept of the “cognitive map,” detailing how individuals perceive and organize spatial information in urban environments. He identified five fundamental elements that constitute these mental representations: paths, edges, neighborhoodss, nodes, and landmarks. Lynch (1976) also asserted that historic buildings serve as representations of different eras within a city’s evolution.

Throughout social evolution, collective memory has emerged as a defining characteristic that distinguishes one city from another. The preservation of these physical environments as vessels for memory formation facilitates the reproduction of collective memories within public spaces (Azad & Partovi, 2012, H. Zhou et al., 2024). However, solely emphasizing the physical environment cannot achieve the preservation and inheritance of collective memory; attention must also be directed toward the interaction between people and space. Human interactions within urban spaces foster a deeper connection between individuals, places, and experiences (Lak & Hakimian, 2019). Sak and Senyapili (2019) assert that the interaction between urban spaces and individuals forms the crux of collective memory (Sak & Senyapili, 2019). Lak and Hakimian (2019) contends that collective memory evolves through interconnected relationships, with individuals engaging with their surroundings and activities rooted in shared history. As users navigate their environments through specific activities, they elevate human experiences, giving rise to new memories (Lak & Hakimian, 2019).

The sense of place attachment and identity shaped by collective memory varies according to certain demographic variables. Gender appears to have little impact; in some studies, men and women demonstrate similar levels of place attachment (Lewicka, 2005). In contrast, age exerts a significant influence on place belonging and place identity (Ng et al., 2005; Pretty et al., 2003), primarily through the duration of residence (Knez, 2005; Lewicka, 2005). Research in environmental psychology further indicates that attachment to the local environment tends to strengthen with age (Clark et al., 2024). This is largely because older individuals accumulate longer and more intensive daily interactions, as well as personal experiences connected to the local environment. These factors make collective memory more prominent and easier to recall among older populations. Therefore, in this study, we prioritize examining the role of age in the preservation and inheritance of collective memory.

Using Digital Technology to Preservation and Inheritance Collective Memories

The inheritance of collective memory is significant not only for disseminating cultural information but also for fostering social communication, shared meaning, and the construction of knowledge. However, if the regeneration of historic neighborhoods merely replicates the physical environment, there is a risk of neglecting the richness of their history, culture, and collective memory (Azad & Partovi, 2012). Preservation efforts must therefore shift from safeguarding static structures to promoting a participatory form of “living inheritance,” as memory is a vivid narrative and an expression of intergenerational transmission (Velhinho & Almeida, 2023). Collective memory requires ongoing recreation and active participation, and digital technology can play a crucial role in this process.

In recent years, the advancement of digital technologies, such as Augmented Reality (AR), Virtual Reality (VR), and Mixed Reality (MR), has created new possibilities for preserving and disseminating collective memory, enabling its reinforcement within relevant spatial contexts. Carefully designed applications can offer novel and intuitive user experiences. For example, location-based Augmented Reality (LBAR) aligns digital annotations with the physical environment (Kleftodimos et al., 2023). By integrating collective memory with spatial settings, LBAR enhances both the accessibility and engagement of collective memory.

VR enhances sensory-motor engagement and narrative immersion. This approach not only makes exhibitions more attractive but also enables the dissemination of broader cultural information to the public, as participants often report greater enjoyment when experiencing the immersive environment of a virtual museum (Baker et al., 2020; Partarakis et al., 2021). For collective memory, immersive and interactive experiences are particularly effective because they can reproduce multi-sensory daily activities and festival rituals in situ.

AR, by contrast, allows visitors to shift from a purely physical experience to a digitally enriched one within a multi-dimensional environment, thereby enabling exploration from new perspectives (García Münzer, 2020; Trunfio et al., 2020). AR technology can reconstruct invisible aspects of intangible cultural heritage by overlaying tangible cultural elements (Moira & Makris, 2021) and by facilitating interactive learning of ICH (Tan et al., 2020). It also enhances the safeguarding of intangible heritage (Lang et al., 2019). For example, the Museum of the Second World War in Gdańsk, Poland, uses the immersive VR experience Postcard from the Uprising to establish an effective memory regime (Kazlauskaitė, 2022). Similarly, researchers applied AR narratives to recreate historic wartime events at Omaha Beach (Zhao & Ren, 2022). In Shuitingmen’s historic neighborhood in Quzhou City, Zhejiang Province, digital technologies have been employed to foster deeper interaction between individuals and society, thereby reinforcing a unique sense of belonging (X. Li, 2020). At the same time, 3D modeling has shown strong potential for digital preservation (Campi et al., 2019; Chatzigrigoriou et al., 2021; Mongelli et al., 2021).

Therefore, the use of digital technologies—including VR, AR, and MR—is essential for preserving and transmitting collective memory. These technologies can enhance public perception in situ, deepen embodied experiences, and expand the scope of collective participation. Such conditions are precisely what enable collective memories to achieve “living inheritance” within dynamic urban environments.

Research Framework

To preservation and inheritance the collective memory of the Huilongwo historic neighborhood, it is crucial to first assess the current situation before suggesting design interventions. The research framework is shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Analytical framework.

Methodology

This study employed a mixed-methods approach, combining qualitative and quantitative research. The qualitative component involved literature analysis and field investigations, while the quantitative component was conducted through questionnaire surveys. Data collection proceeded in two stages. In the first stage, literature analysis and field investigations were primarily used to examine the historical development of Huilongwo and related materials on collective memory. The main sources included local literature from Xuzhou, such as historical documents and regional media materials. Collective memory elements identified in these sources were precisely geolocated on maps of the Huilongwo historic neighborhood to track their evolution and transformation over time. Simultaneously, field investigations were conducted to assess the current state of the neighborhoods and identify existing collective memory elements. The findings from this stage provided the foundation for designing the questionnaire used in the second stage.

In the second stage, a survey was administered to respondents to explore their perceptions of Huilongwo’s collective memory based on personal experiences. Participants were selected based on their direct interaction with the space, ensuring that the sample comprised individuals with first-hand knowledge of the neighborhoods.

Research Questions

The quantitative component of this study aims to examine the current state of preservation and transmission of collective memory in the Huilongwo historic neighborhood. Based on the research questions, the following hypotheses were formulated:

H1: The preservation and transmission of collective memory in the Huilongwo historic neighborhood are currently at a relatively weak level and require further strengthening.

H2: In the Huilongwo historic neighborhood, the age of the memory subjects influences the preservation and transmission of collective memory elements.

H3: Among the various collective memory elements in the Huilongwo historic neighborhood, familiarity with material memory objects is generally higher than that with non-material memory objects.

Research Areas

The study site for this research is the Huilongwo historic neighborhood, located in the Yunlong District of Xuzhou City, Jiangsu Province, covering a total area of 23,000 square meters. Historically known as Pengcheng, Xuzhou is situated in the southeast of the North China Plain and the northwest of Jiangsu Province. The city has a civilization history of over 6,000 years and an urban construction history of approximately 2,600 years (Lin & Luo, 2022). As the birthplace of Chinese Han culture, Xuzhou is also referred to as “the Athens of the East” due to its profound historical background (Sun & Guo, 2004).

The Huilongwo historic neighborhood have functioned as a residential area since the Qing Dynasty and form an integral part of the old Xuzhou historic and cultural district. With a history spanning more than 300 years, they stand as a testament to the city’s historical context (Chen, 2018). The neighborhoods preserve traditional Xuzhou architectural features and elements in their entirety, reflecting significant historical value and embodying the essence of “old Xuzhou” (Liu & Liu, 2014). Rich in historic and cultural resources, the area contains ancient wells, old trees, and remnants of the city wall of Old Pengcheng, all of which evoke the memory of the city’s past (Figure 2). Within the Huilongwo historic neighborhood, the Xuzhou City Wall Museum further showcases the remarkable legacy of Han culture. Collectively, these abundant historical and cultural assets contribute to a deep and enduring sense of collective memory.

Figure 2.

Environmental photos of Huilongwo historic neighborhood (Official photo + Self-shoot).

Research Participants

The survey was conducted in the Huilongwo historic neighborhood between June and September 2024. To ensure a representative sample of the diverse population, questionnaires were distributed using a random selection method. Participants were informed that the survey would take approximately 10 min to complete and were briefed on its purpose, content, and requirements. A total of 165 individuals participated, yielding 146 valid responses and an effective response rate of 88.48%. Questionnaires were excluded if incomplete or if respondents were unable to finish within the allotted time. According to Lothian (1999), a sample size exceeding 30 participants is generally sufficient to produce reliable evaluation outcomes. Thus, the survey design met the experimental requirements, with results summarized in Table 1.

Table 1.

The Demographic Characteristics of the Participants Were Evaluated by the Collective Memory Questionnaire.

Attribute characteristics	Age	Number of people	Total percentage (%)
Age/year	Under 18	7	4.79
	19–40	45	30.82
	41–60	59	40.41
	61–80	31	21.23
	Over	4	2.74
	Total	146
Have you ever lived in the Huilongwo historic neighborhood?	Yes, long lived here.	70	47.95
	Long time away, lived here occasionally.	34	23.29
	Never lived there.	42	28.77
	Total	146

Among the respondents, seven participants were under 18 years of age. In these cases, informed consent was obtained from their legal guardians, and assent was secured from the minors themselves. Participation was voluntary, anonymity was guaranteed, and respondents were informed of their right to withdraw at any time.

Research Instruments

First, for the qualitative component, a diverse collection of materials reflecting the collective memory of the Huilongwo historic neighborhood was gathered, including newspapers, old photographs, recordings, and field investigations. We categorize historic documents based on multiple dimensions such as time, place, person, event, and activity.

Secondly, this study utilizes a questionnaire as research instrument, structured for self-assessment by respondents (Table 2). The questionnaire is divided into two sections: Section A, titled “Collective Memory Survey Questionnaire—Basic Information of Memory Subjects,” and Section B, titled “Collective Memory Questionnaire—Knowledge of Memory Objects.”

Table 2.

Collective Memory Questionnaire and Its Quantification Method.

(A) Collective memory survey questionnaire—Basic information of memory subjects
What’s your age?	Under 18	19–40	41–60	61–80		Over 80
Have you ever lived in the Huilongwo historic neighborhood?	Yes, long lived here.		Long time away, lived here occasionally.			Never lived there.
(B) Collective memory questionnaire—Knowledge of memory objects
		Score
Memory objects		1	2	3	4	5
Historical memory	Village name, site selection, area, population, and other basic information	Very unfamiliar	Relatively unfamiliar	Neutral	Relatively familiar	Very familiar with
Spatial memory	Village residential buildings, public buildings, streets, interior space	Very unfamiliar	Relatively unfamiliar	Neutral	Relatively familiar	Very familiar with
	Religious temples, historic sites, former residences of famous people	Very unfamiliar	Relatively unfamiliar	Neutral	Relatively familiar	Very familiar with
	Square, ancient and famous trees, garden landscape	Very unfamiliar	Relatively unfamiliar	Neutral	Relatively familiar	Very familiar with
National memory	Food, specialty, agricultural, and sideline products	Very unfamiliar	Relatively unfamiliar	Neutral	Relatively familiar	Very familiar with
National memory	Clothing, food, housing, transportation, and other daily production and life scenes	Very unfamiliar	Relatively unfamiliar	Neutral	Relatively familiar	Very familiar with
Cultural memory	Festival customs, traditional culture, folk art, celebration ceremony	Very unfamiliar	Relatively unfamiliar	Neutral	Relatively familiar	Very familiar with
	Famous historic figures, biographies	Very unfamiliar	Relatively unfamiliar	Neutral	Relatively familiar	Very familiar with
	Village records, ancient books, poems, legends, biographies	Very unfamiliar	Relatively unfamiliar	Neutral	Relatively familiar	Very familiar with
	Government policy, village planning, village rules, and covenants	Very unfamiliar	Relatively unfamiliar	Neutral	Relatively familiar	Very familiar with

Given the broad influence of collective memory and public spaces, the perception and experience of collective memory can often be abstract. Relying solely on a single-dimensional index system could lead to inaccuracies in evaluation results. To mitigate this, the study draws on the research of Chinese scholar Huang (2023), who categorizes the elements of collective memory in Huilongwo historic neighborhood into four primary indicators: historic memory (Kohler et al., 2015; Lekakis & Dragouni, 2020), spatial memory (Fang, 2020), national memory (Iwamoto & Wang, 2010), and cultural memory (Haartsen & Strijker, 2010). These categories are further refined into 10 specific types of memory objects, such as basic village information, residential buildings, and scenes of daily life.

To mitigate the risk of respondent fatigue and resistance, which could compromise data accuracy (Zhao & Tang, 2020) the questionnaire is meticulously designed. Section A gathers basic demographic information, with respondents’ ages quantitatively processed and assigned numerical values using a 5-point Likert scale: under 18 years old = 1, 19 to 40 years old = 2, 41 to 60 years old = 3, 61 to 80 years old = 4, and over 80 years old = 5. Section B evaluates respondents’ familiarity with the identified memory objects. In this section, respondents rate their familiarity with each memory object on a scale from “very unfamiliar” to “very familiar,” with scores ranging from 1 to 5.

Results

Overall Statistical Data Analysis

Reliability analysis often employs Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient method to assess the reliability of questionnaires. SPSS 22.0 software was utilized to analyze the reliability of the experimental data from the B questionnaire’s collective memory object familiarity survey. The Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for the collective memory survey questionnaire was calculated to be .914, indicating the high reliability of the questionnaire results and enabling further analysis.

Validity analysis is employed to assess the accuracy and appropriateness of the data obtained from the questionnaire. This experiment focuses on verifying the validity of the questionnaire structure, thus structural validity analysis is chosen, and the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) value is utilized to measure the validity of the questionnaire. The validity analysis was performed on the experimental data from the survey on the familiarity of collective memory objects in Questionnaire B. The questionnaire’s validity was determined to be 0.888. The evaluation results indicate that the questionnaire structure is effective and reasonable.

Current Situation Analysis on the Preservation and Inheritance of Collective Memory Objects in the Huilongwo Historic Neighborhood

Collective memory carriers can be material, such as monuments, buildings, and other material objects; they can also be Immaterial memory objects, such as collective memory related to daily life (Liao & Dai, 2020). Therefore, the 10 types of memory objects identified in this study are categorized into material and immaterial memory objects. A statistical analysis was then conducted on the preservation and transmission of these 10 types of collective memory objects within the four categories of the Huilongwo historic Neighborhood (Table 3). The following conclusions were drawn.

Table 3.

Questionnaire B—Collective Memory Survey—An Analysis of the Familiarity of Memory Objects.

Material memory objects	Score
	1		2		3		4		5		Average score
	Very unfamiliar		Relatively unfamiliar		Neutral		Relatively familiar		Very familiar with
	Number of people	Total percent-age (%)	Number of people	Total percent-age (%)	Number of people	Total percent-age (%)	Number of people	Total percent-age (%)	Number of people	Total percent-age (%)
Village residential buildings, public buildings, streets, interior space	10	6.85	19	13.01	63	43.15	32	21.92	22	15.07	3.25
Religious temples, historic sites, former residences of famous people	10	6.85	12	8.22	60	41.1	40	27.4	24	16.44	3.38
Square, ancient and famous trees, garden landscape	10	6.85	15	10.27	56	38.36	42	28.77	23	15.75	3.36
Food, specialty, agricultural, and sideline products	5	3.42	11	7.53	45	30.82	55	37.67	30	20.55	3.64
Immaterial memory objects	Score
	1		2		3		4		5		Average score
	Very unfamiliar		Relatively unfamiliar		Neutral		Relatively familiar		Very familiar with
	Number of people	Total percent-age (%)	Number of people	Total percent-age (%)	Number of people	Total percent-age (%)	Number of people	Total percent-age (%)	Number of people	Total percent-age (%)
Village name, site selection, area, population, and other basic information	8	5.48	21	14.38	58	39.73	37	25.34	22	15.07	3.30
Clothing, food, housing, transportation, and other daily production and life scenes	4	2.74	9	6.16	50	34.25	56	38.36	27	18.49	3.64
Festival customs, traditional culture, folk art, celebration ceremony	6	4.11	10	6.85	51	34.93	53	36.3	26	17.81	3.57
Famous historic figures, biographies	13	8.9	12	8.22	52	35.62	47	32.19	22	15.07	3.36
Village records, ancient books, poems, legends, biographies	13	8.9	14	9.59	64	43.84	35	23.97	20	13.7	3.24
Government policy, village planning, village rules, and covenants	13	8.9	20	13.7	59	40.41	30	20.55	24	16.44	3.22

Note. Data for this survey are reserved to two decimal places.

The survey findings reveal significant differences in how residents of the Huilongwo historic neighborhood perceive and retain various categories of collective memory. Respondents assigned the highest ratings to two categories of collective memory objects: material objects such as food and distinctive items, and immaterial objects such as clothing and food, both achieving an average score of 3.64. The largest number of respondents also reported being highly familiar with these memory points. This suggests that memory objects closely tied to daily life are more readily remembered and transmitted. Such daily experiences play a vital role in maintaining cultural continuity, as they are deeply embedded in everyday practices and frequently reinforced through repeated interactions (Ireland et al., 2025).

Memory objects related to festival customs and traditional culture also scored relatively high, with an average of 3.57. Although slightly lower than those associated with daily life, these forms of intangible cultural heritage are still easily remembered due to their strong social interactivity and collective participation. Engagement in festival activities fosters collective identity and strengthens the sustainability of collective memory through shared performances (Abbasian, 2023) and symbolic meanings (Liao & Dai, 2020).

In contrast, the average scores for memory objects such as villages, residential buildings, religious temples, squares, and historic figures ranged from 3.3 to 3.4. This indicates that unique physical memory objects—such as buildings and natural landscapes in the surrounding area—as well as cultural memory objects such as historic figures and biographies, are also retained and transmitted. These physical places can be activated as memory carriers through interpretive approaches such as digital reconstruction and participatory interaction (Innocente et al., 2023; Silva et al., 2023). Although tangible heritage has persistence at the visual and material level, its role as a memory carrier appears weaker than that of daily practices and religious rituals.

Abstract cultural figures and rural chronicles received the lowest evaluations, with average scores ranging from 3.22 to 3.25, and the highest proportion of “very unfamiliar” responses (8.9%). This suggests that such memory objects attract less attention in daily life and highlights the difficulty of transmitting intangible forms of collective memory that are not integrated into personal experiences.

Overall, the findings show that collective memory objects more closely connected to residents’ daily life and practices are more likely to be remembered and passed down. However, as none of the categories exceeded an average score of 4, the preservation and transmission of Huilongwo’s collective memory remain fragile and require further strengthening.

Influence of the Age of the Memory Subject on the Preservation and Inheritance of Collective Memory Objects in the Huilongwo Historic Neighborhood

The subject of collective memory refers to groups of individuals engaged in participatory actions and social practices within a specific region (Zhu & Wu, 2013). It is shaped by the social needs of individuals, who act upon memory objects through social behavior. These needs and behaviors are further influenced by contextual factors such as population mobility, cultural background, and age.

This study focused on residents of the Xuzhou region, who serve as the primary custodians of collective memory in the Huilongwo historic neighborhood. Age-stratified analysis of the 146 valid questionnaires revealed a clear correlation between respondents’ age and their familiarity with the collective memory of Huilongwo. The oldest cohort (>80 years) reported the highest average scores across all categories, while the 61 to 80 age group also demonstrated considerable familiarity, particularly in daily life domains such as clothing, food, housing, and transportation, where average scores approached 4.0. By contrast, the youngest cohort (≤18 years) recorded the lowest average scores across most categories.

The relatively low scores among younger respondents may reflect two interrelated factors: limited exposure to cultural heritage over the course of their lives, and fewer years of residence in Huilongwo, which reduced their participation in traditional customs and restricted the accumulation of collective memory. This pattern suggests that daily exposure frequency and place attachment—both of which strengthen with age—are key drivers of the preservation and transmission of local collective memory. Prior research supports this interpretation, noting that everyday heritage, or cultural elements embedded in daily practices, is particularly effective for sustaining the reproduction of social memory (Ireland et al., 2025; Figure 3).

Figure 3.

The average score of knowledge degree of collective memory objects at five age stages (± standard error).

SPSS 22.0 was used to conduct a one-way ANOVA, and the results are presented in Figure 4. Among the 10 types of collective memory objects in the Huilongwo historic neighborhood, age showed a significant effect on four categories (p < .05).

Figure 4.

One-way analysis of variance between age and familiarity of collective memory objects in the Huilongwo historic neighborhood.

These include three types of immaterial memory objects—daily production and life scenes, festival customs, and famous historic figures—underscoring the role of everyday activities (e.g., food, scenes, and customs) in sustaining collective memory. Such practices are generally transmitted through long-term embodiment and intergenerational participation. However, the lower familiarity reported by younger groups suggests that shifts in modern lifestyles are weakening the continuity of these memories.

Age also had a significant influence on one type of material memory object, namely, religious temples, former residences of celebrities, and historic sites. By contrast, the effects on the remaining six categories were not statistically significant (p > .05). Notably, village buildings, squares, and similar entities primarily represent collective memory in material form. This suggests that age exerts greater influence on the preservation and transmission of certain immaterial collective memory carriers, while some material memory objects, supported by physical forms or archival records, remain relatively unaffected.

Influence of Different Collective Memory Objects on the Preservation and Inheritance of Collective Memory Carriers in Huilongwo Historic Neighborhood

Memory object is the medium of preservation and inheritance of local history and culture, which is endowed with the cultural connotation of connecting social groups. It includes material objects such as architectural sites, urban texture, and landscape, as well as immaterial objects such as language, poetry, folk art, and oral history.

In this research, the memory objects are divided into two categories (Figure 5): (1) 4 types of material memory objects, including village residential buildings, religious temples, and squares; (2) 6 types of immaterial memory objects, including village names, festival customs, food and daily production and life scene, famous historic figures, village histories, and village planning. The 146 valid questionnaires were divided according to the categories of memory objects, and the average scores were shown in Figure 5. The results show that the familiarity of material memory objects is generally higher than that of non-material memory objects. In addition to non-material memory objects such as holiday customs, the average score is higher.

Figure 5.

The average score of different memory objects.

Discussion

Differences Among Collective-Memory Objects and Their Implications for Preservation and Inheritance

Collective memory construction is shaped by the needs of memory subjects within a specific social framework. Through social participation and practical activities, individuals acquire memory objects and engage in behaviors that continually produce, forget, or reconstruct them as the city evolves. Moreover, memory objects vary across different areas, serving as important expressions of a city’s cultural identity.

Our empirical results reveal a clear pattern: material memory objects (e.g., buildings, squares, architectural sites) are associated with higher familiarity and higher average scores than most immaterial objects. However, certain immaterial memory objects that are repeatedly practiced in public life (e.g., festival customs) also achieve relatively high scores compared with other immaterial objects.

This can be attributed to the prioritization of activities and functions embedded in material space, which play a crucial role in reproducing collective memory (Azad & Partovi, 2012). Two key factors help explain this phenomenon. (1) Visibility: material memory objects are physically present within the urban fabric, such as architectural heritage, which embodies historical and cultural significance (Hu et al., 2024). They receive continuous, incidental exposure—people pass facades, walk through squares, and encounter monuments. Such visibility provides a low-cost, high-frequency reinforcement of recognition and memory, making these objects more easily recalled across age groups. (2) Recordability and documentation: architectural and landscape objects are easily preserved in durable forms such as photographs, maps, 3D scans, and archival records. This ensures their continuity and facilitates the wide transmission of collective knowledge.

Intangible memory objects that are frequently expressed in public life—such as food, clothing, daily activities, and festival customs—also receive relatively high scores, both within their category and in comparison with other intangible items. This greater familiarity likely arises from repeated daily practice and reinforcement through tourism media. Festival rituals, in particular, are performed publicly, provide shared rehearsal opportunities, and are often incorporated into formal programming and cultural tourism. These processes enhance social visibility, reinforce collective scripts, and create opportunities for intergenerational learning. By contrast, certain intangible objects—such as village chronicles, ancient texts, biographies, and village plans identified in this study—face greater challenges of preservation and transmission, often due to limitations in communication media and the dispersed, practice-dependent nature of their reproduction. Research suggests that interactive digital interfaces (e.g., AR systems applied in festival exhibitions) can enhance cultural cognition and engagement (X. Z. Li et al., 2022). Accordingly, the application of digital technologies offers promising pathways for preserving and disseminating collective memory, enabling more authentic transmission of historical knowledge, cultural practices, social interactions, and shared meanings.

The Relationship Between the Age of the Memory Subject and the Preservation and Inheritance of Collective Memory Objects in Huilongwo Historic Neighborhood

The present study reveals a consistent association between respondent age and familiarity with collective memory objects: older cohorts report greater familiarity and stronger preservation and inheritance across most categories, with age exerting a particularly pronounced influence on immaterial forms of memory.

Several factors help explain this pattern. First is the accumulation of daily activities. Everyday life serves as both a “field” of experience (Ireland et al., 2025) and an opportunity to “link the smallest story to the largest social transformation” (Back, 2015). Older residents have engaged in many more years of embodied participation in daily routines (work, markets, domestic life) and recurrent events (rituals, festivals). Repeated, context-rich exposure reinforces associative and autobiographical traces for place-based memories, making these memory objects more accessible and retrievable later in life.

Second is custodianship and intergenerational transmission. Elders often act as custodians, actively passing on local narratives, skills, and practices through storytelling, apprenticeship, and ritual participation (Rubin et al., 2024). Such activities not only strengthen identity and enhance well-being but also sustain intergenerational social connections that preserve collective memory.

Third, the Huilongwo historic neighborhood have undergone substantial change over time, including alterations in the natural environment, population dynamics, and cultural landscape. Buildings have been demolished, street layouts modified, and populations shifted. Reliance on traditional media and mechanisms—such as oral traditions and written records—persists (Blé, 2011), but these methods alone risk partial memory loss over time, contributing to younger residents’ reduced familiarity with certain memory carriers. However, with technological advancement, memory objects such as historic figures, rural legends, and village rules have migrated to new media platforms and digital tools such as VR. Younger residents increasingly encounter cultural knowledge through mediated, screen-based channels (social media, short videos, commercialized content) rather than through habitual, embodied participation. This shift suggests that digital technologies can help bridge age-related gaps in the transmission of cultural information, offering new pathways for preserving and inheriting collective memory.

The Necessity of Using Digital Technology to Strengthen the Preservation and Inheritance of Collective Memory in Historic Neighborhoods

Changes in the appearance of historic neighborhoods often result from urban development planning and construction needs. However, such external transformations do not signify the disappearance of collective memory. Rather, they reflect enduring emotional connections, historical continuity, and cultural identity amidst social change. The role of collective memory in shaping local identity and a sense of belonging is well established (Packer et al., 2019; Zhang et al., 2018). Preserving and transmitting collective memory extends beyond the simple inheritance of historical information; it plays a crucial role in fostering social interaction and shared cultural meaning.

The preservation and transmission of collective memory encompass both tangible and intangible dimensions of cultural heritage. The present study’s empirical results show that people are more familiar with physical memory objects (e.g., buildings, squares, archaeological sites) and everyday immaterial objects (e.g., clothing, food, festival customs, daily practices), whereas familiarity with more abstract, non-physical memory objects (e.g., village records, ancient texts, poems, legends, biographies) significantly declines across generations. This underscores the urgent need to strengthen the preservation and inheritance of collective memory in historic neighborhoods. As Azad and Partovi (2012) emphasize, physical preservation alone cannot sustain collective memory. Meanwhile, Makhataeva et al. (2023), Siqueira Rodrigues et al. (2024), and Kojima et al. (2017) argue that digital technologies can enhance memory. Fenu and Pittarello (2018) further demonstrate that specially designed AR applications benefit older adults and help overcome age-related barriers. This aligns with the objectives of the present study, which highlights the need to use digital technologies to enhance the preservation and transmission of collective memory in historic neighborhoods. Specifically, digital tools such as VR and AR (Liu & Liu, 2014; Lu et al., 2020; Teneketzis, 2020), MR (Trunfio & Campana, 2020), and 3D modeling techniques (Campi et al., 2019; Chatzigrigoriou et al., 2021; Mongelli et al., 2021) provide effective means for strengthening interaction and dissemination.

Through the application of digital technology, collective memory can be re-enacted and re-experienced across time and space. Such tools extend the recording capacity of material memory, transform intangible memory into reproducible and shareable formats, and create opportunities for repeated engagement. This ensures its continued vitality and relevance in contemporary society. However, careful consideration is required in applying digital technology to the preservation of collective memory in historic neighborhoods. In particular, it is essential to ensure that digital interventions enable dynamic documentation while respecting the authenticity and cultural significance of these memories.

The Practical Application of Digital Technology to Preserve and Inherit the Collective Memory of Huilongwo Historic Neighborhood

The regeneration of the Huilongwo historic neighborhood not only needs to satisfy the basic living services of the residents but also requires attention to culture, promotion of neighborhood interactions, and inheritance of local characteristics’ memory. Therefore, the practical application of collective memory preservation and inheritance in Huilongwo historic neighborhood can be carried out from material memory objects and immaterial memory objects (Figure 5).

On the one hand, it is for the material memory objects. Based on maintaining the material environment, digital technology is used to create a smart historic neighborhood. Enhance the multiple interactions between people and the neighborhood to achieve the preservation and inheritance of collective memory. Specific applications include:

In the Huilongwo historic neighborhood, memory objects such as buildings and notable landmarks can be enhanced with various forms of digital content, including guided digital explanations, live-action videos, and 3D animations. Visitors can therefore engage with collective memory through diverse modes of experience. Additionally, VR devices can provide immersive encounters with the historical transformations of buildings and ancient wells, promoting deeper interaction between people and memory elements. Such applications not only enrich participation in the area but also strengthen the preservation and transmission of collective memory.

For memory objects related to food, specialty products, agricultural goods, accommodation, and transportation in the Huilongwo historic neighborhood, digital technologies should prioritize activation, social sharing, and interactive engagement rather than serving solely as information providers. Research shows that augmented reality can increase people’s desire for food and their likelihood of purchase (Fritz et al., 2023). In Huilongwo, food stores often display promotional signs at their entrances; these can be integrated with AR systems to stimulate collective memory. For example, scanning a dish label on a promotional sign could trigger a short animation introducing the historical origin of the dish in Xuzhou, the source of its ingredients, and its cooking process. Alternatively, it might present a 20- to 30-s oral story from an interview with a local producer in Xuzhou. In this way, the collective memory of Huilongwo can be organically integrated with the local industry.

All the physical memory objects within the Huilongwo historic neighborhood are equipped with a location-based augmented reality application (LBAR). Research has shown that location-based augmented reality (LBAR) applications can be used for tourism marketing, and they can also provide information about the tourist destination, helping tourists understand the destination. (Kleftodimos et al., 2023). For example, by using the mobile camera to point at the Huilongwo City Wall Museum, the ancient trees in the neighborhoods, and other physical memory objects, relevant explanations of historic changes, text animations, and oral videos of local elders can appear. When certain vague collective memories arise, simple textual descriptions can generate clues similar to the locations of physical memory objects, including location navigation, textual and audio-visual supplementary information, as well as recommendations for memory-related tour routes. This helps the memory subjects explore, recall and disseminate the collective memory of Huilongwo historic neighborhood through keyword prompts, thereby achieving the preservation and inheritance of the physical memory objects of Huilongwo historic neighborhood.

On the other hand, it is for the immaterial memory objects. This study found that memory subjects’ age is one of the factors affecting the preservation and inheritance of collective memory. In addition, Evans (2003) believes that the greater the emphasis on local cultural identity, cultural heritage, and local identity in sustainable urban renewal, the more attractive the results of urban renewal will be to tourists (Evans, 2003). Therefore, to break through the influence of age, it is necessary to reshape the humanistic feelings of the “collective memory field” and deepen the memory connection between people and neighborhoods. There are many intangible memory objects in Huilongwo, including daily production and life scenes, festival activities, and intangible cultural heritage. Specific applications are as follows:

The basic information of the Huilongwo historic neighborhood (including the village name, location, area, and population) received the lowest scores. Therefore, the top priority is to present these items in their original locations through a narrative approach with location-aware functionality, linking collective memory with the locations. A mobile, location-based augmented reality system can be adopted. When users approach the relevant buildings or nodes, simple, location-based content will be displayed (Kleftodimos et al., 2023), such as when approaching the entrance of Huilongwo historic neighborhood, the origin of the name of the neighborhoods and the approximate reason for its location can be displayed, and when entering a specific area within the street, the changes in the occupied area of the neighborhoods in each period can be displayed.

For the intangible memory elements related to daily life scenes and cultural activities in the Huilongwo historic neighborhood, AR technology can be utilized to achieve “live inheritance.” The research results indicate that age has a significant impact on the preservation and transmission of collective memory. Younger groups lack repeated and personal contact experiences. Digital technology can be used to design simulation and practice sections to solve this problem. For example, young people can use VR devices placed in the neighborhoods to experience the past, as if “returning to the Huilongwo historic neighborhood in history”; collecting oral videos from local elderly people in the neighborhoods and creating evolution animations, and then using XR technology to enable young people to immaterial memory objects. These devices can be set up in multiple locations within the neighborhoods to increase visibility and accessibility. Thus, the “dynamic inheritance” of collective memory in the Huilongwo historic neighborhood can be achieved.

Aiming at the immaterial memory object of intangible cultural heritage and festival celebration in Huilongwo historic neighborhood. The institutionalized and ritualized “collective jubilation” also generates profound collective memory, such as celebrations, traditional festivals (Liao & Dai, 2020), collective activities and other activities. This makes it possible to host large-scale immersive VR experiences at special times, such as Autostereoscopic Display.

Aiming at the immaterial memory objects of traditional culture for Huilongwo historic neighborhood (famous historic figures, biographies; Village records, ancient books, poems, legends, biographies). Integrate new media resources, exploring and innovating “visual symbols of collective memory (Johnson et al., 2004),” and improving the digital display capacity of collective memory in Huilongwo historic neighborhood. And expand the “fun” communication, give full play to the aggregation effect of digital communication, and complete the interaction of internal and external resources on the network platform. Under government leadership, the acceptance and expression of visual symbols of collective memory among various groups are facilitated, forming an “interactive chain of visual symbols.” This chain can be used to activate and connect multiple collective memory objects, contributing to the creation of the spirit of the Huilongwo historic neighborhood.

Aiming at all immaterial memory objects of Huilongwo historic neighborhood. To achieve “integrated media” to the collective memory of Huilongwo historic neighborhood comprehensive report, to stimulate the brand effect of Huilongwo. To bring public attention to the Lair and establish an emotional connection. Finally, it provides individuals with a sense of community belonging and helps preserve and inherit the collective memory of the community.

Theoretical Model of Collective Memory Preservation of Historic Neighborhood

This study develops a dynamic theoretical model for preserving collective memory in historic neighborhoods, with a specific focus on Huilongwo. The model integrates four interrelated dimensions: memory objects, memory subjects, digital technology, and dynamic adaptation. Each dimension builds upon the previous one, forming a comprehensive and structured framework for preservation.

At the memory objects level, both tangible and intangible elements within Huilongwo are documented through field research, literature reviews, and video archives. This process establishes a foundational database, which is essential for effective preservation efforts. The identification of these memory objects is grounded in empirical data from Huilongwo, ensuring that preservation initiatives are directly informed by the community’s historical and cultural context.

The memory subject’s level emphasizes the intergenerational transmission of collective memory. This study highlights the critical role of age in memory preservation and inheritance. Strengthening interactions across different age groups is essential for fostering cross-generational communication and ensuring the continuity of collective memory. Interactive digital exhibitions can facilitate this process by offering immersive reconstructions of historic scenes, encouraging older generations to recall and share their experiences. Simultaneously, game-based experiences, such as “Memory Exploration,” can engage younger participants and enhance their cultural identity. This two-way interaction not only strengthens emotional connections and memory-sharing across generations but also supports the ongoing dissemination and reinterpretation of cultural heritage. Moreover, this level addresses the diverse needs of local residents, tourists, urban planners, academic researchers, and other stakeholders, establishing multiple pathways for memory transmission, including community participation, educational initiatives, and digital experiences.

At the digital technology level, advanced methods such as 3D scanning and modeling are employed to digitally record Huilongwo’s tangible memory elements. A collective memory data-sharing platform can also be developed through collaboration among government agencies, businesses, and other institutions. This platform allows residents to share personal memories and stories, fostering a user-driven archive of intangible heritage. The application of these technologies is guided by the specific needs and characteristics identified in the Huilongwo case study, ensuring that digital tools are contextually appropriate and effective.

Dynamic adaptation ensures the long-term sustainability of memory preservation through collaborative efforts among governments, communities, and businesses. Continuous documentation of changes within Huilongwo, along with regular updates to the shared collective memory database, helps maintain historic authenticity and cultural continuity. Integrating AR-guided tours and AI-driven experiences can further enhance the cultural and tourism value of these areas. By merging collective memory preservation with contemporary urban development, this approach achieves a balanced synergy between heritage conservation and economic revitalization.

Together, these four dimensions form an integrated system: the object level provides content, the subject level ensures transmission, the technology level enables preservation, and the adaptation level maintains relevance and sustainability. Grounded in empirical data from Huilongwo, this model offers a practical framework for preserving collective memory in historic neighborhood.

Limitations and Future Research

This study is limited by its relatively small sample size. Considering the large population base and high volume of tourists in the study area, such a sample size may prove insufficient to comprehensively reflect the age structure and cultural diversity of the target population. This has, to some extent, diminished the generalisability and practical value of the study’s conclusions. Future research should employ larger sample sizes to enhance the social relevance of findings.

This study only investigated the influence of memory subject age and memory object on the preservation and inheritance of collective memory. Moreover, the inheritance of collective memory is also influenced by the media (Tan et al., 2020). If the same object of collective memory uses different media, does the age of the memory subject still have a significant impact on the preservation and inheritance of collective memory? This problem needs further study.

Research Limitations and Lack of Interdisciplinary Approaches

This study’s scope was limited by its focus on specific variables—namely, the memory subject’s age and the type of memory object—without incorporating a broader interdisciplinary approach. Future research should consider integrating perspectives from fields such as media studies, sociology, and cultural anthropology to provide a more comprehensive understanding of collective memory preservation and inheritance.

Consideration of Other Stakeholders in the Preservation and Inheritance of Collective Memory

The study’s use of questionnaires primarily focused on the memory subject, potentially overlooking the roles of other key stakeholders in the preservation and transmission of collective memory. Future research should consider the perspectives and influences of institutions, experts, and civic interest groups, all of which play crucial roles in shaping and sustaining collective memory.

Finally, and importantly, the ultimate aim of digital heritage is not merely archival fidelity but the support of a living inheritance—a dynamic process in which collective memory is continually re-created through practice, narrative, and social relations.

Conclusions

The historic neighborhood is an important area representing the city’s cultural features, which can not only experience the city’s historic and cultural context but also record the collective memory of the city. Therefore, the development of the historic neighborhoods should not only focus on the appearance of the physical entity but should pay attention to the excavation of the inner culture and the collective memory of the neighborhoods. Only by enhancing the cultural vitality of urban historic neighborhoods can we revitalize them and make them develop and continue in the urban renewal movement organically and vigorously.

This study investigates the collective memory of Huilongwo historic neighborhood and discusses the relationship between the age of the memory subject and the memory object. The results show that: (1) There is a positive correlation between the age of memory subjects and the preservation and inheritance of collective memory objects; (2) The age of the collective subject will affect the preservation and dissemination of some non-material collective memory objects to a certain extent, but some collective memories with physical forms or graphic archives are not affected; (3) The preservation and inheritance of material memory objects is generally better than that of non-material memory objects.

This study suggests that the use of digital technology can enable the “living inheritance” of collective memory, especially in the Huilongwo historical neighborhood. Collective memory in this context is categorized into material and non-material memory objects. A significant insight from this research is the necessity to avoid homogenization by exploring the unique collective memory of each historic neighborhood. This approach fosters stronger connections with the public and guides the selection of suitable digital technologies to enhance the understanding and transmission of collective memories associated with historic neighborhoods.

For policy makers, this study recognizes that there is a positive correlation between the age of the memory subject and the retention of collective memory objects. Policymakers can make targeted use of digital technologies to engage different generations to ensure the long-term preservation of material and collective memory in historic neighborhoods. Rather than adopting a uniform approach, policies should be tailored to reflect the distinct historic and cultural characteristics of each neighborhood, strengthening public connections and fostering a deeper sense of belonging.

For businesses, the study reveals the potential of digital technologies to create innovative products and services that enrich the cultural experiences of historic neighborhoods. By leveraging the collective memory of these areas, businesses can develop offerings that resonate more profoundly with both residents and visitors, enhancing engagement and cultural appreciation.

Urban development should not only focus on physical restoration, but also take the protection of collective memory as an important component. From an urban development perspective, this study underscores the potential of digital technologies—such as VR, AR, and digital archives—to enhance public engagement and cultural continuity in historic neighborhoodss. By leveraging these tools, urban planners can create interactive, immersive experiences that enrich the cultural landscape, attract tourism, and support local economic growth.

Although there are some limitations in this study, the research results provide valuable guidance and reference for digital technology to enable the preservation and inheritance of collective memory in historic neighborhoods.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

Thank you to every participant who took part in the survey.

ORCID iDs

Yuting Dai

Jingru Zhang

Jie Zhang

Wan Ahmad Jaafar Wan Yahaya

Ethical Considerations

All procedures performed in this research involving human participants were conducted in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional. This experiment was approved by the Ethics Committee. All human experiments were conducted in accordance with relevant guidelines and regulations, particularly the Declaration of Helsinki.

Consent to Participate

Written informed consent was obtained from all participants. All participants signed a voluntary and informed consent form before participating. Confidentiality and anonymity were strictly maintained throughout the study. Among the respondents, seven participants were under 18 years of age. In these cases, informed consent was obtained from their legal guardians, and assent was secured from the minors themselves. Participation was voluntary, anonymity was guaranteed, and respondents were informed of their right to withdraw at any time.

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Philosophy and Social Science Research in Colleges and Universities in Jiangsu Province “Digital Reshaping of Social Memory to Empower the Development of Cultural Districts” (2023SJYB1182).

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Data Availability Statement

Data sharing not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analyzed during the current study.

References

Abbasian

(2023). Festival participation for integration and inclusion? A critical reflection. World Leisure Journal, 65(4), 464–483.

Arrigoni

Schofield

Trujillo Pisanty

(2020). Framing collaborative processes of digital transformation in cultural organisations: From literary archives to augmented reality. Museum Management and Curatorship, 35(4), 424–445. https://doi.org/10.1080/09647775.2019.1683881

Assmann

(2009). Erinnerungsräume: Formen und Wandlungen des kulturellen Gedächtnisses [Spaces of memory: Forms and transformations of cultural memory]. C. H. Beck.

Azad

Partovi

(2012). Comparative analysis on role of Tehran’s squares in promoting the collective memory of citizens, case studies: Baharestan square and Tajrish square [in Persian]. Journal of Urban Studies, 1(4), 69–80.

Back

(2015). Why everyday life matters: Class, community and making life livable. Sociology, 49(5), 820–836.

Bădescu

(2019). Making sense of ruins: Architectural reconstruction and collective memory in Belgrade. Nationalities Papers, 47(2), 182–197. https://doi.org/10.1017/nps.2018.42

Baker

E. J.

Bakar

J. A. A.

Zulkifli

A. N.

(2020). A conceptual model of mobile augmented reality for hearing impaired museum visitors' engagement. International Journal of Interactive Mobile Technologies, 14(17).

Blé

R. G.

(2011). Communication and collective memory: The plight of oral traditions in Côte d’Ivoire. Journal of African Media Studies, 3(1), 89–108. https://doi.org/10.1386/jams.3.1.89_1

Campi

di Luggo

Palomba

(2019). Digital surveys and 3D reconstructions for augmented accessibility of archaeological heritage. International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences, 42, 205–212. https://doi.org/10.5194/isprs-archives-XLII-2-W9-205-2019

10.

Champion

Rahaman

(2019). 3D digital heritage models as sustainable scholarly resources. Sustainability, 11(8), Article 2425. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11082425

11.

Chatzigrigoriou

Nikolakopoulou

Vakkas

Vosinakis

Koutsabasis

(2021). Is architecture connected with intangible cultural heritage? Reflections from the digital documentation of local architecture and interactive application design for the case of marble, olive oil, and mastic heritage in three Aegean islands. Heritage, 4, 664–689. https://doi.org/10.3390/heritage4020038

12.

Chen

(2018). Research on media practice of collective memory. Huazhong University of Science and Technology.

13.

Clark

W. A.

Ong ViforJ

Phelps

(2024). Place attachment and aging in place: Preferences and disruptions. Research on Aging, 46(3–4), 179–196.

14.

Confino

(1997). Collective memory and cultural history: Problems of method. The American Historical Review, 102(5), 1386–1403. https://doi.org/10.1086/ahr/102.5.1386

15.

Corbusier

Eardley

(1973). The Athens charter (p. 88). Grossman Publishers.

16.

Evans

(2003). The development of urban economics in the twentieth century. Regional Studies, 37(5), 521–529. https://doi.org/10.1080/0034340032000089077

17.

Fang

(2020). The memory metaphor and evolution of traditional Chinese villages. Hunan Social Sciences, 34(4), 165–172.

18.

Fenu

Pittarello

(2018). Svevo tour: The design and the experimentation of an augmented reality application for engaging visitors of a literary museum. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 114, 20–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2018.01.009

19.

Fritz

Hadi

Stephen

(2023). From tablet to table: How augmented reality influences food desirability. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 51(3), 503–529.

20.

García Münzer

(2020, November). How can augmented reality improve the user experience of digital products and engagement with cultural heritage outside the museum space?. In IOP conference series: Materials science and engineering (Vol. 949, No. 1, p. 012040). IOP Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/949/1/012040

21.

Haartsen

Strijker

(2010). Rural youth culture: Keten in the Netherlands. Journal of Rural Studies, 26(2), 163–172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2009.11.001

22.

Halbwachs

(1925). Les Cadres sociaux de la mémoire [On collective memory]. Félix Alcan.

23.

Halbwachs

(1992). On collective memory. University of Chicago Press.

24.

Hou

Kenderdine

Picca

Egloff

Adamou

(2022). Digitizing intangible cultural heritage embodied: State of the art. Journal on Computing and Cultural Heritage (JOCCH), 15(3), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1145/3494837

25.

Feng

Zhao

Nie

(2024). Method for selecting viewpoints of architectural heritage landscapes. Method for selecting viewpoints of architectural heritage landscapes. Heritage Science, 12(1), 160.

26.

Huang

(2023). Research on the activation of living public space in traditional villages from the perspective of social memory perception and experience. Guilin University of Technology.

27.

Innocente

Ulrich

Moos

Vezzetti

(2023). A framework study on the use of immersive XR technologies in the cultural heritage domain. Journal of Cultural Heritage, 62, 268–283.

28.

Ireland

Brown

Bagnall

Lydon

Sherratt

Veale

(2025). Engaging the everyday: The concept and practice of “everyday heritage.” International Journal of Heritage Studies, 31(2), 192–215.

29.

Iwamoto

Wang

(2010). Memory as a method: The validity of the concept of “memory” in folklore research. Cultural Heritage, (4), 109–115.

30.

Jiang

Chen

Xie

(2023). Subjective well-being of historical neighborhood residents in Beijing: The impact on the residential environment. Sustainability, 15(3), Article 1847. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15031847

31.

Johnson

N. C.

Agnew

Barnett

(2004). A companion to cultural geography. Blackwell Publishing Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470996515

32.

Jung

Nguyen

V. T.

Piscarac

Yoo

S. C.

(2020). Meet the virtual jeju dol harubang—The mixed VR/Ar application for cultural immersion in Korea’s main heritage. ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information, 9(6), Article 367. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijgi9060367

33.

Kazlauskaitė

(2022). Embodying ressentimentful victimhood: Virtual reality re-enactment of the Warsaw uprising in the Second World War Museum in Gdańsk. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 28(6), 699–713. https://doi.org/10.1080/13527258.2022.2064897

34.

Kleftodimos

Evagelou

Triantafyllidou

Grigoriou

Lappas

(2023). Location-based augmented reality for cultural heritage communication and education: The Doltso neighborhoods application. Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 23(10), Article 4963. https://doi.org/10.3390/s23104963

35.

Knez

(2005). Attachment and identity as related to a place and its perceived climate. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 25, 207–218.

36.

Kohler

Marchand

Negrão

(2015). Local history and landscape dynamics: A comparative study in rural Brazil and rural France. Land Use Policy, 43, 149–160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2014.11.010

37.

Kojima

Furukawa

Maruyama

Hachimura

(2017, September). Multi-site linked MOCAP streaming system for digital archive of Intangible Cultural Heritage. In 2017 International conference on culture and computing (culture and computing) (pp. 61–62). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/Culture.and.Computing.2017.27

38.

Lak

Hakimian

(2019). Collective memory and urban regeneration in urban spaces: Reproducing memories in Baharestan Square, city of Tehran, Iran. City, Culture and Society, 18, Article 100290. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ccs.2019.100290

39.

Lang

Deng

Zhang

Wang

(2019). Construction of intangible cultural heritage spot based on AR technology—Taking the intangible cultural heritage of the Li nationality in the areca valley as an example. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 234(1), Article 012119. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/234/1/012119

40.

Lekakis

Dragouni

(2020). Heritage in the making: Rural heritage and its mnemeiosis at Naxos island, Greece. Journal of Rural Studies, 77, 84–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2020.04.021

41.

Lewicka

(2005). Ways to make people active: The role of place attachment, cultural capital, and neighbourhood ties. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 25, 381–395.

42.

(2020). Construction and inheritance: A study on the cultural memory of Li Houhu in Shanxi [Doctoral dissertation, Lanzhou University].

43.

X. Z.

Chen

C. C.

Kang

(2022). Research on relevant dimensions of tourism experience of intangible cultural heritage lantern festival: Integrating generic learning outcomes with the technology acceptance model. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, Article 943277.

44.

Liao

Dai

(2020). Inheritance and dissemination of cultural collective memory: An analysis of a traditional festival. Sage Open, 10(1), Article 2158244020901601. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244020901601

45.

Lin

Luo

(2022). A study on the implicit structure of historical environment in urban space of Xuzhou. Sustainability, 14(11), Article 6837.

46.

Liu

B. T.

(2014). Sustainable urban revitalization in historic districts: A case study of Huilongwo area in Xuzhou. Advanced Materials Research, 919, 1567–1572.

47.

Lothian

(1999). Landscape and the philosophy of aesthetics: Is landscape quality inherent in the landscape or in the eye of the beholder?. Landscape and Urban Planning, 44(4), 177–198.

48.

Wang

Chen

(2020, June). Research on intangible cultural heritage protection based on augmented reality technology. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1574(1), Article 012026. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1574/1/012026

49.

Lynch

(1964). The image of the city. MIT Press.

50.

Lynch

(1976). What time is this place?. MIT Press.

51.

Makhataeva

Akhmetov

Varol

H. A.

(2023). Augmented-reality-based human memory enhancement using artificial intelligence. IEEE Transactions on Human-Machine Systems, 53(6), 1048–1060. https://doi.org/10.1109/THMS.2023.3307397

52.

Mehanna

W. A. E. H.

Mehanna

W. A. E. H.

(2019). Urban renewal for traditional commercial streets at the historical centers of cities. Alexandria Engineering Journal, 58(4), 1127–1143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aej.2019.09.015

53.

Moira

Makris

(2021). Visible and “invisible” aspects of historic Mediterranean metropolises perpetually emerging through augmented reality. Heritage, 4(1), 249–259. https://doi.org/10.3390/heritage4010015

54.

Mongelli

Chellini

Migliori

Perozziello

Pierattini

Puccini

Cosma

(2021). Comparison and integration of techniques for the study and valorisation of the Corsini Throne in Corsini Gallery in Roma. ACTA IMEKO, 10, 40–46. https://doi.org/10.21014/acta_imeko.v10i1.816

55.

Mumford

(1961). The city in history: Its origins, its transformations, and its prospects (Vol. 67). Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.

56.

S. H.

Kam

P. K.

Pong

R. W. M.

(2005). People living in ageing buildings: Their quality of life and sense of belonging. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 25, 347–360.

57.

Packer

Ballantyne

Uzzell

(2019). Interpreting war heritage: Impacts of Anzac museum and battlefield visits on Australians’ understanding of national identity. Annals of Tourism Research, 76, 105–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2019.03.012

58.

Partarakis

Zabulis

Foukarakis

Moutsaki

Zidianakis

Patakos

Adami

Kaplanidi

Ringas

Tasiopoulou

(2021). Supporting sign language narrations in the museum. Heritage, 5(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.3390/heritage5010001

59.

Petti

Trillo

Makore

B. N.

(2020). Cultural heritage and sustainable development targets: A possible harmonisation? Insights from the European perspective. Sustainability, 12(3), Article 926. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12030926

60.

Poursarrajian

(2015). Values of historical neighborhood and criteria of change according to residents. The Monthly Scientific Journal of Bagh-e Nazar, 12(35), 39–52.

61.

Pretty

Chipuer

Bramston

(2003). Sense of place amongst adolescents and adults in two rural Australian towns: The discriminating features of place attachment, sense of community and place dependence in relation to place identity. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23, 273–287.

62.

Rong

(2023). A brief analysis of the improvement of the law of the People’s Republic of China on the protection of cultural relics. Scientific and Social Research, 5(6), 18–23.

63.

Rubin

S. E.

Mørch

Olsen

Nørtoft

(2024). Important intergenerational transmission of knowledge in promotion of well-being and cultural identity in Greenland. International Journal of Circumpolar Health, 83(1), Article 2420479.

64.

Sak

Senyapili

(2019). Evading time and place in Ankara: A reading of contemporary urban collective memory through recent transformations. Space and Culture, 22(4), 341–356. https://doi.org/10.1177/1206331218764334

65.

Silva

Zagalo

Vairinhos

(2023). Towards participatory activities with augmented reality for cultural heritage: A literature review. Computers & Education: X Reality, 3, Article 100044.

66.

Siqueira Rodrigues

Schmidt

T. T.

Israel

J. H.

Zachow

Nyakatura

Kosch

(2024, October). Comparing the effects of visual, haptic, and visuohaptic encoding on memory retention of digital objects in virtual reality. In Proceedings of the 13th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction (NordiCHI 24), Uppsala, Sweden (pp. 1–13). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3679318.368534

67.

Sun

H. X.

Guo

H. L.

(2004). A study on Han culture. Culture and Art Publishing House.

68.

Tan

Hills

Feng

(2020, April). Case study: Creating embodied interaction with learning intangible cultural heritage through WebAR. In Extended Abstracts of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA '20), Honolulu, HI, United States (pp. 1–6). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3334480.3375199

69.

Teneketzis

(2020). Exploring the emerging digital scene in art history and museum practice. Esboços: Histórias Em Contextos Globais, 27(45), 187–206. https://doi.org/10.5007/2175-7976.2020.e67954

70.

Trunfio

Campana

(2020). A visitors’ experience model for mixed reality in the museum. Current Issues in Tourism, 23(9), 1053–1058. https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2019.1586847

71.

Trunfio

Campana

Magnelli

(2020). Measuring the impact of functional and experiential mixed reality elements on a museum visit. Current Issues in Tourism, 23(16), 1990–2008. https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2019.1703914

72.

UNESCO. (1972). Convention concerning the protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage. http://whc.unesco.org/archive/convention-en.pdf

73.

Velhinho

Almeida

(2023). The legacy of collective memory in digital culture: Digitisation, cultural mapping and co-creation. Comunicação e Sociedade, 43, Article e023003.

74.

Viejo-Rose

(2015). Cultural heritage and memory: Untangling the ties that bind. Culture & History Digital Journal, 4(2), Article e018. https://doi.org/10.3989/chdj.2015.018

75.

Wang

Sun

(2015). Research on collective memory of traditional villages: A case study of the documentary “Remembering Homesickness.” Geographical Research, 34(12), 2368–2380.

76.

Zhang

C. X.

Xiao

Morgan

T. P.

(2018). Politics of memories: Identity construction in museums. Annals of Tourism Research, 73, 116–130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2018.09.011

77.

Zhao

Ren

Y. Y.

(2022). Protection and planning of historic districts based on Internet of Things perception. Computational Intelligence and Neuroscience, 2022(1), Article 1325381. https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/1325381

78.

Zhao

Tang

(2020). Impacts of tourist density and road width on urban green space tour experience. Landscape Architecture, 27(10), 106–111.

79.

Zhou

Yang

(2024). An exploration of collective memory in the tourism context. Journal of China Tourism Research, 20(3), 676–707. https://doi.org/10.1080/19388160.2023.2273275

80.

Zhou

Liu

(2017). Comparison of critical success paths for historic district renovation and redevelopment projects in China. Habitat International, 67, 54–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2017.06.008

81.

Zhu

(2013). City, memory and form: Preservation and development of historical culture in the perspective of psychology and sociology. Southeast University Press.

From Memory to Reality: Preserving and Transmitting Collective Memory in Urban Historic Neighborhoods

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Literature Review and Research Framework

Preservation and Inheritance of Historic Neighborhoods

Preservation and Inheritance of Collective Memory

Using Digital Technology to Preservation and Inheritance Collective Memories

Research Framework

Methodology

Research Questions

Research Areas

Research Participants

Research Instruments

Results

Overall Statistical Data Analysis

Current Situation Analysis on the Preservation and Inheritance of Collective Memory Objects in the Huilongwo Historic Neighborhood

Influence of the Age of the Memory Subject on the Preservation and Inheritance of Collective Memory Objects in the Huilongwo Historic Neighborhood

Influence of Different Collective Memory Objects on the Preservation and Inheritance of Collective Memory Carriers in Huilongwo Historic Neighborhood

Discussion

Differences Among Collective-Memory Objects and Their Implications for Preservation and Inheritance

The Relationship Between the Age of the Memory Subject and the Preservation and Inheritance of Collective Memory Objects in Huilongwo Historic Neighborhood

The Necessity of Using Digital Technology to Strengthen the Preservation and Inheritance of Collective Memory in Historic Neighborhoods

The Practical Application of Digital Technology to Preserve and Inherit the Collective Memory of Huilongwo Historic Neighborhood

Theoretical Model of Collective Memory Preservation of Historic Neighborhood

Limitations and Future Research

Research Limitations and Lack of Interdisciplinary Approaches

Consideration of Other Stakeholders in the Preservation and Inheritance of Collective Memory

Conclusions

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

ORCID iDs

Ethical Considerations

Consent to Participate

Funding

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Data Availability Statement

References