3 nor aini (p.43-61)

Journal of Construction in Developing Countries, Vol. 12, No. 2, 2007
Urban Conservation as a Development Strategy to Revitalize Real Estate Market: An Analysis of Property
Transactions in Georgetown Penang
*Nor'Aini Yusof, Lim Yoke Mui, Lee Lik Meng and Tan Sook Fern
Abstract: Penang is well known for its heritage character especially in the city of Georgetown with more than 200 years of urban history. To retain its heritage
character, the state and local governments have implemented various conservation policies and identified a heritage zone in the inner city of Georgetown.
In many parts of the world, designation as a heritage property would have increased a property's value and this is one of the reasons put forward for urban
conservation in Georgetown but so far no analysis have been presented to support this claim. We developed an all-encompassing model to evaluate the
effects of conservation related policies on the heritage property market. In this paper, we focus the analysis on data from property transactions and price to
analyse and identify property trends in Georgetown from the year 1974 to 2004. The analysis is presented within the framework of public policy and
intervention strategies, socio-economic and political changes. Our analysis of the transaction data and price trends shows that urban conservation has a
potential to be a viable real estate development strategy for Georgetown. Even with conservation policies in place, the demand for old buildings in the
conservation zones has not diminished but has shown relatively high transaction counts and high price of heritage properties.
Keywords: Property trends, Heritage property, Penang
INTRODUCTION
With an urban history of more than 200 years, Georgetown,
the capital city of Penang is well known for its heritage
buildings which includes about 5,000 units of two- or three-
storey traditional shophouses where the residents used to
work downstairs, typically in their family business, and live
School of Housing, Building and Planning, Universiti Sains Malaysia, 11800
USM, MALAYSIA. *Corresponding author: norainy@gmail.com
upstairs. However, what was once a bustling commercial
district, the inner city of Georgetown, has declined to
where many buildings are now dilapidated and empty. Its
residents have moved to the newly developed areas on
the island and mainland of Penang. This population shift
has affected the traditional businesses and the inner city is
losing its place as a commercial hub.
Nevertheless, the local government recognizes the
heritage value of the city and in an attempt to preserve its
PENERBIT UNIVERSITI SAINS MALAYSIA/43

Nor'Aini Yusof et al.
historic ambience. Penang state and local governments
have adopted various heritage conservation policies for
the inner city of Georgetown. Heritage conservation zones
within the city were designated in a Draft Structure Plan as
far back as the early 1980s and specific design guidelines
for conservation zones were published in 1987. In 2005
however, the conservation zones were reduced in size from
the previous 193-hectare core heritage zone to 99
hectares while the 246-hectare buffer zone was reduced
to 89 hectares (Habibu, 2004). The designated
conservation zones were identified as part of an
application for United Nations Educational, Scientific and
Cultural Organization (UNESCO) World Heritage Listing. An
earlier bid was not successful in 2006 and a subsequent bid
will be submitted in 2007.
Experience in other countries shows that urban
conservation typically produces numerous benefits and
positive results (Kong and Yeoh, 1994; Shipley, 2000;
Leichenko et al., 2001; Ling et al., 2004). Urban
conservation reduces urban sprawl and the creation of
new towns by revitalizating old towns and the adaptive
reuse of the old buildings. As heritage cities, old towns also
generate more business and working opportunities. In
designated historical areas, property values usually
increase due to cultural pride and historical significance,
which ultimately increases tax revenues (Warner et al.,
1978; Groff and Weiss, 1978; Rypkema, 1994; Childs et al.,
1997). In Singapore and the US, urban conservation has
helped to increase the value of heritage properties (Yuen
and Ng, 2001; Pickard and Pickerill, 2002). Has the same
benefits been brought to Georgetown, Penang as a result
of the conservations efforts of the last 20 years? To answer
this question, our objective in this paper is to determine
whether the heritage conservation policy adopted by the
local government has brought positive results to the real
estate market in Georgetown.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Urban conservation as a development strategy which is
incorporated in land-use planning and zoning has gained
popularity throughout the world since the last century. The
first description of building conservation policies can be
traced to 1877, in William Morris's The manifesto for the
society for the protection of ancient building. Other well-
known conservation doctrines include The Venice Charter
(1964), The Florence Charter (1981) and International
Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) Charter –
Principles for the analysis, conservation and structural
restoration of architectural heritage (2003). These charters
define the purpose and principles of building conservation.
In Section 2 of the Malaysia National Heritage Act
2005 (Act 645) the definition of conservation includes
44/PENERBIT UNIVERSITI SAINS MALAYSIA

Urban Conservation as a Development Strategy
preservation, restoration, reconstruction, rehabilitation and
adaptation or any combination thereof. The Malacca
Enactment No. 6 (1988) and the Preservation and
Conservation of Cultural Heritage Enactment (1988), define
conservation as a process of looking after a cultural
heritage or a conservation area so as to retain its
significance, including its maintenance, preservation,
restoration, reconstruction, adaptation or a combination of
two or more of these.
According to Feilden (2003), the purpose of
conservation is to prevent decay and manage changes
dynamically and this is not limited to a building or a site
only. Urban conservation is not merely to conserve the
building but to preserve the whole ambience including
cultural significance (Thorsby, 2002; Cohen, 2001). Urban
conservation is also about how people live, work and play
in an area, as described by Tan (2006):
How they live is inextricably linked to (historical)
buildings; buildings that house their abodes; buildings
where they earn their living; buildings whose shape,
size and locality form the essence of their lives and
how they carry it out.
As a rationale for building conservation, in the end
purely aesthetic grounds or historical justification for
isolated examples of architecture will not create as much
coherence as by bringing conservation into the urban
context (Cohen, 2001). In this way, urban conservation
results in more comprehensive city planning (where a
historical site located) and can help sustain both the
historical site and city development.
Different conservation experiences have been
observed and practiced successfully in US, Canada, UK,
Japan, Australia and Singapore. According to Shankland
(1975), in order to succeed, urban conservation must be
economically and socially feasible and to achieve this
requires both governmental and public action. Following
Shankland, we define a viable real estate property market
by an increase in the number of property transactions as
well as an increase in the value of the properties traded.
Thus, a viable real estate development strategy is a
strategy that can accelerate the property market and
bring profit to the investor.
Generally, the impacts of urban conservation policies
are wide-ranging and influences the economic, social,
cultural and environmental aspects of a community
(Rypkema,1994; Pickard and Pickerill, 2002; Leichenko et
al., 2001). The impacts can be seen individually or in
groups, either to a community or a state. Some impacts do
not automatically transform communities into high-income
enclaves, but enhance the climate of the present situation
or perhaps the future situation (ripple effect). The impacts

from conservation can also be structured into direct or
indirect. Whether the structure is direct or indirect, the
linkages may bring different impacts to the development
of a historic town. If the impacts retard the conservation
efforts, it will be regarded as negative impacts. On the
other hand, the impacts that contribute to the
conservation efforts are seen as positive impacts. Table 1
summarizes the various impacts of urban conservation.
The impacts can be seen to be wide-ranging but
for the purposes of this paper, we draw attention to
research which have shown that in designated historical
areas, property values will increase due to cultural pride
and historical significance. Studies by Scribner (1976) and
Reckham (1977, as cited in Thorsby, 2002) found that
property values increased due to heritage designation,
presumably because investors were interested in such
buildings, and there were now prospect of good returns.
This reinvestment will indirectly bring occupants and
economic activity into areas with old buildings designated
as conservation zones. This in turn will ultimately increase
tax revenues (Warner et al., 1978; Rypkema, 1994; Childs et
al., 1997).
Urban conservation also helps to reduce urban
sprawl and reduce the creation of new towns through the
revitalization of old town and adaptive reuse of the old
buildings. This is more sustainable than to open new land
because in the old town, basic infrastructure and the
amenities are established. Delaying the need to build new
towns is also a good practice for sustainable development
by preventing extensive clearing of forested areas for
urban expansion. Another often cited benefit is that
designation of conservation areas or town attracts more
tourists. In Singapore, tourists prefer and are willing to spend
and visit historical areas such as China Town and Little India
(Yuen and Ng, 2001). These tourists preference may, in turn,
boost other tourism-related activities such as real estate
and local businesses.
In the developing countries however, conservation is
only a minority interest compared to other urban asset
development (Pearce, 1989; Kong and Yeoh, 1994). In fact,
conservation is more often seen to be an obstacle to
urban real estate development. It is acknowledged that if
a building is old and deteriorating, some of its archaic
services may affect its value because the cost of
preservation and restoration will be high. If a building is
protected to some extent by public policy, then the
accompanying restrictions on renovation and building use
may affect the property's value and marketability. In
addition, heritage buildings by definition incorporate
intangible values due to culture and architecture
character. These intangible values are very hard to price
monetarily (Pickerill, 1997; Thorsby, 2002).

Table 1. Various Impacts of Urban Conservation
Impacts
Tangible/
Intangible Values
Direct Indirect
Economic • Create jobs – contractor, labour, tourist guide, hawkers,
etc.
• Increase property value
• Increase rental increases
• Boost tourism
• Incentives from government
• Increase personal/aggregate of income/GDP
• Increase tax
• Decrease development cost
• Decrease fund for basic infrastructure
• Spread benefits over neighbourhood (e.g. property
value increase)
Socio-cultural • Consolidate/create sense of community
• Conserve knowledge and skill
• Raise awareness of history continuity
• Raise appreciation of heritage buildings
• Increase population
• More diverse community
Physical/man-made
environment
• Improve/upgrade infrastructure
• New image after revitalized, refurbish and maintenance
• Efficient use of the city spaces
• Existing housing/commercial stocks (no need to build
new)
• Less pollution (pedestrian oriented development)
• Less urban sprawl
• Deter future potential investment return
• Not flexible for incorporation of modern infrastructure
Politics • Strict policy building codes and planning permission
deter modern development
• Provide incentives/levy
• More regenerations
• Less development in historic urban areas

What is the basis then, to measure the impact of
conservation on real estate? Researchers have shown that
the impact of conservation on real estate market can be
dictated by the level of property values in conservation
districts. There are at least six different approaches to
measure property values in designated conservation
districts. A summary of the methods used by other
researches is shown in Table 2.
Of all the methods in Table 2, cost-benefit analysis
can be used to assess the economic or cultural value of
property values in conservation districts. However, it is very
complex and need to consider many factors before
deriving a value composite (Klamer and Zuidhof, 1999). As
for the contingent valuation method, it tends to measure
the intangible values which do not reflect in monetary gain
such as the historical value, educational value or
communal memories. Through questions on willingness to
pay, the value of heritage property can be determined;
but bias could happened where the respondents may not
reveal their real preferences in the interest towards
heritage properties (Thorsby, 2005).
Travel cost method attempts to deduce expenditure
for the journey to a conservation area by individual. Base
on assumptions, it only draw the cost of travel but does not
take other factors into consideration (Pagiola, 1996;
Thorsby, 2005). Similarity of value assessment is found in the
maintenance cost method where only the material
damages of the historical building or site are estimated,
but other factors are not taken into account (Mourato and
Mazzanti, 2002).
In the Hedonic regression model, the heritage
property price is made up by a bundle of attributes
whereby the hedonic price changes when the quality of
relevant attributes change. According to Pagiola (1996),
the limitation of the method includes the mismeasure of
the benefits, difficult to distinguish the non-physical
attributes and need a large amount of data to gain
significance.
Difference-in-difference is another popular method
employed by researcher such as Scribner (1976); Reckham
(1977, cited in Leichenko et al., 2001), and Gale (1991).
Basically, this method measures the changes in property
values within and outside the selected conservation
districts. The higher the property price shows in the
conservation designated district, the more significant of the
effect of conservation within the district. But Leichenko et
al. (2001) argued that this method is bias by relying solely
on comparing the physical characteristics, for example the
sample averages of the growth rate in property values in
conservation designated district and non-conservation
designation district.

Table 2. Summary of Methods Used to Measure Heritage Property Values
Study Method Data References
Cost-benefit analysis Tangible values versus intangible values Klamer & Zuidhof, 1999; Thorsby, 2002
Contingent valuation method
(state preference method or
paired comparison)
Question on willingness-to-pay for the benefits received
(from conservation) or willingness-to-accept compen-
sation for the loss (from conservation)
Ling et al., 2003; Thorsby, 2005
Travel cost method Amounts that are prepared to pay for journey to a
conservation area, e.g. how much did the visitor spent to
visit the conservation zone and the financial outlay
involved
Pagiola, 1996; Clawson & Knetsch, 1966 (cited in Mourato
& Mazzanti, 2002); Thorsby, 2005
Maintenance cost method The material damages of the historical building or site are
estimated
Mourato & Mazzanti, 2002
Hedonic regression model The heritage buildings or historical site is broke up into
constituent characteristics/attributes, and obtains
inferences of the values of each characteristic/attribute
Pagiola, 1996; Leichenko et al., 2001
Difference-in-difference
methodology
Compare a treatment and a comparison group (first
difference) before and after the intervention (second
difference) e.g. compare sample averages of the growth
rate in property value (first difference), in historic areas
with those in non-historic areas (second difference)
Scribner, 1976; Reckham, 1977 (cited in Leichenko et al.,
2001)

From Table 2, we can conclude that there is no
standard method to determine the actual value of
heritage property as a tool to measure the impact of
conservation. As such, the selection of a suitable method
for measuring the impact of conservation in Georgetown
must also consider the objectives of the study and the
types of data that are available. This paper presents on
analysis of property transaction data and price trends as
one method to understand such impacts.
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
We developed an all-encompassing model to evaluate
the effects of variables on the values of heritage
properties. Our study area is the inner city of Georgetown,
shown in Figure 1. We used a combination of qualitative
and quantitative research methods, to analyse the
patterns and trends of property transactions and values
over time which will lead into determining the impact of
conservation on real estate market. In order to analyse the
patterns and trends of property transaction and values, we
collected trend data for a period of 30 years from the year
1960 to 2004. These are the data that were available at the
time of analysis. Furthermore the data cover the
introduction of conservation policies and also the rent
control act.
The original grid layout of
Georgetown
The original grid layout of
Georgetown
Georgetown 1
Georgetown 2
Figure 1. Study area – The inner city of Georgetown
We collected two main types of data for this analysis.
First, data on policy implementation was gathered from
Malaysian laws, government publications such as structure
plans, and the Bank Negara annual reports. The policies
collected include conservation-related acts and the
government development policies, strategies and
Georgetown 3

guidelines from 1960 to 2004. In addition, we also collected
information on socio-economic, political and cultural
changes for the same time frame. Second, data on
property transactions were collected in digital form from
the Penang State Valuation and Property Services
Department (Jabatan Penilaian dan Perkhidmatan Harta,
JPPH). The files contain some 35,000 records of property
transactions on Penang Island which were assessed by
JPPH Penang from 1998 to 2005 for the Inland Revenue
Board (IRB) to facilitate collection of property taxes. Data
prior to 1998 were obtained from the Annual Property
Market Reports published by the same department.
Records of transactions between developers and first
buyers and of transactions that were exempted from
stamp duty are not included in this data set.
The raw data from JPPH Penang was subjected to
extensive checking and management by this research
team to create a data set suitable for this study. Problems
encountered include inaccuracy of data, missing or
incomplete data and typographical errors but this
comprised only a very small portion of the data.
We have analysed the count of transactions and
transaction values according to the types of properties.
Descriptive statistical analysis using frequencies, average,
highest and lowest values were used to analyse the trends.
The results were then fed into timeline charts to identify
property and policy trends in the study area.
IMPACT OF POLICIES ON REAL ESTATE MARKET
Despite of the numerous problems encountered with the
data, we found it to be the most reliable and after
considerable cleaning, it remain the most complete source
on the real estate market in Georgetown. We therefore
used it to analyse the heritage property market for our
study area. We assumed that these data provide a
reasonable representation of the impact of designating
structures as heritage buildings once such a designation is
in place.
Figure 2 shows the count of transactions of heritage
properties within the study area (1974–2004). We have also
charted conservation related policies and major economic
changes onto the figure. Major conservation related
policies are like The Control of Rent Act 1966, 21st Century
Penang Strategic Plan and the designation of five
conservation zones in Georgetown.

Figure 2. Count of Transactions of Heritage Properties within the Study Area (1974–2004)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
1974
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
Year
Count
HERITAGE OFFICE HERITAGE HOUSE HERITAGE SHOP HERITAGE SHOPHOUSE
Designation of 5
Conservation
Zones (1987)
21st Century
Penang Strategic
Plan (1991)
Repeal & Abolishment
of Rent Control Act
(1997 and 1999)
The Penang
Preservation and
Heritage Policy
(1996)
Source: Department of Valuation and Property Services

Note that the five conservation zones were
designated in 1987. Interestingly, in 1987 and 1988, there
were few transactions for heritage properties compared to
none, in the preceding years. The next transaction
occurred in 1991 when the 21st Century Penang Strategic
Plan was unveiled. From 1999 to 2004, there were numerous
activities in the transaction of heritage properties. The 1966
Rent Control Act was repealed in 1997 and abolished after
1999.
The Rent Control Act 1966 was initially implemented
by British in 1948 to the pre-war properties (Khoo, 1997; Tan,
2002) to cater the needy people during post-war period
(World War II). It also aimed at protecting the tenants from
eviction by controlling the rental. The repeal of Rent
Control Act 1966 stops the abuse of further subletting of the
controlled properties and restore the possession of the
controlled premises to the landlords (Lawyerment, n.d.).
The increase in transactions for heritage properties
began in 1998, a year after the severe financial crisis that
hit Malaysia and the beginning of repeal of Rent Control
Act 1966. The transactions for heritage properties shot up in
1999 and rose to an even higher level in 2000. The number
of transaction dropped somewhat between 2001 and 2003
but increased in 2004.
The above analysis shows that between 1974 and
2004, the transactions count for heritage buildings was
varying with periods of activity and periods of total
inactivity. However the analysis shows that whenever
conservation policies were put in place, there were some
market activities which are evident through the count of
transaction. Nevertheless, this market activity was not
sustained for a longer period. In addition to the transaction
counts, we looked for further evidence that may point to
the impact of urban conservation on real estate market to
support this initial finding.
One of the evidence which we investigated was the
price of pre-war shophouses which is one of the main
targets for urban conservation in Georgetown. Figure 3
shows the prices of two-storey pre-war shophouses with
vacant possession. The price of the pre-war shophouses
rose during the 1981–1984 period but dropped by as much
as 17% to 47% in 1986. Thereafter, the average price of pre-
war shophouses increased from 1988 to 1997 except in
1994 when it decreased slightly. Note that during this
period, there were two conservation related policies that
were put into effect: the designation of the five
conservation zones in 1987 and the 21st Century Penang
Strategic Plan in 1991. The highest price paid for a pre-war
shophouse reached a peak in 1997 at RM6,000 per m2 with

the average price at RM4,000 per m2 that year. This
increased was coincided with the Penang Preservation
and Heritage Policy which was formulated in 1996. The
formulation of the policy may have encouraged investors
Minimum
Maximum
Average
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02
Year
Price(RM/m2/Unit)
Figure 3. The Prices of Two-storey Pre-war Shophouses in the Study Area with Vacant Possesion
Source: Computed from Property Market Report 1980–2002, DVPS

to invest in heritage-designated properties. Having a
formal policy gives investors clear guidelines regarding the
status of the building and provides expectations for some
economic returns from the historic building or from related
activities that may be conducted in its vicinity.
However, the price started to fall in 1998 and 1999
due to the economic crisis. According to the Property
Market Report 1999, the price of pre-war shophouses
dropped drastically by as much as 54% that year. After
1999 the price rose again and it declined in 2001, before it
started to recover in 2002. The above evidence suggests
that even though there was fluctuation in the price of the
pre-war shophouses, the market was able to sustain its
previous high price and enjoyed an upward trend. More
importantly our analysis shows that even when
conservation policies are introduced, the demand for the
properties, in terms of transaction counts and price, can still
be maintained.
Another important issue we need to address is
whether the market for pre-war shophouses was affected
by the Rent Control Act. In order to determine this, we
compared the prices of the pre-war shophouses and post-
war shophouses in the study area. Figure 4 shows the prices
of the two-storey pre-war shophouses and the two-storey
post-war shophouses in Georgetown over a period of 23
years from 1980 to 2002. Generally, the overall trend of
prices for the post-war shophouses and pre-war
shophouses are almost the same, with 10% variations both
upward and downward, observed in certain year.
Before 1988, the prices of pre-war shophouses were
slightly lower than post-war shophouses. The Rent Control
Act 1966 placed a ceiling on the total rent which could be
charged by the property owner. This fixing of rent which
was way below market level had reduced the owners'
interest to preserve and maintain these old houses to "cut
losses". In addition, rent control was viewed as a tax on the
profits of property owners, or a tax on the return to the
capital. Therefore these pre-war shophouses were
unattractive to investors.
Interestingly, between 1988 to 1995, the price for pre-
war shophouses was slightly higher than post-war
shophouses. The pre-war shophouses became more
popular among the buyers and the demand of pre-war
shophouses was consistently good. There was an excess in
demand for the pre-war shophouses due to low rents
below the market level. In addition, the pre-war
shophouses offered more option such as strategic locations
at the city centre and relatively cheaper asking prices
owing to their older or poorer physical condition (Property
Market Report, 1988). This phenomenon of over-demand of

0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
5000
80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02
Year
Price(RM/m2/Unit)
Price (RM/m2) Pre-war Shophouse Price (RM/m2) Post-war Shophouse
Figure 4. The Prices Between Two-storey Pre-war and Two-storey Post-war Shophouse in Georgetown
Source: Computed from Property Market Report 1980–2002, DVPS

pre-war shophouses was maintained until 1996. Due to the
limited quantity of the pre-war shophouses, the buyers
shifted their interest to the post-war shophouses (ibid.,
1996).
In 1997, the prices of pre-war shophouses in the
central business district of Georgetown increased over the
prospect of securing vacant possession within two years'
time due to the repeal of the Rent Control Act 1966. The
price ranged from RM750,000 to RM850,000 for units with
vacant possesion in the Georgetown (ibid., 1997).
Between 1998 to 2001, the performance of property
market was affected by economic crisis. The retail property
market lacked the luster of the 1997 performance. In
addition, the price of pre-war units was lower than post-
war units because of the oversupply of pre-war units as a
result of the repeal of the Rent Control Act in 2000.
According to the Property Market Report (2001), the prices
of pre-war shophouses dropped by up to 10% in
Georgetown due to the substantial supply of these units
being decontrolled following the repeal of the Rent Control
Act. Many of these shops were still vacant after being
vacated by the previous statutory tenants.
After 2001, the price of pre-war shophouses increased
higher than post-war. Interestingly, the prices of pre-war
shophouses show an upward trend. Pre-war shophouses
were said to be attracting small specialize businesses such
as professional firms, travel agency, money changes, etc.
moving into the city centre. This is in contrast with the price
trend of post-war shops, which saw a noticeable fall. The
interest and competition from the large supply of pre-war
shops in central business district are said to be the main
reasons for the downward trend. Further evidence from the
Property Market Report (2002) shows that the transaction
volume for post-war shophouses in Georgetown has
dropped, compared to the previous years.
Contrary popular belief that the Rent Control Act had
badly affected the property market in Georgetown, the
analysis above suggest that pre-war shophouses enjoyed
active transactions. After the act was introduced, the
transactions count and the price of pre-war shophouses
continued to rise, especially from 1988 to 1997. After the
repeal, despite of the over supply, the prices of pre-war
shophouses were still on the rise.

CONCLUSION
Our findings concur with the researches conducted in
various parts of the world which found a positive relation
between conservation policy and property value. Two
observations can be made from this study. First, even
though there was fluctuation in the transactions count and
the price of the pre-war shophouses, the market was able
to sustain its previous high price and enjoyed an upward
trend. Second, there was no clear evidence that the
market for pre-war shophouses was affected by the Rent
Control Act. The overall trend of prices for the post-war and
the pre-war shophouses was almost the same with 10%
variations in both upward and downward observed for
certain years.
This study indicates that urban conservation has a
potential to be a viable real estate development strategy
because even with conservation policies in place, the
demand for old buildings in the conservation zones has not
diminished. This can be seen by relatively high transactions
count and high price of heritage properties. Such activity
augurs well for the real estate market and may eventually
contribute to the success of the efforts being made to
revitalize the inner city of Georgetown.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We would like to thank the National Property Research
Coordinator (NAPREC) and National Institute of Valuation
(INSPEN) for funding this research, the Penang State
Valuation and Property Services Department (JPPH
Penang), the Department of Town Planning and Valuation
of Municipal Council of Penang Island, MPPP for their help
and feedback to the authors, and Mr. Leslie, J.F. for his
insightful comments.
Parts of this paper was first presented at the
International Real Estate Research Symposium (IRERS) –
Meeting New Challengers in the Changing Real Estate
Environment at the PWTC, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 11–13
April 2006.
REFERENCES
Ball, R. (1997). Industrial heritage, tourism and old industrial
building: Charting the difficult path from redundancy to
heritage attraction. www.rics.org/NR/rdonlyres/ D8FCE8D0-
46A6-4084-9E42-52B5F5609A65/0/industrial_heritage_ tourism
_and_old_industrial_buildings_19970101.pdf/ (Accessed 6
January 2005).
Bank Negara Malaysia. (1993–2003). Annual Report of Bank
Negara Malaysia 1992. KL: Public Bank Affair Unit.

Childs, R., Greenstreet, D. and Witt, T.S. (1997). Economic impact
of historic preservation in West Virginia. www.be.wvu.edu/
serve/bureau/reports/historic/historic.pdf/ (Accessed 14 June
2005).
Clarion Associates of Colorado, LLC, BBC Research and
Consulting & Place Economics. (2002). The Economic Benefits
of Historic Preservation in Colorado: Technical Report.
www.coloradohistory-oahp.org/publications/1620.htm (Acc-
essed 14 June 2005).
Cohen, N. (2001). Urban Planning Conservation and Preservation.
NY: McGraw-Hill Professional.
Feilden, B.M. (2003). Conservation of Historic Buildings. MA:
Elsevier.
Gale, D.E. (1991) The impacts of historic district designation:
Planning and policy implications. Journal of the American
Planning Association, 57: 325–340.
Habibu, S. (2004). Protecting heritage zone. The Star Online. 21
December 2004. 202.186.86.35/news/list.asp?file=/ 2004/12
/21/nation/9712627&sec=nation/ (Accessed 15 June 2005).
Klamer, A. and Zuidhof, P.W. (1999). The values of cultural
heritage: Merging economic and cultural appraisals in
economics and heritage conservation, a meeting organized
by the Getty Conservation Institute. www.getty.edu/
conservation/publications/pdf_publications/assessing.pdf/
(Accessed 15 April 2006).
Ling, R.W., Revier, C.F. and Sable, K. (2004). Estimating the public
good value of preserving a local historic landmark: The role of
non-substitutability and citizen information. Urban Studies,
41(10) (September 2004): 2025–2041.
Khoo, B.T. (1997). The repeal of rent control: Requiem fo Gerakan.
www.aliran.com/oldsite/monthly/2000htm/ (Accessed 5 May
2005).
Kong, L. and Yeoh, B.S.A. (1994). Urban conservation in Singapore:
A survey of state policies and popular attitudes. Urban
Studies, 31(2): 247–265.
Lawyerment. (n.d.). Estate law – landlord/tenant.
www. lawyerment.com.my/real_estate/lt.shtml/ (Accessed 6
January 2005).
Leichenko, R.M., Coulson, N.E., and Listokin, D. (2001). Historic
preservation and residential property values: An analysis of
Texas cities. Urban Studies, 38(11): 1973–1987.
geography.rutgers.edu/people/faculty/leichenko/leichenko
_coulson_listokin2001.pdf/ (Accessed 14 June 2005).
Lipman, F. and Mitchell, L.L.C. (2002). State of Maryland heritage
structure rehabilitation tax credits. Economic & fiscal impacts.
www.preservemd.org/txcrstudy1.pdf/ (Accessed 6 January
2006).
Listokin, D., Lahr, M. and St. Martin, K. (2001). Impacts of historic
preservation in Missouri. www.dnr.mo.gov/ pubs/pubs.htm/
(Accessed 14 June 2005).
Majlis Perbandaran Pulau Pinang. (1998). Laporan Penyemakan:
Rancangan Struktur (Pengubahan) Majlis Perbandaran Pulau
Pinang 1990–2010. Pulau Pinang: Majlis Perbandaran Pulau
Pinang.
Menon, M. (1990). Penang: Looking Back, Looking Ahead 20
Years of Progress. Pulau Pinang: Penang Development
Corporation.
Mourato, S. and Mazzanti, M. (2002). Economic valuation of
cultural heritage: Evidence and prospect. In Torre,
M. Assessing the Values of Cultural Heritage Research

Report.www.getty.edu/conservation/resources/assessing. pdf
/(Accessed 14 June 2005).
National Institute of Valuation, Valuation and Property Services
Division. (1979–2005). Property Market Report 1978. Kuala
Lumpur: Ministry of Finance Malaysia.
Pagiola, S. (1996). Economic analysis of investments in cultural
heritage: Insights from environmental economics. World Bank:
Environment Department. siteresources.worldbank.org/ INTEEI
/214574-1153316226850/20486327/EconomicAnalysisof Inves-
tmentsinCulturalHeritageInsightsfromEnvironmentalEconomics
1996.pdf/ (Accessed 30 July 2006).
Pearce, D (1989). Conservation Today. New York: Routledge.
Pickerill, T. (1997). Issues facing valuers in the appraisal of historic
buildings. www.rics.org/Builtenvironment/Buildingtypes/Histori
cbuildingsandancientmonuments/issuesfacingvaluers1997010
1.htm/ (Accessed 6 January 2006).
Pickard, R. and Pickerill, T. (2002). Real estate tax credits and other
financial incentives for investing in historic property in the
United States. The RICS Foundation Research Paper Series,
4(17). www.rics-foundation.org/ (Accessed 6 January, 2006).
Rypkema, D. (1994). The economic effect of national register
listing.crm.cr.nps.gov/archive/17-2/17-2-16.pdf/ (Accessed 14
June 2005).
Scribner, D. (1976). Historic districts as an economic asset to the
cities. The Real Estate Appraiser, May/June, 7–12.
Shipley, R. (2000). Heritage designation and property values: Is
there an effect? The International Journal of Heritage Studies,
6(1). www.fes.uwaterloo.ca/research/hrc/pdf/p_value.pdf/
(Accessed 16 May 2005).
Shankland, G. (1975). Why trouble with historic towns? In The
Conservation of Cities. Paris: UNESCO.
Tan, E. (2006). Mapping of Balik Pulau town. The Star Online. 3
March 2006. thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2006/3/3/
north/13169543&sec=north/ (Accessed 2 August 2006).
Tan, T.S. (2002). Heritage conservation efforts in Georgetown,
Penang, Malaysia. In Partnerships for World Heritage Cities
Culture as a Vector for Sustainable Urban Development,
World Heritage 2002, Shared Legacy, Common Responsibility
Associated Workshops, 11–12 November 2002 at Urbino,
Pesaro, Italy. whc.unesco.org/documents/publi_wh_papers
_09 en.pdf/(Accessed 29 June 2005).
Thorsby, D. (2002). Cultural capital and sustainability concepts in
the economics of cultural heritage in Torre, Marta. Assessing
the values of cultural heritage research report. getty.
edu/conservation/resources/assessing.pdf (Accessed 14 June
2005).
_____. (2005). Cultural Heritage as Financial Asset in Strategies for
Urban Development and Poverty Alleviation. Presented in
International Conference for Integrating Urban Knowledge &
Practice, Gotherburg, Sweden.
Warner, R.M., Groff, S.M., Warner, R.P. and Weiss, S. (1978).
Business and preservation. In Stella, (Ed.). Old Title New Profits
from Old Buildings: Private Enterprise Approaches to Making
Preservation Pay. NY: INFORM Inc.

Wrigley, M. and Hughes, S. (1998). Assessing the development
potential of historic buildings – A case study. Journal of
Property Valuation & Investment, 16(3). www.ingenta
connect.com/content/mcb/ 0112/ 1998/00000016/00000003/
art00004;jsessionid=1ijvf1v4lux0c.henrietta/ (Accessed 18 April
2005).
Yuen, B. and Ng, T.H. (2001). Urban conservation in Singapore:
Tradition or tourist bane. Planning Practice & Research, 16(1):
39–50.

3 nor aini (p.43-61)

More Related Content

Similar to 3 nor aini (p.43-61)

Recently uploaded

3 nor aini (p.43-61)