Reﬂections on Local Community Identity by Evaluating Heritage Sustainability Protection in Jugra, Selangor, Malaysia

: The purpose of this study is to evaluate the value derived by the local community from cultural heritage and natural heritage in Jugra, Kuala Langat, as it has the potential to be a recognized heritage tourism site. The quantitative approach was used by conducting a survey study. A total of 392 respondents among the local community were selected through a purposive sampling technique. The collected data were processed with SPSS software and analyzed using cross tabulation analysis. Then, several hypotheses were tested using AMOS software. The result showed that Jugra’s unique heritage elements positively inﬂuenced the respondent’s willingness to accept and fund its tourism development. Socioeconomic factors also inﬂuenced the respondents’ disposition to preserve heritage. The ﬁndings revealed that there was priceless value when respondents agreed with the development, although they had never visited the heritage sites. Their physical, economic, and social valuation made them proud of the heritage, as it is a reﬂection of their identity. This study also aims to emphasize the role of local community as one of the stakeholders, as they should also be able to from tourism development. All these would help boost the tourism industry, particularly through the archaeo-tourism and eco-tourism perspectives. factors act as a moderator between respondents’ dispositions towards heritage preservation and their acceptance of tourism development in the study area.


Introduction
The United Nations of World Tourism Organization (UNWTO) [1] and Zyl [2] define tourism as temporary travel by a person not exceeding a year, outside of his usual destinations without any remuneration from the workplace or residence. Maneenetr [3] (2008) described tourism as the social, economic, and political interactions between organizations, communities, visitors, and products. Tourism development has gotten worldwide recognition as an impetus for economic growth, agriculture, and energy development and poverty alleviation [4][5][6][7][8][9][10]. The Association of Southeast Asian Nations, or ASEAN [11], defines tangible heritage as cultural heritage, including the structures, artefacts, and sites, whereas oral, folk, and popular cultural heritage, including fashion and costumes and Jugra is said to have existed for 2500 years, and historians believe that Langat was once its original site. Researchers have discovered artefacts from a series of excavations in 1964 at Kampung Sungai Lang [52]. The locations of Jugra sub-district and Kuala Langat district are shown in Figure 1. From a linguistic point of view, researchers have stated that the Jugra dialect indeed represents the ancient Selangor dialect, which was previously thought to be non-existent [53]. Jugra also became well known as a transit area during the Malacca Sultanate era, based on its terrains and strategic location, which are situated along the coast and river mouth [54][55][56]. Moreover, in 18th century, Jugra was once the administrative center of Selangor when the fourth Sultan of Selangor, Al Marhum Sultan Abdul Samad Ibni Sultan Abdullah (SASSA), resided there (1875-1898). SASSA built several palaces and resided there in 1875. Therefore, Jugra was established as the development hub of social, economic, and political life in Selangor. During the reign of SASSA, Jugra witnessed various historical events, such as the civil wars of Klang I and Klang II (1866-1874) that affected British colonialism in Malaysia. After the demise of SASSA, his grandson, Sultan Ala'uddin Suleiman Shah Ibni Raja Musa (SASRM), became the fifth Sultan of Selangor. SASRM resided in Jugra for 35 years and brought about many physical, economic, and social developments to the state before he moved and passed away in Klang [57][58][59][60]. Accordingly, the remains of its historic evidence still exist as cultural heritage that bears aesthetic value and unique designs. The population in Jugra is estimated to be about 8582 out of more than 200,000 people in Kuala Langat, Selangor. Most of the people in Jugra work as farmers, fishermen, entrepreneurs, construction workers, civil servants, or in private companies, the banking sector, or utilities sector, [61]. Fortunately, Jugra also has natural heritage assets that are rich in biodiversity and serve as the habitat for natural resources. All these assets need to be preserved for future generations, as they have significant historic, spiritual, and scientific value from previous civilizations that is irreplaceable. Unfortunately, previous research found that heritage assets in the study area were recorded and categorized, but these treasures were not systematically managed. One of the key challenges in management systems is the lack of cooperation and attitudinal attentions by stakeholders such as local authorities, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), or the local community themselves, especially the owners of the inheritance. The study also discussed the financial aspects of managing heritage assets so that good management systems can be implemented. The integration part of planning, management, engagement, and cooperation among stakeholders should be strengthened to ensure consistent development in line with the legal system and conservation guidelines as provided by the government [52]. Table 1

Semiotics of the Study
Semiotics refers to the science of signs or any system that is related to the use of symbol or marks [62]. In the 19th century, Charles Sanders Pierce (1839-1914), a philosopher from the United States who authored the Collected Papers (reconstituted in 1931 by Charles Harthstorne, Paul Wiess, and Arthur W. Burks), stated that semiotics has links to logical character, which can connect the relationship between signifier (marker) and signified through the symbol of a sign. It can be considered arbitrary by the three components, which are icons, symbols, and indexes [62,63]. Semiotics has been used effectively in tourism-related studies over the last two decades [64,65]. According to MacCannell [63], he adapted semiotics in tourism as written in a book titled The Tourist. MacCannell used the Pierce approach, which uses the beauty and uniqueness of a tourist destination as a means to influence a visitor's motivation to visit the site. An example given by MacCannell is the Eiffel Tower, which became a major tourist attraction in Paris, and the Empire State building is the main tourist attraction in Manhattan. These buildings were built to be a sign that symbolizes the identity of the place they are located in [64,66]. In addition, this study adapted Piercean semiotics by using the Piercean triadic model of signs to form a conceptual framework for the study. The cultural heritage and natural heritage elements in the study area were used to symbolize local identity by evaluating the locals' interpretation of the heritage protection. As illustrated in Figure 4, the semiotic process occurs via three components-the first component is the signifier (representing the uniqueness of the heritage elements in Jugra) to interpret the second component of the local community (signified). Hence, the locals' evaluation and interpretation on the signifier represents the

Semiotics of the Study
Semiotics refers to the science of signs or any system that is related to the use of symbol or marks [62]. In the 19th century, Charles Sanders Pierce (1839-1914), a philosopher from the United States who authored the Collected Papers (reconstituted in 1931 by Charles Harthstorne, Paul Wiess, and Arthur W. Burks), stated that semiotics has links to logical character, which can connect the relationship between signifier (marker) and signified through the symbol of a sign. It can be considered arbitrary by the three components, which are icons, symbols, and indexes [62,63]. Semiotics has been used effectively in tourism-related studies over the last two decades [64,65]. According to MacCannell [63], he adapted semiotics in tourism as written in a book titled The Tourist. MacCannell used the Pierce approach, which uses the beauty and uniqueness of a tourist destination as a means to influence a visitor's motivation to visit the site. An example given by MacCannell is the Eiffel Tower, which became a major tourist attraction in Paris, and the Empire State building is the main tourist attraction in Manhattan. These buildings were built to be a sign that symbolizes the identity of the place they are located in [64,66]. In addition, this study adapted Piercean semiotics by using the Piercean triadic model of signs to form a conceptual framework for the study. The cultural heritage and natural heritage elements in the study area were used to symbolize local identity by evaluating the locals' interpretation of the heritage protection. As illustrated in Figure 4, the semiotic process occurs via three components-the first component is the signifier (representing the uniqueness of the heritage elements in Jugra) to interpret the second component of the local community (signified). Hence, the locals' evaluation and interpretation on the signifier represents the attractiveness towards heritage tourism development, which is the third component. The interchangeability between the signified and the signifier through heritage evaluation acts as a link to form the continuation in a triangular relationship. Generally, this process will create heritage values that are influenced by the local community perceptions, experiences, and level of awareness towards the importance of heritage protection. These heritage values represent the dependent variables in the study. The involvement of the local community signifies both direct and indirect used values. Direct used value refers to the people who get the benefits of the heritage protection directly because they use the heritage site as a place of residence, workplace, recreation area, or trip destination, whereas indirect used value represents the people who have no visiting experience at the heritage site but get the benefits indirectly because they live in the area. There is an intrinsic value when they have never visited the heritage site, but they have an internal awareness of protecting the site so that the treasures can be enjoyed by other users. The goal of the implementation is to conserve the heritage assets (altruistic value) and decide to make the site become a recognizable heritage tourism destination for future use and biodiversity well-being (option value). There is a bequest value when preserving the uniqueness of the heritage site that can be inherited by future generations. All these dependent variables may influence the socioeconomic factors such as education, occupation, and income that can affect users' disposition and consent towards heritage tourism development efforts [30,67]. attractiveness towards heritage tourism development, which is the third component. The interchangeability between the signified and the signifier through heritage evaluation acts as a link to form the continuation in a triangular relationship. Generally, this process will create heritage values that are influenced by the local community perceptions, experiences, and level of awareness towards the importance of heritage protection. These heritage values represent the dependent variables in the study. The involvement of the local community signifies both direct and indirect used values. Direct used value refers to the people who get the benefits of the heritage protection directly because they use the heritage site as a place of residence, workplace, recreation area, or trip destination, whereas indirect used value represents the people who have no visiting experience at the heritage site but get the benefits indirectly because they live in the area. There is an intrinsic value when they have never visited the heritage site, but they have an internal awareness of protecting the site so that the treasures can be enjoyed by other users. The goal of the implementation is to conserve the heritage assets (altruistic value) and decide to make the site become a recognizable heritage tourism destination for future use and biodiversity well-being (option value). There is a bequest value when preserving the uniqueness of the heritage site that can be inherited by future generations. All these dependent variables may influence the socioeconomic factors such as education, occupation, and income that can affect users' disposition and consent towards heritage tourism development efforts [30,67].

Methodology
A quantitative survey was conducted over eight weeks from 6 November to 28 December 2015 to evaluate the values derived by the local community towards the cultural heritage and natural heritage in the study area. The purposive sampling technique was chosen and applied to the target population of the local people in Kuala Langat, who have been living in the area for over three years. Figure 5 indicates the values created by the locals through the survey.

Methodology
A quantitative survey was conducted over eight weeks from 6 November to 28 December 2015 to evaluate the values derived by the local community towards the cultural heritage and natural heritage in the study area. The purposive sampling technique was chosen and applied to the target population of the local people in Kuala Langat, who have been living in the area for over three years. Figure 5 indicates the values created by the locals through the survey. attractiveness towards heritage tourism development, which is the third component. The interchangeability between the signified and the signifier through heritage evaluation acts as a link to form the continuation in a triangular relationship. Generally, this process will create heritage values that are influenced by the local community perceptions, experiences, and level of awareness towards the importance of heritage protection. These heritage values represent the dependent variables in the study. The involvement of the local community signifies both direct and indirect used values. Direct used value refers to the people who get the benefits of the heritage protection directly because they use the heritage site as a place of residence, workplace, recreation area, or trip destination, whereas indirect used value represents the people who have no visiting experience at the heritage site but get the benefits indirectly because they live in the area. There is an intrinsic value when they have never visited the heritage site, but they have an internal awareness of protecting the site so that the treasures can be enjoyed by other users. The goal of the implementation is to conserve the heritage assets (altruistic value) and decide to make the site become a recognizable heritage tourism destination for future use and biodiversity well-being (option value). There is a bequest value when preserving the uniqueness of the heritage site that can be inherited by future generations. All these dependent variables may influence the socioeconomic factors such as education, occupation, and income that can affect users' disposition and consent towards heritage tourism development efforts [30,67].

Methodology
A quantitative survey was conducted over eight weeks from 6 November to 28 December 2015 to evaluate the values derived by the local community towards the cultural heritage and natural heritage in the study area. The purposive sampling technique was chosen and applied to the target population of the local people in Kuala Langat, who have been living in the area for over three years. Figure 5 indicates the values created by the locals through the survey. Based on the pilot survey, despite the fact that all respondents have lived in the area for more than three years, some still did not recognize the heritage elements and had never visited the area. Therefore, in the major survey with a total of 392 respondents (from Sustainability 2021, 13, 8705 7 of 21 the 400 respondents who returned with positive feedback), the distribution technique used was the face-to-face technique. The technique also included displays of pictorial or visual information about the heritage elements. This technique can attain 80 percent or more effectiveness and fast response from the respondents compared to other methods such as online survey, electronic media, or mail [68]. The questionnaire had 36 total questions, consisting of two types of close-ended questions. Firstly, the five-point Likert scale questions were used to estimate the respondents' perception of or disposition towards heritage protection in the study area, and secondly, dichotomous questions were used to ask the respondents to answer either "Yes" or "No." This type of question was used to identify the respondents' willingness to pay for heritage protection, options to choose the uniqueness of heritage elements in the study area, and then to find out whether the respondents had or had not visited the study area [59]. The data were processed using IBM SPSS Statistics version 21. Basic descriptive analyses of percentages and frequencies were applied to attain the respondents' demographic data and to calculate the total number of respondents who accepted heritage tourism development and were willing to contribute to its funding. Then, inferential analyses were also applied, namely, cross-tabulation analyses by using the Chi-square test in SPSS software to study the correlation between variables, as depicted below: 1.
Cross-tabulation between respondents' acceptance of heritage tourism development in the study area and their visiting experience at the heritage sites.

2.
Cross-tabulation between respondents' willingness to pay (WTP) for the heritage conservation and their acceptance of tourism development in study area.
In addition, the study also applied structural equation modelling (SEM) using regression and moderation tests in AMOS software to test the hypotheses as listed below: There is a significant statistical correlation between the uniqueness of heritage elements in Jugra and respondents' willingness to pay for heritage conservation and tourism development purposes.

Hypothesis 2 (H 2 ).
There is a significant statistical correlation between the uniqueness heritage elements in Jugra and respondents' consent to heritage tourism development.

Hypothesis 3 (H 3 ).
Socioeconomic factors act as a moderator between respondents' dispositions towards heritage preservation and their acceptance of tourism development in the study area.

Results
Based on the analysis of the demographic data of 392 respondents, there was a slight difference by gender, the number of male and female respondents, of 4%. In terms of age, the survey consisted of the highest total of number respondents as between 16 and 34 years old (61.0%), followed by 20.9% of respondents aged between 35 and 44 years old. In terms of educational background, the majority of the respondents had completed secondary school, whereas only 7.2% of them had no formal education or had only completed primary education. In terms of occupation, the highest number of respondents (31.4%) was comprised of technicians or officers. Then, by monthly gross income, the majority of the respondents earned no more than RM 900 monthly (29.3%). Most of the respondents had visited the heritage area (77.3%). Less than half of the total respondents were willing to pay for heritage tourism development (46.7%). Nevertheless, the majority of them accepted the study area as a choice heritage tourism site (96.9%). A summary of the respondents' demographic data is indicated in Table 2. According to Seok et al. [69] and Garczynski [70], the significant value (alpha value) for the Pearson chi square should be less than (<) 0.05. As shown in Table 3, the X 2 value at continuity correction (must refer if any) was 0.000 at an asymptotic significant level (alpha value) of 1.000. As the significant value exceeded 0.05, it shows that the respondents' acceptance of the heritage tourism development in the study area was not correlated with their visiting experience at the heritage sites (X 2 = 0.000, df = 1, k > 0.05). Furthermore, Table 4 and Figure 6 illustrate that 22.7% (86 frequencies) of respondents had never visited the heritage sites but accepted heritage tourism development in the study area. Thus, the study found that there was an intrinsic value among respondents who were aware on the importance of the preservation and conservation of heritage elements, despite having never seen the treasures. Nonetheless, they still wanted to protect it for the benefit of others and future generations (bequest value-refer to the explanation in the subtopic of "semiotics" in the study).

Cross-Tabulation between Respondents' Willingness to Pay (WTP) for Heritage Conservation and Their Acceptance of Tourism Development in Jugra
As illustrated in Table 5, the Pearson chi-square value X 2 at continuity correction is 0.103, and at asymptotic significance, the alpha value is 0.748. The alpha value exceeded 0.05. Thus, the result showed that the correlation between respondents' willingness to pay (WTP) for heritage conservation and their acceptance of tourism development in the study area was not significant (X 2 = 16.975, df = 1, k > 0.05). In addition, as illustrated in Table 6 and Figure 7, an interesting finding showed that majority of respondents (96.2%, 201 frequencies) were not willing to pay for heritage conservation but accepted the choice of heritage tourism development in the study area. Besides, the results showed that respondents' acceptance of heritage tourism development in the study area was not influenced by their willingness to pay for the cost of funding for heritage tourism development purposes. Table 6. Cross-tabulation between respondents' willingness to pay (WTP) for the heritage conservation and their acceptance of Jugra as a heritage tourism site.

Inference Analysis-Structural Equation Modelling (SEM)
3.2.1. Index Category and Parameter (Level of Acceptance) for Each Index Table 7 indicates the list of indexes that are involved in the structural equation model by their category. Each index has its own parameter based on the level of acceptance to determine the significance value.  Table 7 indicates the list of indexes that are involved in the structural equation model by their category. Each index has its own parameter based on the level of acceptance to determine the significance value.  Table 8 illustrates the results from the structural equation model in Figure 8. The regression test result shows that the relationship between the uniqueness of the heritage elements and respondents' willingness to pay (WTP) for the cost of funding in heritage tourism development purposes was significant by obtaining a p-value (WTP ← HU) of less than 0.05.  The result showed that the uniqueness of the heritage elements in the study area remained the key factor in encouraging the respondents to contribute to the cost of funding heritage tourism development. Thus, the statement of hypothesis (H₁) is supported. Table 9 represents the results from the structural equation model in Figure 9. As depicted in the table, the p-value attained (Acceptance ← HU) was less than 0.005. The result showed that the uniqueness of heritage elements in the study area had a significant relationship with their acceptance of heritage tourism development. The findings revealed that the remains of old building and monuments, the history, and the beauty of nature in the study area were the core factors influencing the respondents in making the decision to protect the heritage area (option value and bequest value-refer to the subtopic of "semiotics" in the study). Based on the findings, the study revealed that the respondents' positive valuation and awareness of the protection of the heritage proved that there is an appreciation for preserving the inherited treasures that reflect their identity (legacy value-refer to subtopic of "semiotics" in the study). These legacies are considered a symbol that replicates the history related to the local people and their surroundings. The finding matched with the use of the semiotics theory in the study, as explained in the previous paragraph. Thus, hypothesis H₂ is supported.  The result showed that the uniqueness of the heritage elements in the study area remained the key factor in encouraging the respondents to contribute to the cost of funding heritage tourism development. Thus, the statement of hypothesis (H 1 ) is supported. Table 9 represents the results from the structural equation model in Figure 9. As depicted in the table, the p-value attained (Acceptance ← HU) was less than 0.005. The result showed that the uniqueness of heritage elements in the study area had a significant relationship with their acceptance of heritage tourism development. The findings revealed that the remains of old building and monuments, the history, and the beauty of nature in the study area were the core factors influencing the respondents in making the decision to protect the heritage area (option value and bequest value-refer to the subtopic of "semiotics" in the study). Based on the findings, the study revealed that the respondents' positive valuation and awareness of the protection of the heritage proved that there is an appreciation for preserving the inherited treasures that reflect their identity (legacy value-refer to subtopic of "semiotics" in the study). These legacies are considered a symbol that replicates the history related to the local people and their surroundings. The finding matched with the use of the semiotics theory in the study, as explained in the previous paragraph. Thus, hypothesis H 2 is supported. Table 10 represents the result of the regression test from the structural equation model in Figure 10, where the p-value for the path from respondents' dispositions in preserving heritage to respondents' acceptance of the study area as a heritage tourism site as 0.089 is deemed insignificant.

Significant
Hypothesis: There is a significant statistical correlation between the uniqueness of the heritage elements in Jugra and respondents' consent to heritage tourism development.

Statistical Test on Socioeconomic Factors as a Moderator between Respondents'
Dispositions towards Heritage Preservation and Their Acceptance of Tourism Development in the Study Area Table 10 represents the result of the regression test from the structural equation model in Figure 10, where the p-value for the path from respondents' dispositions in preserving heritage to respondents' acceptance of the study area as a heritage tourism site as 0.089 is deemed insignificant.     Table 11 represents the result of the regression test from the structural equation model. The p-value for the path from respondents' dispositions towards preserving the heritage to respondents' acceptance of the study area as a heritage tourism site after it had been constrained was 0.044. This resulted in a change from "not significant" to "significant." Table 11. Regression weights to test socioeconomic factors as a moderator between respondents' dispositions towards heritage preservation and their acceptance of tourism development in the study area (constraint). The result of the fitness indexes in Figure 11 displays the constraint model of the structural equation, where the parameter value of the path from socioeconomic to acceptance is converted to 1 (in the red dropline), as indicated. As indicated in Table 12, the difference in chi-square values in between the constraint and unconstraint model was 132.48, with a degree of freedom (DF) of 1. According to Awang [71], the correlation between two variables is significant when the difference of the chi-square value is more than 3.84 by a difference of DF equal to 1. Besides that, the pvalue between the path of respondents' acceptance of Jugra as a heritage tourism site and respondents' disposition towards preserving heritage changed from 0.089 (unconstraint) to 0.044 (constraint). This resulted in the equation for constraint model being significant  Table 12, the difference in chi-square values in between the constraint and unconstraint model was 132.48, with a degree of freedom (DF) of 1. According to Awang [71], the correlation between two variables is significant when the difference of the chi-square value is more than 3.84 by a difference of DF equal to 1. Besides that, the p-value between the path of respondents' acceptance of Jugra as a heritage tourism site and respondents' disposition towards preserving heritage changed from 0.089 (unconstraint) to 0.044 (constraint). This resulted in the equation for constraint model being significant (<0.05). Thus, the findings showed that the socioeconomic factors of education, professions, and monthly gross income influenced respondents' dispositions towards preserving the heritage and that they agreed with heritage tourism development in Jugra. The hypothesis (H 3 ) is acceptable. This study revealed that educating children about the valuable of heritage preservation is very important (bequest value-refer to the subtopic of "semiotics" in the study). There is a need to educate the young in order to heighten awareness of heritage preservation and conservation so that it can be sustained for future generations and the ecosystem's well-being. Figure 12 illustrates the combination of all the structural equation models that were involved in the study. Concisely, all the fitness indexes reached the standard value, which demonstrated their significant correlations.

Conclusions
Overall, the study found that the majority of the 392 total respondents support cultural heritage and natural heritage protection for tourism development in Jugra. Based on the survey data, there is an interesting finding showed that the majority of respondents were not willing to pay for the heritage conservation but accepted the choice of heritage tourism development in the study area. In addition, the results showed that respondents' acceptance of heritage tourism development in the study area was not influenced by their willingness to pay for the cost of funding for heritage tourism development purposes. However, the correlation test through cross-tabulation analysis proved that the respondents' acceptance of heritage tourism development in the study area did not affect their

Conclusions
Overall, the study found that the majority of the 392 total respondents support cultural heritage and natural heritage protection for tourism development in Jugra. Based on the survey data, there is an interesting finding showed that the majority of respondents were not willing to pay for the heritage conservation but accepted the choice of heritage tourism development in the study area. In addition, the results showed that respondents' acceptance of heritage tourism development in the study area was not influenced by their willingness to pay for the cost of funding for heritage tourism development purposes. However, the correlation test through cross-tabulation analysis proved that the respondents' acceptance of heritage tourism development in the study area did not affect their willingness to pay for heritage tourism development efforts. An outstanding result showed that there was an intrinsic value among respondents who were aware of the importance of the preservation and conservation of heritage elements, despite having never seen the treasures. Nonetheless, they still wanted to protect it for the benefit of others and future generations. The study also supports the hypothesis statements of the cultural and natural heritage elements' uniqueness in Jugra, which had an influence on respondents' acceptance of heritage tourism development in the area and their willingness to contribute to the funding costs (legacy value, option value). The statistical result was well suited to the findings that discovered that the main factor in respondents' willingness to pay for heritage protection was in the attractiveness and uniqueness of the heritage elements in the area. The findings also revealed that the remains of old buildings and monuments, the history, and the beauty of nature in the study area were the core factors in influencing the respondents to make the decision to protect the heritage area. Based on the findings, the study revealed that respondents' positive valuation and awareness of the protection of heritage proved that there is an appreciation for preserving the inherited treasures that reflect their identity or legacy value. These legacies are considered a symbol that replicates the history of the local people and their surroundings. The findings matched with the use of the semiotics theory in the study. The socioeconomic factors of education, professions, and monthly gross income influenced respondents' disposition towards preserving the heritage and supported heritage tourism development in Jugra. This study revealed that educating children about the value of heritage preservation is very important (bequest value-refer to the subtopic of "semiotics" in the study). There is a need to educate the young in order to heighten awareness of heritage preservation and conservation so that it can be sustained for future generation and the ecosystem's well-being.
Rationally, this study encouraged the involvement of the local community, who should be an integral part of the stakeholders in the decision-making throughout the planning and management processes in tourism development. The locals' involvement is important not only financially, but also in terms of support and promotion. Their awareness of heritage protection significance is important for educating younger generations' dispositions towards preserving heritage assets. The limitation of this study is mainly the focus on the reflection of the local community and their willingness to pay for heritage protection of historic buildings, monuments, and archaeological sites in Jugra, Selangor, Malaysia. A suggestion for further studies in Jugra can be to focus on heritagization, which refers to the transformation of objects, places, and practices into cultural heritage as value attached to them, essentially describing heritage as a process. Another fundamental concept of validating heritage within conservation practice is based on aspects of heritage values, authenticity, and integrity.

Data Availability Statement:
The data presented in this study are available within this article.