Evaluation of Urban Traditional Temples Using Cultural Tourism Potential

Abstract

This study examines the potential of religious facilities to enhance urban tourism by evaluating urban traditional temples as cultural tourism resources and identifying key tourism indicators. An evaluation framework was developed, encompassing five attributes—historicity, accessibility, inter-connectivity, convenience, and publicity—each with three sub-factors. The research question focuses on what factors distinguish successful urban traditional temples like Bongeunsa and Jogyesa from others. Seven traditional temples in Seoul were selected for comparison. Bongeunsa and Jogyesa, functioning as major tourist attractions, were compared with five other temples with potential but fewer visitors. The findings indicate that Bongeunsa and Jogyesa scored higher for all of the attraction attributes and the majority of the sub-factors. Differences in the correlation between each factor and visitor numbers were also observed. The research methodology included literature reviews, deriving cultural tourism attributes, and evaluating selected temples. This approach highlights underdeveloped factors in other urban temples and suggests strategies for enhancement, providing valuable insights for urban tourism policy and development.

1. Introduction

To promote the urban tourism industry, Seoul has recognized the need to identify and develop its natural, potential, and artificial tourism resources within the city [1]. Culture and cultural and historical heritage are significant for urban tourism development [2]. Architectural heritage attracts tourism, drives tourist-derived revenue, and brings broader economic, social, and environmental benefits [3]. At the same time, there has been a re-evaluation and discussion on religious facilities, a type of architectural heritage, in terms of revitalizing urban tourism. Recently, numerous countries have actively sought to invigorate their tourism sectors by creating heritage management plans and exploring the potential of religious sites with traditional value. Religious tourism is a model of tourism that the majority of people are interested in, concerning religions and cults and being invigorated by the architecture or histories and worshiping sacred things [4]. Although some perspectives criticize this as unnecessary support for specific religions, considering that many religious facilities are included as UNESCO heritage sites and have become landmarks in famous cities worldwide, a growing positive view is that utilizing religious facilities can unearth new tourism resources. Maintaining close relationships between religion, culture, and tourism is imperative, as they are crucial in promoting spirituality and human development, particularly in globalization and sustainable economic development [5]. Among various religious facilities in Korea, Buddhist traditional temples are a representative historical resource in Korea, closely related to the nation’s culture, history, and politics. Meanwhile, tourism is considered a type of relaxation that takes the recreation activities associated to allow travelers to release their tension and experience happiness amidst traveling in carrying out one’s activity from one place [6]. People desire and practice active relaxation in today’s socioeconomic conditions, with natural and cultural heritage sites as primary attractions for those seeking an escape from their daily routine [7]. Compared with busy modern life, the gardens of religious places, such as shrines or temples, have a Zen, clean, and serene aesthetic atmosphere [8]. Therefore, traditional temples can function as representative urban leisure spaces where culture and tradition are preserved and where various urban residents can comfortably and freely use the space.

Venter et al. [9] reported that the usage of urban green spaces (UGSs) increased during the pandemic, and UGSs are vital cultural resources that enhance sustainability and resilience in urban areas. As many researchers have argued that green spaces in urban areas can offer environmental advantages and a wide range of economic services [10,11,12], similar effects can be expected from well-preserved traditional temples in urban areas in Korea, which combine natural landscapes with cultural heritage. Due to their historical characteristic of being built in the mountains and the efforts of the Seoul city government to legally designate and preserve them as cultural tourism resources, the existing urban traditional temples possess relatively abundant green spaces.

Traditional temples in urban areas serve as freely accessible gathering places for citizens, historical assets to pass on to descendants, and a window to introduce the country’s religion to foreign visitors. Furthermore, they allow citizens to enjoy cultural assets and provide abundant greenery and relaxation spaces. In today’s society, urban temples have also become multifunctional urban green spaces, integrating religious activities, leisure and entertainment, tourism, and historical and cultural experiences [13,14].

Despite possessing geographical advantages not found in remote mountain temples, only a small fraction of urban traditional temples, specifically Jogyesa and Bongeunsa, function as urban cultural tourism resources. Considering their relative accessibility and the ease of integration with nearby tourist resources, there is a need for further discussion on research and development strategies for urban traditional temples. While there have been several attempts to study the potential of religious buildings as tourism resources from an architectural perspective, these studies have only analyzed the use of their amenities or facilities and architectural composition or placement. No studies have examined the locational conditions and cultural tourism characteristics of temples. The distinctive aspect of this study lies in its attempt to identify which characteristics among those inherent to temples as cultural tourism resources most significantly affect efforts to revitalize tourism indicators and attract visitors. This identification enables the determination of priorities that render specific types of buildings sustainable as tourism resources. The research also suggests that the prioritized resource characteristics vary depending on the uses of the buildings involved in tourism. For instance, for retail malls or entertainment spaces, for them to emerge as cultural tourism resources, attractive attributes different to those found in traditional temples may play a more crucial role.

Temples are part of cities’ social and cultural structure and can provide case studies on how historical environments interact with modern urban ones. This study focuses on the potential of religious facilities to enhance urban tourism by examining the characteristics of urban traditional temples as cultural tourism resources and identifying important cultural tourism indicators. By integrating traditional temples into urban tourism services, we provide a strategic framework that contributes to sustainable urban management, thus serving as foundational data for future development strategies and research on urban tourism projects utilizing religious facilities.

This study undertakes a literature review and lays out the theoretical considerations to derive the cultural tourism attraction attributes and then analyzes cases of urban traditional temples in Seoul based on self-constructed evaluation factors. The research question has been specified as, “What factors distinguish urban traditional temples that have been successfully developed as tourist attractions, such as Bongeunsa and Jogyesa, from other urban traditional temples that have not yet achieved similar success?”

To address this question, this study compares the only two temples currently in use as tourism resources (Bongeunsa and Jogyesa, which are considered the most famous traditional temples in Seoul) with five other urban traditional temples that have significant potential as tourism resources but currently attract far fewer visitors. By analyzing the characteristics that Bongeunsa and Jogyesa possess which make them highly popular tourist destinations, this study aims to identify the specific elements that should be further developed in other urban traditional temples. This approach will help reveal the factors that are relatively underdeveloped in other urban traditional temples and suggest strategies for their enhancement.

On the other hand, according to recent research, the factors contributing to the tourism appeal of heritage sites are varied and context-specific, with different sites leveraging unique elements to attract visitors [15]. Therefore, we can assume that the specific elements contributing to the tourism appeal of urban traditional temples will also vary, and the reasons that make Bongeunsa and Jogyesa Temples popular tourist destinations might differ. With these considerations in mind, we aim to establish and test the following hypotheses through empirical analysis:

Research Hypothesis 1 (H1). 

Bongeunsa and Jogyesa, which have high tourist volumes, will receive higher scores in the evaluation of tourism attraction attributes and sub-factors compared to other urban traditional temples.

Research Hypothesis 2 (H2). 

There will be differences in the correlation between each factor and the number of visitors for each temple.

The detailed research methods include the following:

• ① Conducting a theoretical review on traditional temples, general temples, mountain temples, and urban temples as cultural tourism resources in Section 2.1.
• ② Deriving the attraction attributes and factors of the cultural tourism resources necessary for this study from Section 2.2 to Section 3.2 based on a literature review.
• ③ Developing indicators for each factor to construct an evaluation framework in Section 4.
• ④ Evaluating Bongeunsa and Jogyesa, which already attract many visitors, and five other urban traditional temples with significant tourism potential but fewer visitors in Section 5.
• ⑤ Executing a comparative analysis of Bongeunsa, Jogyesa, and five other temples to uncover factors that need improvement in Section 6.2.1.
• ⑥ Using correlation analysis to identify high-priority factors for enhancing the tourism potential of urban traditional temples, while discussing the study limitations, improvement areas, and expected outcomes in Section 6.2.2.
• ⑦ Discussing the results obtained from the evaluation, including the study’s limitations, areas for improvement, and expected outcomes in Section 7. This discussion will also propose ways to apply the findings in future urban tourism research involving religious sites.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Urban Traditional Temples

2.1.1. Concept of Korean Traditional Temples

Typically, a temple is a site where the Fourfold Assembly, which includes monks, nuns, laymen, and laywomen, practice Buddhism, guided by Buddha’s teachings, and partake in sermons. It represents the core of Buddha’s teachings and serves as the gathering place for his disciples to practice. Korea’s Act on the Preservation and Support of Traditional Temples defines such preservation and support, categorizing Korean Buddhist temples, but not general temples, as traditional institutions [16] (

Table 1. Classification of Korean temples based on law.

Type	Concept
Traditional temple	Possesses historical characteristicsEssential for understanding the flow of Korean Buddhism, culture, arts, and architectural historyA typical model for examining the generation and transformation of Korean cultureHolds high cultural value
General temple	Not designated as a traditional temple

). In the case of traditional temples, the admission fees are covered by the government, and the temples receive government subsidies for repairs and preservation. As a result, despite being religious facilities, they also have the characteristics of public goods.

The Culture and Tourism Minister designates traditional temples in each city and province following specific criteria. Historically, they must exhibit distinctive characteristics of specific eras. The government considers them particularly vital for understanding the trajectory of Korea’s unique Buddhism, culture, art, and architectural history. They also exemplify typical patterns in the formation and evolution of Korean culture. In addition, there are instances where, given its cultural value, a temple may be apt for registration as a traditional temple. The Minister of Culture may confer this designation if there is a compelling reason to recognize a temple as a traditional temple. Those temples that do not meet the criteria for traditional temples are regular temples, and most temples built in modern times have a contemporary appearance rather than a traditional one.

2.1.2. Classification of Temples Based on Location Conditions

In Korean Buddhism, depending on their location and setting, temples are classified as either “plains temples” or “mountain temples” (Table 2). Plains temples are those located in the heart of urban areas, while mountain temples, locally termed “sansa (山寺)”, are situated in mountainous regions.

Korean history is divided into prehistoric times; ancient times, from the establishment of Gojoseon to the Later Three Kingdoms period; medieval times during the Goryeo dynasty; modern times during the Joseon dynasty; and modern times from the establishment of the Korean Empire to the present. When Buddhism was first introduced into Korea in A.D. 372, the second year of the reign of King Sosurim of the Goguryeo Kingdom, temples were naturally built in cities where followers resided.

However, with the spread of the “Feng Shui theory” and “Seon (Zen) Buddhism”, temples began to move into the mountains during the Unified Silla period (668–935) [17]. Feng Shui is an ancient Chinese practice that aims to harmonize individuals with their surrounding environment by arranging the physical space. Mountains were often considered ideal sites due to their stable and majestic characteristics in Feng Shui theory. The combination of Buddhism and Feng Shui has had a significant influence on the construction of mountain temples in Korea [18]. The rise of Seon Buddhism, which emphasizes enlightenment through meditation, further encouraged the establishment of mountain temples. Seon Buddhism, which originated in India and was transmitted to China by Bodhidharma, was brought to Korea during the Silla dynasty. The Seon teachings, with an emphasis on rigorous meditation practice in secluded, natural settings, were well received in Korea and led to the proliferation of mountain temples [17]. The primary mission of Buddhism is not only self-cultivation but also the teaching of all beings. Therefore, both mountain temples, which were located in remote environments, and plains temples, which focused on community engagement, coexisted until the Goryeo dynasty. During the Joseon dynasty, state policy favoring Confucianism and suppressing Buddhism led to the demolition of many plains temples. The government restricted the construction of temples in cities and emphasized Confucian values, which resulted in a decline in urban Buddhist temples and the exclusive settlement of temples in mountainous areas. This is why most traditional temples that have survived to this day are built in mountainous areas [19], rather than the urban area.

Table 2. Classification of Korean traditional temples based on location.

Type	Concept
Mountain traditional temple	Located in mountainous areas in natural surroundings, mountain peaks, or valleys, providing an immersive experience of Korea’s exceptional natural landscapes [20,21].
Urban traditional temple	Located in the urban area, providing facilities and programs that consider urban characteristics.

Table 2. Classification of Korean traditional temples based on location.

Type	Concept
Mountain traditional temple	Located in mountainous areas in natural surroundings, mountain peaks, or valleys, providing an immersive experience of Korea’s exceptional natural landscapes [20,21].
Urban traditional temple	Located in the urban area, providing facilities and programs that consider urban characteristics.

After modern times, with the decline in anti-Buddhist policies, practical issues were exposed in reaching a wider congregation, hence ushering in the need for more urban temples as part of an evangelism movement [22].

As a result, we find two types of plains temples: In one case, they maintain religious symbolism by constructing traditional halls on top of modern buildings while also pursuing the convenience of contemporary life [19]. There is no traditional temple in this case, so it was not covered in this study. Other cases either predate the suppression of Buddhism or entered Seoul’s city walls after the Joseon dynasty, continuing to exist in the modern city [23]. Due to rapid urbanization in Seoul, some temples initially built in mountain areas on the outskirts have now become part of urban centers (Figure 1A) as the city expanded and became more densely populated. Although most mountain temples are still located within mountainous national park areas (Figure 1C), in rare instances, traditional temples may also become plains temples if they are relocated to urban areas for specific reasons (Figure 1B).

This study defines “urban traditional temples” as those situated in city centers, surrounded by urban structures and not adjacent to mountains or national parks. These temples, while retaining their public good characteristics, also serve cultural functions, as well as holding relatively greater historical heritage value compared to temples built in modern times. This research will focus on these urban traditional temples.

Seoul has experienced spatial expansion along with rapid population growth in modern times. In this process of urbanization, temples originally located in mountainous areas began to be included in the urban area. Most of these temples are undervalued and underutilized resources, which contradicts the rapid and radical urbanization and tourism development of Seoul.

With an increasing urban density, we need more cultural spaces and places where citizens can gather. The city of Seoul recognizes the need to enhance the religious, cultural, and heritage value of traditional temples in the city and to utilize them as tourism resources. To this end, we aim to identify the unique, multidimensional attractive attributes of Korean Buddhist temples that differentiate them from other tourist destinations. We also seek to determine the key factors influencing visitor attraction, thereby elucidating the relationship between the attractive attributes of Korean traditional temples and tourist footfall.

2.2. Cultural Tourism Resources in the City Center

2.2.1. Concept of Cultural Tourism Resources

Tourism resources are a vital conduit and key asset for advancing tourism [25] and a distinctive kind of local resource that can foster the growth of national identity and maintain pride in a nation’s authentic culture [26,27,28]. Urban tourism resources encompass an array of touristic elements within a cityscape and the necessary systems to facilitate tourism, offering appeal and convenience to visitors [29]. Since renowned tourism resources in urban areas are crucial for boosting local competitiveness, there has been a recent call for research on landmarks with significant traditional and cultural characteristics that exert the greatest influence on local tourism [25].

Cultural tourism satisfies visitors’ diverse cultural needs [30], enhances individuals’ cultural levels, and provides new knowledge and experiences as a form of tourism [31]. Regardless of the initial motivation for tourism, all forms of tourism involving visits to cultural resources are included [32]. The World Tourism Organization (WTO) defines cultural tourism as travel for exploration, artistic and cultural trips, participation in festivals and other cultural events, visits to heritage sites and monuments, folk art research trips, pilgrimages, and other essentially culturally motivated human movement [33]. The Association for Tourism and Leisure Education (ATLAS) defines cultural tourism as “traveling from one’s residence to cultural tourism resources for the purpose of satisfying cultural needs and acquiring new information and experiences”, including all movement to heritage, monuments, art, and cultural resources outside one’s residence [34]. The European Centre for Traditional and Regional Cultures (ECTARC) categorizes the types of cultural tourism resources as archaeological heritage and relics, ancient sites and famous buildings, crafts and art festivals, media such as music and film, religious festivals and pilgrimages, and folk or primitive cultures [35].

Since the 1980s, the recognition of tourism as a form of “cultural phenomenon” has solidified, leading to the global popularity of “cultural tourism”, which includes “heritage tourism” [36]. People seeking to satisfy their cultural needs engage in cultural tourism by pursuing elements of cultural interest or attractive destinations that offer new experiences and information [37]. Currently, more than half of international tourists are considered cultural tourists, indicating a higher market preference for culturally enriched tourism products over traditional mass tourism [36].

The growth potential of cultural tourism, which aligns well with the changing patterns of tourism today, is very high [38], and the status of cultural heritage as a tourism resource is rising. Among them, there is a growing demand for the tourism appeal of historical and cultural sites, which are particularly low-cost and have high educational value [39]. In fact, some conceptualize cultural tourism as heritage tourism, viewing cultural tourism as including experiential or educational elements in cultural heritage sites of historical value [40].

Historical and cultural heritage remains a continuously studied and highly regarded field of research [39]. In the 21st century, as the tourism appeal of cultural heritage sites in historic cities has increased compared to other tourism resources [40], there have been various efforts to develop historical and cultural heritage while maintaining the appeal of cultural resources to maximize the commercial benefits of historical heritage and promote the excellence of unique cultures [41,42,43]. The transformation of these historical and cultural resources into tourism assets is evolving in the form of cultural tourism, acting as a driving force for economic revitalization for both national and local governments, and fostering the overall development of the tourism industry [44].

According to Bauman (1999), cultural tourism constructs identities and will eventually contribute to globalization and framing a globalized world [45]. Mousavi (2016) made it clear that cultural tourism can play a crucial role in the construction of identity for the sake of tourism consumption [46]. Given this, cultural tourism resources are certainly worth preserving as the heritage of national culture [47]. However, it is obvious that no matter how this process of “commodification of culture” proceeds, its social costs cannot be ignored [48]. Therefore, a thorough exploration is necessary to determine the most effective criteria for transforming cultural heritage and historical resources into tourism assets.

2.2.2. Cultural Tourism Resource Attraction Attributes

The attractiveness of a tourist destination is a concept with a long history in tourism literature [49]. The attributes of tourist attractions refer to the factors that make tourist resources meaningful and attractive to tourists. These attributes, or attraction factors, help evaluate tourist resources and are considered key determinants influencing tourists’ decisions regarding their destinations [50]. Tourism and tourist destinations are closely linked, and if a tourist destination lacks sufficient attractive attributes, it would be difficult to expect its development as a tourist resource [51]. Therefore, it is essential to understand these attributes which satisfy the basic needs of cultural tourists [52].

Reviewing previous studies conducted to derive and measure the attractive attributes of tourist resources [53,54,55], many studies have adopted a multidimensional approach to evaluating these attributes [56]. Cultural heritage, too, consists of various multidimensional attributes, ranging from viewing facilities to services [52], and thus this study also considered the attractive attributes of traditional temples from multiple dimensions.

Among the attractive attributes that constitute a tourist destination, there are core attributes that are shared as essential characteristics regardless of the type of tourist destination [57]. We can characterize cultural tourist heritage by various elements, such as hospitality, regional and local gastronomy, specific architecture, handicrafts specific to the area, traditional shows, and other elements that define the life of that nation [58]. Richard (2007) stated that the attributes that lead to the selection of cultural heritage are related to the selection of the culture to be visited [59]. For instance, cultural tourism resources should be structured to allow the cultural value of the destination to be experienced and must have qualities that enable a sense of uniqueness as a tourism product. Some previous studies have reported that the significant attractive attributes that attract tourism resources are related to historical and cultural content [39,60,61,62]. Particularly, according to Park, depending on the research purpose and subjects, the attractive attributes of historical and cultural heritage exhibit a more diverse composition compared to general tourism resources [42]. Given that there has not yet been sufficient research that unravels the attractive attributes of traditional temples, which are both tourism resources and historical cultural heritage, as a multidimensional concept of attributes, it is necessary to examine the attractive attributes unique to traditional temples in the city.

Hence, this study aims to offer quantitative analysis outcomes on the attractiveness of individual traditional temples as tourism resources by creating a unique evaluation framework for the principal characteristics of tourism resources. Before specifically identifying the evaluation factors for urban traditional temples as tourist resources, definitions of attractive cultural tourism resource attributes by previous researchers have been summarized in

Table 3. Attraction attributes of cultural tourism resources.

Researcher (Year)	Cultural Tourism Resource Attributes
Carlson (1976)	historic, culture, art, education [61]
Ritchie; Zins (1978)	social and cultural attributes, tradition, food, history, architectural styles, crafts, recreational activities, art and music, language, habiliment, education, religion [63]
Haahti (1986)	accessibility, cultural experience [60]
Jeon (1987)	safety and security, historical and cultural attractions, residents’ attitudes [64]
Gunn (1988)	history, archeology, legend, folk [65]
Lee (1988)	historically and culturally interesting streets [66]
Inskeep (1991)	archeological, historical sites, unique cultural forms, arts and crafts, distinctive economic activity, distinctive urban area, museums and cultural facilities, cultural celebration [67]
Bojanic (1991)	interesting cities, historic sites, safety, hospitality, language, historic ruins [62]
Kim (1995)	diversity, convenience, comfort, friendliness, experience and education, historical and cultural value, uniqueness, informativeness, accessibility, local character, folklore [68]
ICOMOS (1999)	natural and cultural heritage, diversity, living cultures [69]
Keon (2000)	historical and cultural activities, educational value of history, regional characteristics [70]
Jang; Cai (2002)	natural and historical environment [71]
Im (2002)	surrounding environment, preservation status, atmosphere, souvenirs, rest and convenience facilities, signage and service, programs, buildings, cultural experience [72]
UNESCO (2005)	character-defining elements of the urban structure, urban environmental quality, social and cultural vitality [73]
Kwon; Lee (2005)	celebrations, street snacks, education, particularity [74]
Lee; Chung (2011)	extensive differentiation, destination value without 3S (sand, sun, sea), activity and environmental friendliness [75]
Yoon; Park; Lee (2012)	interpretation, educability, uniqueness, programs, convenience, hospitality [76]
Kim (2011)	accessibility, service, convenience, surrounding environment, storytelling, historicity and uniqueness, programs, information [49]
Kang; Yu (2014)	urban historical and cultural heritage resources, urban environment [40]
Sunli (2019)	natural landscape characteristics, historical and cultural characteristics, convenience [77]

.

3. Attributes of Urban Traditional Temples

3.1. Urban Traditional Temple Attraction Attributes

Based on the previous studies summarized in Table 3, five key attractive attributes of urban traditional temples were identified. In Section 4 of this study, a total of 15 sub-elements were developed as evaluation items for each attribute, measured using a 3-point scale ranging from 0 to 2.

3.1.1. Historicity

Historicity refers to the characteristic that indicates the historical conservation value of urban tourism resources. Urban tourism destinations often attract the educated population interested in cultural and historical heritage [78]. Historic urban structures and heritage and the development of pertinent policies represent pivotal elements in shaping the future and rejuvenating specific urban areas [79]. From a tourist’s perspective, the size or sculptural aspects and the historicity and symbolism of the region and building influence their impression of the landmark [80,81]. Kim and Jung [79] have shown that landmarks centered on traditional culture significantly affect tourists’ cognitive and emotional images, demonstrating that historicity and symbolism are crucial factors in forming a positive image of a tourist destination.

Typically, we attribute high historicity to buildings that hosted historical events during their construction, buildings related to key figures of an era, and buildings that serve as evidence of historical development. Park explains one of the important factors determining cultural tourism attractiveness is “the old” [82]. Uysal and Jurowski (1994) tested the push and pull factors for ruins and culture as attraction attributes [83], and Gartner assigned multidimensional scaling techniques for the measurement of state tourism products, such as historic urban ruins [84].

In this way, elements constituting the historicity of traditional temples can include the temple’s founding year, the number of national treasures and treasures, and the architectural composition and arrangement reflecting the period and historical context.

3.1.2. Accessibility

Accessibility, a key attribute of tourism and destination image [7], conceptualizes the ease of access to urban tourism resources. Given that accessibility is regarded as the relationship between people, activities, and mobility [81], researchers have widely used this attribute as an essential indicator in spatial interaction and equity studies [12,39]. Increasing accessibility to tourism destinations is crucial for promoting sustainable tourism, which also improves the tourist experience and travel comfort.

Urban transportation planning is gradually shifting towards the goal of improving streets to facilitate walking and enhance urban sustainability [85,86]. Some research considers planning streets as public spaces and interconnecting elements between city attractions [12,87,88,89]. In Zhang’s study on the spatial environment model of a pedestrian street, “walkway width” was used as a measurement indicator for elements of walking scale, as it is an easily accessible metric that can be obtained from road planning data or field surveys [90].

Kim [91] points out the significant influence of easily accessible parking while private vehicle ownership and use continue to grow at an increasing pace [92]. However, as private vehicle use leads to various traffic and environmental issues, the importance of environmentally friendly and congestion-reducing public transportation as a solution is also growing.

Kim and Jung (2018) emphasized the need for additional parking spaces and improved public transportation access in their study on evaluating the accessibility of urban tourist destinations, assessing accessibility for three modes of transportation: public transit, private vehicles, and walking [93]. Similarly, this study evaluated accessibility by examining available public transportation options, the condition of parking facilities, and the width of access roads to temples.

3.1.3. Inter-Connectivity

To achieve sustainable tourism, which aims to preserve the cultural identity and environment of a region in the long term, integrated tourism development has become a popular research issues [94].

Lee regarded the process of connecting dispersed cultural resources, called a “Cultural Connectivity System”, as an important cultural resource attraction system. Cultural Connectivity Systems aim to enhance tourist satisfaction by linking tangible and intangible cultural resources, resulting in the development of cultural routes and the creation of cultural belts within a region. He emphasized establishing a network that allows cultural tourists to have quality cultural experiences by comprehensively considering the characteristics of the cultural resources and the required time and distance [95].

Park stated that through efficient inter-connectivity, we must enhance not only the point-based value but also the linear value of cultural tourism resources [82]. We define “inter-connectivity” as close connection between the integration of tourist routes, complementary tourism products, organic links among regions, regional tourism planning, and the integration of regional tourism attractions.

Developing or operating connected tourism resources using other local hubs as original starting points can better satisfy the local community’s and tourists’ needs. For example, Kim (1995) highlights the distinctive public role of urban temples; since 2006, the Buddhist community has seen a significant rise in social welfare facilities for infants, children, and the elderly [96]. Some temples in the country operate kindergartens and reading rooms for local residents or open their halls and auditoriums for use as venues for community gatherings, ceremonies, and performances [97].

On the other hands, studies on the impact of urban planning and zoning on the development and management of tourist sites have concluded that the presence of major infrastructure, such as hospitals and schools, near tourist sites increases the number of visitors and has a positive effect on the local economy [98]. According to institutional site planning, we designated large institutions—specifically universities, hospitals, and cultural centers, each with its own characteristics—as a factor of inter-connectivity [99].

This study evaluated integration by examining whether affiliate facilities operate inside and outside the temples and identifying the proximity of large institutions, or urban-scale commercial and cultural facilities, known as tourism attractions, to the temple resources.

3.1.4. Convenience

Convenience plays an increasingly important role in people’s travel choices and has become an important indicator of travel quality [89]. Tourism resource convenience refers to how easily people can access these amenities and is defined as a comfortable [100], uncomplicated service with high quality and customer orientation [101].

Cultural tourism resources should provide facilities that address cultural barriers for foreign tourists and physical constraints for older people, children, and disabled people. Kwon (2005) advised in related research that to accommodate cultural tourists, it is essential to provide ample resting areas, convenient information facilities and signboards, and friendly guides at appropriate locations, as well as maintaining the pleasantness of the place [74]. Each element is important, and a lack of care, whether it be in the signing, car parking, quality of catering, or the cleanliness of the toilets, can destroy the overall visitor experience [102].

Heritage sites should adopt a ”visitor ethic”: it is important in trying to care for the visitor that every step along the way is considered as part of the strategy or visitor management plan [102]. Therefore, traditional temples should consider all convenience facilities, including those for people with disabilities, as well as general amenities such as rest areas and street furniture, both outside and inside the temple.

Not only providing information through maps and guidance services but also securing landscaping facilities can enhance the convenience of urban cultural tourism resources. In Japan, Yamazaki et al. [8] discovered that telecommuters visit temple and shrine grounds more often and are more satisfied with UGSs. In Korea, Kang and Hong (2002), in their research, examined the external spaces of contemporary urban temples, evaluating the presence of rest areas and the size of green spaces within Jogyesa Temple [103].

In this regard, we evaluated “convenience’ from multiple perspectives by dividing it into the following elements—barrier-free facilities, amenities, and adequate landscaping—in this study.

3.1.5. Publicity

As shown in Table 3, most previous studies have focused on unique historical and cultural experiences, educational value, programming, diversity, and hospitality as attractive features of cultural tourism resources. We have decided to refer to these encompassing attributes as “publicity”, though the concept of publicity is defined differently in each field of society. Publicity can produce significant results; as long as an event says something about “the place”, the perception that such publicity creates accumulates to form, or at least influence, the image that potential visitors may develop about what that place would be like to visit [104].

Allen (2008), Hede (2008), and McDonnell (1999) highlighted the importance of festivals and events as representative forms of cultural tourism [39]. The cultural tourism provided is highly event-driven, and tourists are often attracted by specific events and themes [105]; it is crucial to host substantial, periodic cultural events that highlight the unique cultural characteristics, helping to establish a distinct cultural identity, in order to continuously generate new cultural tourism demand [95]. A Buddhist cultural event refers to any event with a Buddhist theme, organized or hosted by a Buddhist organization, or held at a temple [96]. Among these, we focused solely on programs aimed at potential tourists, such as local residents or non-religious individuals, rather than Buddhist adherents.

As temples cannot sustain themselves without the support and participation of the local community [96], Buddhism, which is primarily focused on individual practice and meditation in mountain temples, has evolved in modern times into a socially oriented religion rather than one solely for personal devotion [106]; in his study on Buddhist dissemination strategies necessary for temple operations, Cho stated that scientific technology cannot be overlooked in modern society’s evangelism efforts. He emphasized that existing SNS platforms such as YouTube, Instagram, Facebook, and Twitter are crucial communication tools for religion, allowing contact with people who prefer online spaces over offline ones [107].

Therefore, this study evaluated the publicity of individual temples through Buddhist programs open to non-religious people, local events targeting both residents and tourists, and the number of channels for temple promotion.

3.2. Attractive Attribute Factors

Table 4. List of urban traditional temple evaluation factors.

Attributes	Factor	Concept
Historicity	Year of Construction	Year of construction based on current location, not the original founding date
	Traditional Temple Composition	Adherence to the elements of the traditional composition of Korean Buddhist architecture known as “Chil-dang garam”
	Cultural Heritage	Existence of national treasures/treasures/historic sites
Accessibility	Width of Access Road	Width of the main access road to the temple
	Public Transportation	Number of available modes of transportation and existence of the facilities within 1 km (bus stops or subway stations, etc.)
	Parking Capacity	Existence of a parking lot and its fee
Inter-connectivity	Affiliate Facilities	Operation under delegation of facilities that provide public services or contribute to public welfare
	Large Institutions	Presence of institutions that often serve as stimulants of major economic, educational, or social drivers within a city near temples, within one kilometer of the temple (universities, hospitals, complex facilities, etc.)
	Tourist Attractions	Presence of facilities supporting tourism activities within one kilometer of the temple (museums, galleries, shopping malls, etc.)
Convenience	Barrier-Free Facilities	Facilities for individuals with disabilities (accessible parking spaces and restrooms, wheelchair ramps, tactile blocks, etc.)
	Amenities	Consideration of amenities in temples (information and guidance signs, information desks, safety/rest areas, nursing rooms, etc.)
	Landscape	The ratio of the area of landscaping facilities installed within the inner part of the outermost temple building to the total area of the temple
Publicity	Buddhist Retreats	Buddhist programs offered by temples that are open to the general public (temple stays, scripture class, etc.)
	Community Events	Non-religious local events conducted by the temple which are open to the public (Buddha’s Birthday festival, sharing events, etc.)
	Promotional Channels	Promotional means for domestic and international visitors

summarizes the tourism resource evaluation indicators used in this study.

4. Assessment Framework Development

We derived detailed evaluation indicators corresponding to each item based on previous research on the design elements of tourism and cultural facilities and the standards of the Architectural Association. We used evaluation criteria that consider both the internal and external environments of the temples, allowing for a multifaceted assessment of resources that reflects the urban context rather than evaluating a single building in isolation. As a standard for evaluating each factor, we divided the scale into three levels (

Table 5. Urban traditional temple evaluation table.

Attribute	Factor	Indicator
		0	1	2
H	Year of Construction	Modern (after 1910)	Joseon dynasty (before 1910)	Before Goryeo dynasty (before 1392)
	Traditional Temple Composition	Non-compliant with Chil-dang garam	Compliant with Chil-dang garam	Additional traditional compositions beyond Chil-dang garam
	Cultural Heritage	None	Possessing treasures or historic Site	Possessing national treasures
A	Width of Access Roads	Less than 4 m	4~8 m	More than 8 m
	Public Transportation	More than 400 m away	At least 1 mode, within 400 m	More than 2 modes, both within 300 m
	Parking Capacity	Parking lot non-compliant with standard	Parking lot exceeding standards, paid	Parking lot exceeding standards, free
I	Affiliate Facilities	None	1 facility	2 or more facilities
	Large Institutions	None	Present	Present with cooperation or linkage programs
	Tourism Attractions	None	1 attraction within 1 km	2 or more attractions within 1 km
C	Barrier-Free Facilities	Absent	1 to 3 facilities	4 or more facilities
	Amenities	Absent	1 to 3 facilities	4 or more facilities
	Landscape	Below legal standards	Meets legal standards	20% or more landscaping area
P	Buddhist Retreats	None	1 program	2 or more programs
	Community Events	None	At least once a year	At least once every quarter
	Promotional Channels	None	Utilizing 2 or more channels	Utilizing 2 or more channels, with two languages

).

In this study, the focus was on qualitative assessments of all the factors to establish evaluation criteria. An effort was made to standardize the evaluations across all the attraction factors using a unified scale, where 0 denotes the absence of a specific quality, 1 indicates its presence to a limited extent, and 2 signifies its sufficient presence. The distinction between 0 and 2 was assessed using the legal minimum standards and recommended criteria. The criteria for scoring each indicator are discussed as follows.

4.1. The Historicity Indicator Criteria

As depicted in Table 4, the factors determining historicity were structured around three considerations: “Year of construction”, “Traditional temple composition”, and “Cultural heritage”.

4.1.1. Year of Construction

If a temple was founded earlier, it boasts a long history and high architectural rarity. Modern-era constructions significantly diminish in historical significance compared to those from the Joseon dynasty. Referring to Korea’s historical timeline [19], the modern architectural period begins after Japanese colonial rule, with prior periods divided into the Joseon dynasty, the Goryeo dynasty, and the Three Kingdoms era, each assigned 0, 1, or 2 points, respectively.

4.1.2. Traditional Temple Composition

According to the Korean Folk Encyclopedia, Korean temples are fundamentally based on the layout of “Chil-dang garam” (Seven-Hall Temple) [108]. The composition of Chil-dang garam includes seven elements: the Buddha hall, the lecture hall, the monks’ hall, the kitchen, the bathhouse, the toilet, and the mountain date. The Buddha hall, known as Daeungjeon, is a space for enshrining the Buddha. The lecture hall, also known as the Dharma hall, is a space for sermons and rituals. The monks’ hall is where monks practice meditation and self-discipline. The kitchen is where food is prepared and stored. The bathhouse is a space for bathing, the toilet is for sanitation, and the mountain gate is the entrance to the temple. Depending on the scale of operation and historical significance of the temple, additional spaces beyond Chil-dang garam may be present. These can include the Sutra hall for storing scriptures, a bell tower or drum tower for housing basic ritual instruments, a portrait hall for enshrining portraits of eminent monks, and a patriarch hall for housing portraits of deceased monks.

Based on how many of these characteristic spaces a Buddhist temple possesses, we developed an evaluation table for traditional temple composition: 0 points for Chil-dang garam being absent, 1 point for Chil-dang garam being present, and 2 points for Chil-dang Garam being in place with additional spaces.

4.1.3. Cultural Heritage

National heritage is considered to have high historical value due to its unique spiritual and aesthetic values and the preservation of identity. National cultural heritage is classified into tangible and intangible cultural heritage based on the presence or absence of form [109]. Tangible cultural heritage is further divided into national treasures, treasures, and historic sites. National treasures are rare and highly valuable cultural heritage items from the perspective of human culture. Treasures are significant tangible cultural heritage items such as buildings, texts, books, ancient documents, paintings, sculptures, crafts, archeological materials, and weapons. Historic sites are significant cultural heritage sites related to various aspects, such as relics, rituals, beliefs, politics, defense, industry, transportation, civil engineering, education, social work, tombs, and monuments. Traditional temples often contain national cultural heritage, and the scores were calculated based on the types of cultural heritage present within the temple.

The presence of national cultural heritage within traditional temples determines the scoring: 0 points if absent, 1 point for treasures or books, and 2 points for national treasures.

4.2. Accessibility Indicator Criteria

As depicted in Table 4, the factors determining accessibility were structured around three considerations: “Width of access road”, “Public transportation”, and “Parking capacity”.

4.2.1. The Width of the Access Road

In Korea, roads are constructed according to a minimum width of 4 m proposed in the Building Act, the Road Act, and the Private Road Act [110]. For pedestrian roads, applying 1.5 m on each side requires a standard width of 7 to 8 m to be maintained [111].

Therefore, the main access road to the temple was assessed based on its width: 0 points for less than 4 m, 1 point for 4 to less than 8 m, and 2 points for 8 m or more.

4.2.2. Public Transportation

Public transportation facilities include transport methods used simultaneously by multiple users, such as railway stations, subway stations, bus terminals, buses, and village bus stops [112]. The scoring for each item considered the accessibility of several public transportation options available for visiting the temple and the distance from the public transportation stops, based on G-Seed 2016 v1 [113]. Among multiple entrances, the most accessible entrance to public transportation facilities was selected and measured based on the straight-line distance (if public transportation facilities cannot be used, they are not included): 0 points if at least one public transportation facility is located more than 400 m away, 1 point if at least one public transportation facility is within 400 m, and 2 points if two or more public transportation facilities are all within 300 m.

4.2.3. Parking Capacity

In Korea, private vehicles are widely used for transportation, and many tourists visit destinations using large buses. Therefore, spaces for parking or disembarking from vehicles are essential. The evaluation criteria for parking facilities are determined based on the requirement of installing one parking space per 150 m² of facility area and whether parking is subject to charges or not [114]. Facility area refers to the sum of the floor area, including public areas. If there are more than two facilities within a single site, the area of each facility is added together. The floor area for parking facilities within the facility is excluded from the facility area: 0 points if parking exists but does not meet the installation standards, 1 point if parking meets or exceeds the installation standards and is charged for, and 2 points if parking meets or exceeds the installation standards and is free.

4.3. Inter-Connectivity Indicator Criteria

As depicted in Table 4, the factors determining inter-connectivity were structured around three considerations: “Affiliate facilities”, “Large institutions”, and “tourist attractions”. Within the characteristics of these facilities, a 1 km radius (15 min walking distance) is proposed as the designated area for walking and daily life activities. This proposal is based on the concept of the activity range setting by Oh (2015), which was based on daily survey data from households in Incheon City [115].

4.3.1. Affiliate Facilities

The main issues faced by contemporary religion are the realization of social welfare and the practice of respecting life. Affiliate facilities are those directly operated by temples to support welfare projects for socially marginalized groups. These facilities include senior welfare centers, nursing homes, childcare facilities, and labor centers [116].

An evaluation table was created based on the number of these affiliate facilities operated by urban traditional temples: 0 points for none, 1 point for one facility, and 2 points for two or more facilities.

4.3.2. Large Institutions

As Lynch states, these kind of institutions are likely to be growing actively, and they can draw in large numbers of visitors [99]. According to Seoul’s urban planning and tourism report, regional development can be enhanced through cooperation with surrounding buildings and universities. The northeastern region of Seoul, with the highest concentration of universities, is considered to have significant development potential [117]. Similarly, in Gyeongju, a program was established between a smart tourism city project management company and Dongguk University students, facilitating continuous visits to designated tourist sites for research. The MICE Tourism Industry Research Institute at Dongguk University has revitalized local tourism by developing Buddhist products and fostering cooperation with Gyeongju tourism [118].

An evaluation table was created based on the presence of such large institutions within a 1 km radius of urban traditional temples and the existence of related programs: 0 points if no institutions are within 1 km, 1 point if institutions exist within 1 km, and 2 points if institutions exist within 1 km and have linkage or cooperation programs with the temple.

4.3.3. Tourist Attractions

Spaces categorized under Shopping and Cuisine, Entertainment, and Streets in the Seoul tourist guide and Seoul tourism map, published by the Seoul Metropolitan Government, were classified as commercial facilities, while spaces under Museums and Galleries, Cultural Heritage, and Tourist Resources were classified as cultural facilities [119].

An evaluation chart was created based on the number of these commercial and cultural facilities within a 1 km radius of an urban traditional temple: 0 points if no facilities are within 1 km, 1 point if 1 facility is within 1 km, and 2 points if 2 or more facilities are within 1 km.

4.4. Convenience Indicator Criteria

As depicted in Table 4, the factors determining convenience were structured around three considerations: “Barrier-free facilities”, “Amenities”, and “Landscaping”.

4.4.1. Barrier-Free Facilities

Temples are spaces utilized both internally and externally, necessitating the application of barrier-free design throughout the entire area. The evaluation criteria for BF facilities were established based on BF certification system evaluation items and previous research [120,121] (

Table 6. Barrier-free design evaluation items.

Barrier-Free Design Evaluation Items
- No level differences at the main entrance or the presence of ramps (must meet the minimum standard of a 1/12 slope) or wheelchair lifts - Securing a sufficient width of at least 1.2 m for access to interior spaces - Availability of restrooms for the disabled - Installation of braille signage

).

In evaluating consideration for the disabled and mobility-impaired, the following scale was used: 0 points if no BF facilities for the disabled, 1 point for 1 to 3 BF facilities, and 2 points for 4 or more BF facilities.

4.4.2. Amenities

Temples, which visitors often explore by walking, should be convenient for visitors to use. Referring to the Seoul Public Design Guidelines [122], the Universal Design Application Guidelines [123], and research on universal design in traditional cultural heritage, the following evaluation table was created [124] (

Table 7. Amenity evaluation items.

Amenity Evaluation Items
- Guidance and direction signs - An information desk to provide information to visitors - Rest areas in spaces securing a walking safety space of at least 2 m - Availability of nursing rooms or rest areas for infants

).

For signage or rest areas, the following scale applied: 0 points if absent, 1 point for 1 to 3 amenities, and 2 points for 4 or more amenities.

4.4.3. Landscaping

According to Seoul city regulations, religious facilities must meet landscaping area requirements proportional to the total floor area of the site. For facilities with a total floor area of 2000 m² or more, at least 15 percent of the site area must be allocated to landscaping. For facilities with a total floor area between 1000 m² and 2000 m², at least 10 percent of the site area must be allocated to landscaping [125]. Based on the evaluation table for non-residential buildings in the Green Building Certification Criteria, we established evaluation standards for temples with green space ratios exceeding the natural ground coverage rate [126]: 0 points for being below the legal standards, 1 point for meeting the legal standards, and 2 points for 20% or more of the site area.

4.5. Publicity Indicator Criteria

We verified the existence and actual use of promotional tools and events for Buddhist believers and local residents by visiting each temple’s website, online communities, Seoul tourism information websites, and the temple stay website of the Cultural Corps of Korean Buddhism [127,128,129,130,131,132,133]. In cases where online information was relatively lacking, we obtained information through face-to-face interviews with monks.

As depicted in Table 4, the factors determining convenience were structured around three considerations: “Buddhist retreats”, “Community events”, and “Promotional Channels”.

4.5.1. Buddhist Retreats

Buddhist retreats are programs that allow people to approach religion through religious experiences. Scores were assigned based on the number of different programs conducted within the temple during direct visits for religious experience programs (programs that were one-time occurrences were not considered regular activities of the temple and were excluded): 0 points for no programs being conducted, 1 point for conducting one program, and 2 points for conducting two or more programs.

4.5.2. Community Events

Based on the information gathered, we assigned scores according to the frequency of religious events, considering whether events were held at least once per quarter. Events that were one-time occurrences were not considered regular activities of the temple and were excluded: 0 points for no event activities, 1 point for at least one community event, and 2 points for at least one event per quarter, totaling four or more events annually.

4.5.3. Promotional Channels

Promotional channels include online promotion, including modern platforms such as websites, YouTube, Facebook, and Instagram, as well as online publications like newspapers and magazines. We evaluated the promotional activities conducted within the last three months, the use of various media channels, and whether support was provided in languages other than Korean: 0 points for using one promotional channel, 1 points for using two or more promotional channels, and 2 points for using two or more promotional channels and providing support in two languages.

5. Analysis and Evaluation of Urban Traditional Temples

According to the Ministry of Culture, Sports, and Tourism, Seoul has 60 legally designated traditional temples, of which 15 are located in urban plains rather than mountainous areas [134]. For the purpose of this study, seven temples were selected for detailed analysis (Figure 2).

First, to prioritize the location of the temples, the address of each traditional temple was converted into coordinate data. From a total of 15 temples remaining after excluding mountain temples based on their coordinates, temples with very small scales were excluded by considering the current tourist volume [135], meaning that temples with a certain level of recognition were selected. Among them, Bongeunsa and Jogyesa were listed as tourism resources in the official Seoul tourist guide and map published in 2024 [118]. They are recognized as urban tourism resources alongside Myeongdong Cathedral and Jeongdong First Methodist Church, making them some of the few religious facilities acknowledged as city tourism assets in Seoul.

Table 8. Overview of the temples.

Name	Location	Land Area (m2)	Total Floor Area (m2)	Year
Cheongnyangsa	Dongdaemun	7893	2536.49	1895
Myogaksa	Jongno	1174.80	1395.04	1942
Heungcheonsa	Seongbuk	45,061.00	2518.57	1397
Bomunsa	Seongbuk	28,913.00	6705.87	1115
Gaeunsa	Seongbuk	16,717.00	4424.80	1730
Jogyesa	Jongno	16,022.80	13,487.88	1938
Bongeunsa	Gangnam	75,636.00	12,360.26	794

provides an overview of the seven temples analyzed: Bongeunsa, Jogyesa, Gaeunsa, Bomunsa, Heungcheonsa, Myogaksa, and Cheongnyangsa.

The data below (Figure 3 and

Table 9. Monthly average of navigation destination searches.

	Name	Bongeunsa	Jogyesa	Gaeunsa	Bomunsa	Heungcheonsa	Myogaksa	Cheongnyangsa
Year
2020		3950	3041	1043	812.75	514	74	69
2021		4863	3452	1114	862.08	510	73	67
2022		6277	4149	1284	825.00	530	106	57
2023		7114	4495	1298	802.67	560	93	83
Average of 4 years		5551	3784	1185	815	529	87	69

) represent the average monthly tourism index of the temples compared based on the monthly navigation destination search volume from January 2020 to December 2023 provided by the Korea Tourism Data Lab. During the review period, the number of tourists visiting Bongeunsa Temple, Jogyesa Temple, and Gaeunsa Temple increased. However, there was no significant change in the tourist numbers at Bomunsa Temple, Heungcheonsa Temple, Myogaksa Temple, or Cheongnyangsa Temple.

After selecting and analyzing the cases, we evaluated the urban tourism status and potential of each temple using Table 5, the “Urban Traditional Temple Attraction Attributes Evaluation”, based on the details of each case study. The analysis included conducting on-site visits to seven temple sites, starting from Cheongnyangsa, with the lowest average monthly visitation, and progressing to Bongeunsa, with the highest.

6. Results

By comparing the total scores for each attribute of the urban tourist resources introduced in Section 3.1, we examined the correlation between the recognition of and the average annual number of visitors to each traditional temple and their evaluation scores (

Table 10. Results of tourism resource value analysis.

	Temple	Bongeun-sa		Jogyesa		Gaeunsa		Bomunsa		Heungcheon-sa		Myogak-sa		Cheongnyang-sa
Attribute and Factor		Sco.	Sum	Sco	Sum	Sco	Sum	Sco	Sum	Sco	Sum	Sco	Sum	Sco	Sum
H	Y. of Const.	2	5	0	2	1	2	2	5	1	4	1	1	1	1
	Trad. Comp.	2		2		0		2		1		0		0
	Cult. Herit.	1		0		1		1		2		0		0
A	W. of Roads	2	6	1	4	2	5	2	4	1	4	1	3	2	3
	Pub. Transp.	2		2		2		2		1		2		1
	Park. Cap.	2		1		1		0		2		0		0
I	Affil. Facils.	2	4	2	4	0	2	1	1	1	1	1	3	0	0
	Large Insts.	1		0		2		0		0		0		0
	Tour. Attracs.	1		2		0		0		0		2		0
C	BF Facils.	2	5	2	5	0	2	0	2	2	5	0	0	0	1
	Amenities	1		1		0		0		1		0		0
	Landscaping	2		2		2		2		2		0		1
P	Buddh. Retrs.	2	5	2	5	1	3	1	3	0	2	1	2	0	1
	Comm. Events	2		1		1		1		1		1		1
	P. Channel	1		2		1		1		1		0		0
Total		25		20		14		15		16		9		6

).

Below is a summary of the key findings:

-

Cheongnyangsa scored low overall with significant room for improvement in all the evaluated attributes.

-

Myogaksa showed moderate accessibility and inter-connectivity but lacked convenience.

-

Heungcheonsa exhibited strong historicity and convenience but had low inter-connectivity.

-

Bomunsa had good historicity and accessibility, though inter-connectivity was low.

-

Gaeunsa had balanced scores with strong accessibility but needed improvements in convenience and inter-connectivity.

-

Jogyesa had high scores in convenience and publicity, showing strong overall performance.

-

Bongeunsa achieved the highest total score, excelling in historicity, accessibility, and convenience.

For detailed evaluation data, refer to

Table A1. Cheongnyangsa evaluation analysis.

Attribute	Factor	Indicator			Evaluation
		0	1	2
H	Year of Construction		●		Originally established at the site of Hongneung during the Silla dynasty and later moved to its current location in 1895.
	Traditional Temple Composition	●			Contains Gwaneumjeon, Geungnakbojeon, Daebeopjeon, Daeungjeon, Muryangsujeon, Seonhyewon, Yeomhwasil, Dongbyeoldang, Jabiwon, and Chilseonggak, but lacks a mountain gate in the Chil-dang garam configuration.
	Cultural Heritage	●			No national treasures or treasures.
A	Width of Access Roads			●	The average width of the access road is 12 m.
	Public Transportation		●		There is a bus stop within 300 m of the temple.
	Car Capacity	●			Considering the total floor area of the temple, it should accommodate 17 parking spaces (2532.49/150 = 16.89), but it can only accommodate about 10, thus falling short of the installation standards.
I	Affiliate Facilities	●			No affiliate facilities operated by the temple.
	Large Institutions	●			No large institutions within 1 km.
	Tourist Attractions	●			No tourist attractions within 1 km.
C	BF Facilities	●			No barrier-free facilities for visitors.
	Amenities	●			No amenities for visitors.
	Landscape		●		The total floor area of the temple is 2532.49 m2, so a landscaping area of at least 1183.95 m2 (7893.00 × 0.15) is required. The actual landscaping area is 1347.40 m2, thus meeting the standards.
P	Buddhist Retreats	●			No Buddhist retreats.
	Community Events		●		1 community event on Buddha’s Birthday.
	Promotional Channels	●			No promotional channels.

,

Table A2. Myogaksa evaluation analysis.

Attribute	Factor	Indicator			Evaluation
		0	1	2
H	Year of Construction		●		Founded in 1930 and has undergone two renovations and expansions to achieve its current appearance.
	Traditional Temple Composition	●			Consists of Daeungjeon, Daebulbojeon, Wontongbojeon, Nagaseonwon, Sansingak, Yosa, Jonggak, and Chilseonggak. In the Chil-dang garam configuration, it includes the Buddha hall, lecture hall, monks’ hall, kitchen, and toilet but it does not include the mountain gate or bathhouse.
	Cultural Heritage	●			No national treasures or treasures.
A	Width of Access Roads		●		The average width of the access road is 4 m.
	Public Transportation			●	Public transportation options around Myogaksa Temple include a subway station and bus stops, both located within 300 m of the entrance.
	Parking Capacity	●			Considering the total floor area of the temple, it should accommodate 10 parking spaces (1695.84/150 = 9.30), but it can only accommodate about 5, thus limiting visits by private vehicles.
I	Affiliate Facilities		●		Operates the “Seoul Buddhist Cultural University”, providing a basic education platform for the general public to systematically learn about Buddhism.
	Large Institutions	●			No large institutions within 1 km.
	Tourist Attractions			●	The Dongmyo Flea Market, Seoul Folk Flea Market, and Heunginjimun, all designated as tourist sites by the Seoul Metropolitan Government, are within 1 km.
C	BF Facilities	●			No barrier-free facilities for visitors.
	Amenities	●			No amenities for visitors.
	Landscape	●			The total floor area of Myogaksa Temple is 1695.84 m2, so a landscaping area of at least 117.48 m2 (1174.8 × 0.1) is required. However, the actual landscaping area of Myogaksa Temple is 51.9 m2, thus falling short of the legal requirement.
P	Buddhist Retreats		●		Myogaksa Temple regularly conducts temple stay programs and offers separate temple stay programs for foreigners.
	Community Events		●		No community events.
	Promotional Channels	●			Although Myogaksa has Instagram and Facebook channels, they have not been used since 2020. The official website is only available in Korean.

,

Table A3. Heungcheonsa evaluation analysis.

Attribute	Factor	Indicator			Evaluation
		0	1	2
H	Year of Construction		●		Founded in 1397, it has been known as Heungcheonsa since 1865.
	Traditional Temple Composition		●		Consists of Jeonbeophwajeon, Geungnakbojeon, Myeongbujeon, Daebang, Yonghwajeon, Doksunggak, Bukgeukjeon, Jonggak, Nojeon, Sangakseonwon, Neutinamu daycare center, and a seven-story stone pagoda, exceeding the configuration of Chil-dang garam.
	Cultural Heritage			●	Two treasures: The Heungcheonsa Bronze Bell (Treasure No. 1460) and The Heungcheonsa Gilt-Bronze Seated Bodhisattva of Compassion with 42 Arms (Treasure No. 1891).
A	Width of Access Roads		●		The average width of the access road is 7 m.
	Public Transportation		●		Accessible by public transportation, including a subway station and a bus stop. The bus stop is located 100 m from the entrance, but the subway station is more than 500 m away.
	Parking Capacity			●	Considering the total floor area of the temple, it should accommodate 17 parking spaces (2518.57/150 = 16.79). Heungcheonsa has space for 40 parking spots and includes a drop zone for large buses to unload passengers. The parking lot is open to the public for free.
I	Affiliate Facilities		●		Operates the Neutinamu daycare center, providing education for preschool children.
	Large Institutions	●			No large institutions within 1 km.
	Tourist Attractions	●			No tourist attractions within 1 km.
C	BF Facilities			●	In 2020, Heungcheonsa implemented plans considerate of people with disabilities when constructing the Jeonbeophwajeon building. All the spaces in Heungcheonsa were made accessible by installing ramps to create barrier-free areas, and the entrance widths were made at least 1.2 m wide to accommodate wheelchair users. A disabled-access restroom was planned inside Jeonbeophwajeon, and a braille and audio signboard was installed at the temple entrance to assist with navigation.
	Amenities		●		Heungcheonsa has explanations and information boards for each building within the temple, but no directional signs on the temple grounds. The information desk, which provides visitors with information, is located inside Jeonbeophwajeon. There is a book cafe and a lounge but no nursing room.
	Landscape			●	The legal landscaping area for Heungcheonsa is 6759.15 m2 (45,061.00 × 0.15). The actual landscaping area of Heungcheonsa is 38,873.7 m2, thus exceeding 20% of the site area.
P	Buddhist Retreats	●			No Buddhist retreats.
	Community Events		●		Heungcheonsa holds the Neutinamu Children and Family Festival annually. Although there are lantern and bell-ringing events, other events are not held regularly on a quarterly basis.
	Promotional Channels		●		Heungcheonsa uses its website and YouTube for promotional purposes, with videos being uploaded every 3 to 4 months on YouTube. However, information is not provided in languages other than Korean.

,

Table A4. Bomunsa evaluation analysis.

Attribute	Factor	Indicator			Evaluation
		0	1	2
H	Year of Construction			●	Founded by Ven. Damjin in 1115.
	Traditional Temple Composition			●	Consists of Daeungjeon, Geungnakjeon, Seokguram, Hojimun, Seonbuljang, Bogwangjeon, Sanreungak, Seokguram Nojeon, Samseonggak, Byeoldang, and Yosache, exceeding the configuration of Chil-dang garam.
	Cultural Heritage		●		The Myobeopyeonhwagyeong Volumes 3–7 (Treasure No. 1164-2).
A	Width of Access Roads			●	The average width of the access road is 9 m.
	Public Transportation			●	Public transportation options around Bomunsa Temple include a subway station and bus stops, with Bomun Station located approximately 285 m away and the nearest bus stop about 380 m away.
	Parking Capacity	●			Considering the total floor area of 6705.87 m2, 45 parking spaces are required (6705.87/150 = 44.71). However, since it cannot accommodate this number of vehicles, parking is only available for devotees and temple staff.
I	Affiliate Facilities		●		Operates two facilities (Eunyoung kindergarten, Eunyoung daycare center).
	Large Institutions	●			No large institutions within 1 km.
	Tourist Attractions	●			No tourist attractions within 1 km.
C	BF Facilities	●			No barrier-free facilities for visitors.
	Amenities	●			No amenities for visitors.
	Landscape			●	The total floor area exceeds 2000 m2, so a landscaping area of at least 4336.95 m2 (28,913 × 0.15) must be planned as a natural green space. The green area of Bomunsa is 18,576.9 m2, providing ample greenery.
P	Buddhist Retreats		●		Bomunsa Temple regularly conducts Buddhist basic doctrine classes.
	Community Events		●		Three community events per year (winter red bean porridge sharing event, multicultural family feast on 7/7, Buddha’s Birthday)
	Promotional Channels		●		Bomunsa’s promotional channels include its official website in Korean and YouTube.

,

Table A5. Gaeunsa evaluation analysis.

Attribute	Factor	Indicator			Evaluation
		0	1	2
H	Year of Construction		●		Founded under the name “Yeongdosa” in 1396 but relocated to its current location in 1730 according to the old document Sagi. (The exact time when it was renamed to Gaeunsa is not known).
	Traditional Temple Composition	●			Includes the main hall, lecture hall, monks’ quarters, and the temple gate among the Chil-dang-garam configuration, but the others are not present.
	Cultural Heritage		●		The Wooden Seated Amitabha Buddha Statue and Vow Document (Treasure No. 1649).
A	Width of Access Roads			●	The average width of the access road is 12 m.
	Public Transportation			●	Public transportation options around Gaeunsa Temple include a subway station and bus stops, both located within 300 m of the entrance.
	Parking Capacity		●		Considering the total floor area of the temple, it should accommodate 30 parking spaces (4424.8/150 = 29.5), but it actually provides 95 parking spaces and has a sufficient drop zone for large buses to unload passengers. However, the parking lot is operated as a paid facility.
I	Affiliate Facilities	●			It used to operate “Sangha University”, but the building is currently under construction for kindergarten events.
	Large Institutions			●	Korea University is located right next door, providing support for Buddhist clubs and scholarship programs.
	Tourist Attractions	●			No tourist attractions within 1 km.
C	BF Facilities	●			No barrier-free facilities for visitors.
	Universal Design	●			No universal design for visitors.
	Landscape			●	The total floor area of Gaewoonsa exceeds 2000 m2, so it must secure at least 2507.55 m2 (16,717 × 0.15) as a landscaping area. Gaewoonsa’s landscaping area is 6361.2 m2, which constitutes more than 20% of the site area.
P	Buddhist Retreat	●			In 2023, the Buddhist knowledge education program Gaewoon Hakdang was launched.
	Community Event	●			In 2023, Sansa Music Concert was held as a one-time event and is not a regular program. Other than this, there are no other events.
	Promotional Channels		●		Gaewoonsa has no promotional channels other than its official website, which is only available in Korean.

,

Table A6. Jogyesa evaluation analysis.

Attribute	Factor	Indicator			Evaluation
		0	1	2
H	Year of Construction	●			Completed Daewoongjeon of Jogyesa in 1938.
	Traditional Temple Composition			●	Consists of Daeungjeon, Geungnakjeon, Daeseolbeon-jeon, Iljumun, Gwaneumjeon, Seungso, a children’s Dharma hall, a dining hall, and a pottery workshop, exceeding the configuration of Chil-dang garam.
	Cultural Heritage	●			No national treasures, treasures, or historic sites.
A	Width of Access Roads		●		The average width of the access road is 6.5 m.
	Public Transportation			●	Public transportation options around Jogyesa Temple include a subway station and bus stops, both located within 300 m of the entrance.
	Parking Capacity		●		Considering the total floor area of the temple, it should accommodate 90 parking spaces (13,487.88/150 = 89.92), but it actually provides 130 parking spaces and has a designated area for large buses to unload passengers. However, the parking lot is operated as a paid facility.
I	Affiliate Facilities			●	Operates five facilities(Seoul Senior Welfare Center, Jongno Senior Comprehensive Welfare Center, and three others)
	Large Institutions	●			No commercial facilities within 1 km.
	Tourist Attractions			●	Seoul Crafts Museum and Gwanghwamun area, including King Sejong Statue and Sejong Performing Arts Center.
C	BF Facilities			●	Wheelchair rentals and ramps were planned for people with disabilities to ensure ease of movement. Braille and audio guide signs were installed, and the entrance widths were made at least 1.2 m wide. Additionally, accessible restrooms were provided.
	Amenities		●		An information desk called Gapi, benches for visitors to use freely, a nursing rooms, and children’s play facilities.
	Landscape			●	The total floor area of Jogyesa Temple is 16,022.80 m2, so a landscaping area of at least 2403.42 m2 (16,022.80 × 0.15) is required. However, the actual landscaping area of Jogyesa Temple is 7609.3 m2, thus exceeding 20% of the site area.
P	Buddhist Retreats			●	Buddhist painting and wood carving education, pilgrimages to sacred sites, education at Baeksong University for seniors, temple stays, and calligraphy, painting, and yoga courses for non-religious individuals.
	Community Events		●		Buddha’s Birthday event and the Chrysanthemum Fragrance Sharing Festival every fall.
	Promotional Channels			●	Official website in Korean and English and a separate promotional office.

and

Table A7. Bongeunsa evaluation analysis.

Attribute	Factor	Indicator			Evaluation
		0	1	2
H	Year of Construction			●	Founded by Monk Yeonhui under the name “Gyeongseonsa” in 794.
	Traditional Temple Composition			●	Consists of JinYeomun, Seoraewon, Beopwangru, Seonbuldang, Daeungjeon, Jijangjeon, Yeongsanjeon, Unhadang, Simgeomdang, Jongnu, Jonggak, Bowoodang, and Daraeheon, exceeding the configuration of Chil-dang garam.
	Cultural Heritage		●		Two treasures: The Bongeunsa Bronze Incense Burner with Silver Inlay (Treasure No. 321) and The Bongeunsa Wooden Seated Buddha Triad (Treasure No. 1819).
A	Width of Access Roads			●	The average width of the access road is 12 m.
	Public Transportation			●	Public transportation options around Jogyesa Temple include a subway station and bus stops, both located within 300 m of the entrance.
	Parking Capacity			●	Considering the total floor area of the temple, it should accommodate 83 parking spaces (12,360.26/150 = 82.40), but it actually provides 193 parking spaces and has a designated area for large buses to unload passengers. The parking lot is operated for free.
I	Affiliate Facilities			●	Established the social welfare corporation “Bongeun” and operates 15 facilities, including “Pangyo” Senior Comprehensive Welfare Center, “Daechi” Senior Welfare Center, and 13 others.
	Large Institutions	●			COEX, a large-scale complex space with exhibition halls, conference centers, and an aquarium, is about 250 m away, but there are no cooperative programs with Bongeunsa Temple.
	Tourist Attractions		●		COEX, also known as “COEX Mall” is an attractive destination for domestic and international tourists due to its diverse tourism and leisure facilities, including an aquarium, a large shopping mall, and a cinema.
C	BF Facilities			●	Help bells, braille guidance, accessible toilets (with emergency bells), and minimized obstacles for wheelchair access
	Amenities		●		Walking paths using stepping stones, two rest deck facilities, and foreigner information desk and reception
	Landscape			●	The total floor area of Jogyesa Temple is 75,636.00 m2, so a landscaping area of at least 11,345.4 m2 (75,636.00 × 0.15) is required. However, the actual landscaping area of Jogyesa Temple is 34,381.00 m2, thus exceeding 20% of the site area.
P	Buddhist Retreats			●	Bongeunsa Temple regularly conducts temple stay programs and offers Buddhism introduction courses for non-religious individuals.
	Community Events			●	“Bongjuk Week” cultural event (Buddha’s Birthday event), academic achievement ceremonies, New Year’s temple bell-ringing ceremony, annual Baekjung festival, lotus festival, and exhibitions and assistance for the less fortunate.
	Promotional Channels		●		There is an official website, a monthly magazine, and a YouTube channel but no support for languages other than Korean.

and Figure A1, Figure A2, Figure A3, Figure A4, Figure A5, Figure A6 and Figure A7 in Appendix A.

6.1. Reliability Assessment

Verification of the reliability of the analytical framework for the tourism attributes and factors of traditional temples is a procedure to ensure the consistency and reproducibility of the study results, confirming that each item is measured consistently. Like the analytical framework for this study, established through a conceptualization process based on prior research and theoretical investigation, it is especially crucial to assess reliability when evaluations or metrics are based on qualitative criteria. In this study, reliability was verified through the calculation of Cronbach’s Alpha coefficient and the application of Split-Half Reliability using Python 3.12 scripting.

First, to evaluate internal consistency reliability, Cronbach’s Alpha coefficient was calculated. Cronbach’s Alpha is an index that measures the consistency among evaluation items, and generally, a value of 0.7 or higher is considered reliable. In this study, the Cronbach’s Alpha coefficient for 15 evaluation items was calculated, resulting in an overall Cronbach’s Alpha value of 0.840. This indicates that the analytical framework has high internal consistency, confirming that the evaluation factors are measured consistently.

To further verify the consistency of the data, Split-Half Reliability was calculated. Split-Half Reliability is a method that evaluates consistency by dividing the data into two halves and comparing their respective scores. In this study, the data were divided into halves, and the sum scores of each half were calculated and then analyzed for correlation. The result showed a Split-Half Reliability value of 0.804. This indicates that the data are being measured consistently, evidence that the analytical framework has high reliability.

Through the assessments above, both the Cronbach’s Alpha and Split-Half Reliability values were found to be above 0.8, demonstrating that the analytical framework in this study has high reliability.

6.2. Verification of the Research Hypotheses

6.2.1. Comparative Analysis of Tourism Factors

Firstly, to test H1, we evaluated and compared the tourism attributes of the temples to identify in which aspects Bongeunsa and Jogyesa excel compared to other temples. We performed the following statistical analysis process using Python scripting.

(1)

Data Collection and Preprocessing

We began by loading the dataset, which includes evaluation scores (ranging from 0 to 2) for 15 tourism factors for each temple, along with the monthly average number of visitors. Unnecessary columns were removed, and missing values were handled to preprocess the data into a suitable format for analysis.

(2)

Calculating the Average Tourism Factor for Bongeunsa and Jogyesa

The average tourism factor values for Bongeunsa and Jogyesa were calculated to serve as benchmarks for comparison with other temples. A weighted average was computed based on the monthly average number of visitors for each tourism factor of these two temples, and the average tourism factor values were derived.

$$\mathrm{a}\mathrm{v}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{r}\mathrm{a}\mathrm{g}\mathrm{e} \mathrm{f}\mathrm{a}\mathrm{c}\mathrm{t}\mathrm{o}\mathrm{r}\mathrm{s}={\displaystyle \frac{\left(F_{Bongeunsa}\times V_{Bongeunsa}\right)+(F_{Jogyesa}\times V_{Jogyesa})}{V_{Bongeuns\mathrm{a}}+V_{Jogyesa}}}$$

Here, F represents the tourism factor scores for each temple, and V represents the number of visitors.

(3)

Calculating Weighted Averages for Other Temples

For temples other than Bongeunsa and Jogyesa, a weighted average for each tourism factor was calculated. The weights were determined by dividing the number of visitors for each temple by the total number of visitors.

$$W_i={\displaystyle \frac{V_i}{{\sum }_{j\ne Bongeunsa, Jogyesa}{V}_j}}$$

The weight for each temple i was calculated as shown above, and the weighted average for each factor was computed accordingly.

$$\mathrm{w}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{i}\mathrm{g}\mathrm{h}\mathrm{t}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{d} \mathrm{f}\mathrm{a}\mathrm{c}\mathrm{t}\mathrm{o}\mathrm{r}\mathrm{s}={\sum }_{j\ne Bongeunsa, Jogyesa}{ (F}_{j }\times W_i)$$

(4)

Identifying Deficient Elements Through Comparison with Bongeunsa and Jogyesa

The average tourism factor values for Bongeunsa and Jogyesa were compared with the weighted averages for other temples to identify deficient elements for each factor.

$$\mathrm{s}\mathrm{h}\mathrm{o}\mathrm{r}\mathrm{t}\mathrm{c}\mathrm{o}\mathrm{m}\mathrm{i}\mathrm{n}\mathrm{g}\mathrm{s}=(average factors)-(weighted factors)$$

Figure 4 visualizes the results of comparing the average feature values of Bongeunsa and Jogyesa with the weighted average feature values of other temples, highlighting the deficiencies. Since the characteristics of each temple vary, more detailed case-by-case analysis results are provided in

Table 11. Shortcomings of each temple.

	Temple	Gaeunsa	Bomunsa	Heungcheonsa	Myogaksa	Cheongnyangsa
Factor
Y. of Const.		0.189	−0.811	0.189	0.189	0.189
Trad. Comp.		2.000	0.000	1.000	2.000	2.000
Cult. Herit.		−0.405	−0.405	−1.405	0.595	0.595
W. of Roads		−0.405	−0.405	0.595	0.595	−0.405
Pub. Transp.		0.000	0.000	1.000	0.000	1.000
Park. Cap.		0.595	1.595	−0.405	1.595	1.595
Affil. Facils.		2.000	1.000	1.000	1.000	2.000
Large Insts.		−1.405	0.595	0.595	0.595	0.595
Tour. Attracs.		1.405	1.405	1.405	−0.595	1.405
BF Facils.		2.000	2.000	0.000	2.000	2.000
Amenities		1.000	1.000	0.000	1.000	1.000
Landscaping		0.000	0.000	0.000	2.000	1.000
Buddh. Retrs.		1.000	1.000	2.000	1.000	2.000
Comm. Events		0.595	0.595	0.595	0.595	0.595
P. Channel		0.405	0.405	0.405	1.405	1.405

.

(5)

Calculating the Total “Shortcomings” Value for Each Major Attribute

The shortcomings values identified in (4) for each factor were summed to calculate the shortcomings values for the higher-level categories of the attraction attributes. This helped us determine which major attributes are most critical in increasing the number of visitors and clearly understand their relative importance. Figure 5 shows a bar graph sorted by the importance of the major attributes.

In Figure 4 and Figure 5, each bar represents the degree of deficiency in a given factor or attraction attribute. A higher “shortcoming value” indicates that the evaluation score for that factor or attraction attribute is lower compared to the evaluation scores for Bongeunsa and Jogyesa.

▪

Testing Research Hypothesis 1 (H1)

Research hypothesis 1 (H1) states that Bongeunsa and Jogyesa, which have high tourist volumes, should receive higher scores in the evaluation of their tourism attraction attributes and sub-factors compared to the other urban traditional temples.

Figure 5 illustrates the weighted importance of each attribute, showcasing that attributes like inter-connectivity, convenience, and publicity are the most significant for tourism attractiveness. Bongeunsa and Jogyesa indeed scored higher across these key attributes, validating H1 at the attribute level.

Figure 4 visualizes the shortcomings in various factors across the temples. While Bongeunsa and Jogyesa outperformed the other temples in their overall tourism attributes, analysis of the factors reveals variability. For instance, temples that possess tourism potential but have not yet attracted many visitors generally need improvement in the following areas, listed in order of the highest shortcoming scores: BF facilities, affiliate facilities, tourism attractions, Buddhist retreats, traditional competitions, amenities, parking capacity, community events, promotion channels, public transportation, and landscaping. On the other hand, the four items with negative values—year of construction, cultural heritage, width of roads, and large institutions—are not considered major factors in determining the tourism potential of urban traditional temples.

The analysis supports H1, indicating that Bongeunsa and Jogyesa achieve higher overall scores in the tourism attributes compared to other urban traditional temples. However, when examining the sub-factors in detail, not all 15 sub-factors consistently align with this hypothesis. Therefore, while the hypothesis is valid at the broader attribute level, it necessitates refinement for sub-factor analysis.

6.2.2. Correlation Analysis of Tourism Factors

To analyze the correlation between each factor and the number of visitors, we performed Spearman’s rank correlation analysis. The Spearman’s rank correlation matrix shows how closely each factor is related to the number of visitors and how the factors relate to each other. The results of the correlation analysis are presented in Figure 6.

▪

Testing Research Hypothesis 2 (H2)

Research hypothesis 2 (H2) assumes that there will be differences in the correlation between each factor and the number of visitors to each temple. To test H2, we employed Spearman’s rank correlation analysis to examine the relationship between various factors and the number of visitors to the temples.

Spearman’s rank correlation analysis reveals that key factors like Buddhist retreats (ρ = 0.850), promotion channels (ρ = 0.800), and landscaping (ρ = 0.757) have strong positive correlations with visitor numbers, indicating their importance in attracting visitors. Other significant factors include traditional components (ρ = 0.694), affiliate facilities (ρ = 0.661), public transportation (ρ = 0.632), parking capacity (ρ = 0.624), and community events (ρ = 0.612). Lesser correlations were observed for factors like tourism attractions (ρ = 0.299), cultural heritage (ρ = 0.270), year of construction (ρ = 0.159), and width of roads (ρ = 0.144).

The analysis supports H2, confirming that key factors such as Buddhist retreats, promotion channels, and landscaping have a significant positive correlation with the number of visitors. This indicates their importance in enhancing the temples’ tourism appeal. By considering these correlations, we can identify the factors that have the greatest impact on increasing the number of visitors and determine the key areas for improvement. The identified correlations provide a basis for developing comprehensive improvement strategies to increase visitor numbers and improve the overall attractiveness of the temples.

7. Discussions and Conclusions

This study has identified the key elements that significantly enhance each attribute and derived them as factors for increasing tourism in urban traditional temples. Table 10 shows the evaluation results for the tourism resource characteristics of each temple.

First, this study was able to partially identify the reasons why Bongeunsa and Jogyesa attract more tourists compared to other urban traditional temples. In particular, factors such as convenience, inter-connectivity, and publicity were highly rated, which played a significant role. If other temples improved these factors, this would help increase the number of tourists. We identified five attraction attributes of urban traditional temples as variables that determine the degree of the increase in tourism at temples. Then, we compared the number of visitors, meaning the tourism index, to each temple to identify which variable has the greatest impact compared to Jogyesa and Bongeunsa. As shown in Figure 5, the five attributes contribute to the utilization of tourism resources, and considering the number of visitors, inter-connectivity, convenience, and publicity were found to contribute more significantly.

Secondly, through correlation analysis, we examined how each sub-factor is closely related to the number of visitors. Figure 4 shows the results, highlighting key factors such as Buddhist retreat programs, publicity channels, landscaping, traditional components, auxiliary facilities, public transportation, parking capacity, and community events. This will serve as an important reference for each temple to strategically enhance its tourism appeal factors. Table 11 above shows the shortcomings values by factor for each temple, allowing us to identify which elements need improvement. For temples that have not yet been developed as tourism resources, securing barrier-free access and parking spaces should be prioritized, and adding traditional architectural components later will likely attract more visitors.

Finally, as shown in Figure 6, the correlation between these factors was identified, indicating that these elements can create synergy to significantly help increase the number of visitors to urban temples. For example, for Bomunsa or Myogaksa, if its parking capacity is secured since public transportation is well developed, high accessibility can synergistically increase its number of visitors. Additionally, for Gaeunsa, having auxiliary facilities related to schools could also create a synergistic effect. In the case of Cheongnyangsa, since both Buddhist retreats and promotional channels are lacking, it is necessary to increase its publicity evenly.

Based on the analysis of urban traditional temples, the following specific policy proposals are feasible.

First, utilizing cultural tourism resources with natural, cultural, and historical significance, such as urban temples, is very important from the perspective of urban regeneration. Developing large-scale tourism complexes within cities is no longer a valid policy, especially in countries like Korea where the population is decreasing. There is a need to reclaim placeness as a method for urban regeneration. Urban traditional temples, which have not been well promoted but hold significant importance, can provide excellent placeness within the city.

Second, as shown in the correlation analysis, there are elements among various factors that have synergy. A comprehensive strategy considering the correlations of each factor is required.

Third, there is a need for an integrated management platform to help manage and maintain urban temples that have the potential to become cultural tourism resources. This platform would offer a much more comprehensive solution than the current system, which is limited to accreditation and financial support of traditional temples.

This study has several limitations, such as not addressing temples that are not classified as traditional temples under the law despite showing relatively high tourism indices. Additionally, this study has the limitation of focusing on the presence or absence of certain qualities, and there is a need to further subdivide these attributes to develop a more standardized measure of cultural tourism resources. It is necessary to utilize tactics such as narrative, storytelling, and further place marketing or place branding, which are essential for promoting urban traditional temples. Although the evaluation factors derived from our analytical framework may not be applicable to all types of urban tourism resources, this study specifically focuses on evaluating and considering the tourism potential of urban traditional temples.

Deriving the evaluation elements and their importance to a temple’s tourism resource characteristics can enhance traditional temples’ tourism potential in urban environments. Considering the global need to discover and integrate new urban tourism resources and cultural heritage, this study offers a timely proposal for identifying potential new tourism resources in urban contexts. Future research can build on these detailed evaluations to develop domestic temples as tourism resources, with a focus on the attraction factors within urban traditional temples’ tourism characteristics. The results can serve as foundational data for transforming underutilized urban traditional temples with unique religious, historical, and cultural value into valuable tourism assets. Future studies should include a broader range of temples and analyze their trends over time.