Toward a Disciplinary Knowledge–Led Approach for Sustainable Heritage-Based Art Districts in Shanghai

Abstract

Recent scholarship highlights growing interest in the relationship between cultural heritage and sustainable development. However, existing research predominantly focuses on pluralistic governance systems in the West, which limits applicability in authoritarian contexts and leaves evaluation mechanisms underdeveloped. Addressing this gap, this paper proposes the Evidence-Based Disciplinary Assessment (EBDA) approach, a guiding framework that integrates research evidence, historical narratives, and legacies to broaden heritage recognition across five dimensions: cultural, social, environmental, economic, and institutional-governance. The framework demonstrates how disciplinary knowledge valuation can contribute to sustainable heritage in historic art districts. We digitally map spatial clusters of 1347 artists’ residences and identify neighborhoods central to Shanghai’s Republican-period art scene. Through case studies of two existing neighborhoods and qualitative interviews with local officials, we show how evidence-based disciplinary narratives foster neighborhood pride, support adaptive reuse, attract cultural tourism, and align with governance frameworks to promote long-term preservation. Nonetheless, EBDA has limited relevance for social sustainability, particularly in enabling community-led conservation and supporting emerging artists. This hybrid model contributes to both theoretical debates and practical strategies for historic district development.

1. Introduction

Over the past decades, academic interest in the relationship between cultural heritage and sustainable urban development has grown significantly, which parallels a broader evolution in heritage discourse—from the preservation of individual monuments to the protection and revitalization of entire historical areas, along with changing evaluation criteria and conservation goals [1,2]. This review does not aim to be systematic; rather, it selectively identifies key strands of scholarship that address the intersection of heritage and sustainability, with particular emphasis on the role of cultural districts in diverse urban contexts.

One major strand of this literature explores how cultural heritage contributes to sustainable urban development, particularly through the revitalization and strategic activation of historical and cultural districts [3,4,5,6,7]. Naheed and Shooshtarian [8] argue that heritage plays a foundational role in urban sustainability—especially in increasingly diverse and socially complex cities. Vitkova and Silaci [9] similarly contend that cultural potential is a vital resource, and when mobilized through the creative city framework, it can enhance social cohesion, economic innovation, and environmental responsibility. When cultural districts are anchored by artistic identity, they not only support local cultural production but also sustain historic urban areas through art’s integration into local systems [10].

A second line of inquiry investigates how cultural districts form and function, analyzing them as both spatial and institutional constructs shaped by formal planning mechanisms and informal cultural networks [11,12,13]. For instance, Chapple et al. [14] adopt a planning-centric perspective, emphasizing the role of institutions—whether formal or informal—in shaping the development and sustainability of arts districts, with artists often responding to these external structures. From a cultural economics standpoint, Santagata [15] applies industrial district theory to argue that intellectual property rights (IPRs) are a key institutional tool for sustaining cultural districts, providing a stable foundation for culture-based economic development.

A third strand of scholarship addresses the tensions within state- or market-led models of culture-led urban regeneration. While these tensions are visible across regions, they have been especially salient in East Asian contexts. Scholars such as Kong [16] and Niu et al. [17] explore how creative and cultural spaces—often adapted from industrial heritage—serve both sustainability goals and sites of vulnerability. Their studies highlight the complexities of cultural production and spatial politics in highly regulated urban environments. In China, culture-led development often grapples with market volatility, policy shifts, and an overemphasis on economic outcomes, all of which undermine the long-term sustainability of these initiatives [17].

While much of the literature explores how cultural districts contribute to sustainable development or how policies and spatial strategies can activate cultural capital for regeneration (e.g., Chapple et al. [14]), many of the underlying assumptions—such as bottom-up identity building, network formation [12,18], and the presence of stable, rule-based institutions [15]—are rooted in pluralistic governance systems. These models are often less applicable to authoritative governance or hybrid regimes. Kong [16] uses Singapore and Shanghai to illustrate how organically developed cultural districts in such settings often face institutional fragility. Moreover, both in authoritative governance systems, a persistent problem is the disconnection between cultural content and institutional support, along with the absence of mechanisms to formally recognize cultural value [11,16]. On another level, the literature on heritage sustainability gives insufficient attention to how planning and policy frameworks might legitimize and sustain these cultural expressions [16]. In particular, there is a lack of comprehensive evaluation tools capable of capturing the multidimensional value of heritage within such frameworks. Cultural heritage approaches must therefore extend beyond material preservation—especially in contexts where heritage recognition is shaped by ideological constraints.

In China, for example, the current legal and regulatory framework governing the protection of cultural relics and heritage—such as the Law on the Protection of Cultural Relics—assesses heritage value according to three principal criteria: historical value, artistic value, and scientific value. However, within this framework, “artistic value” is narrowly interpreted to refer to the esthetic, stylistic, and technical qualities of artworks, as well as the reputation of their creators. It does not extend to the lived experiences of artists or the historical significance of sites associated with their lives and creative practices. As a result, many artists’ residences have been demolished amid urban redevelopment. Even the homes of prominent Republican-period Shanghai artists—such as Zhang Daqian, Wu Changshi, and Wu Hufan—have failed to survive.

Our paper takes up this issue and concerns about narrow valuation logics and then reframes what counts as valuable heritage. As Ketsuwan et al. [19] illustrate, disciplinary knowledge can become a source of discursive legitimacy, supporting a durable logic of value in sustaining creative spaces beyond urban, market-driven contexts. Our paper investigates whether disciplinary knowledge can influence heritage valuation within authoritative governance contexts and explores the mechanisms through which this occurs. The rationale is that culture can be treated as infrastructure, not simply as content or programming [3]. Our work offers both a conceptual perspective and a pragmatic framework for governance transformation: exploring the normative diversification of what counts as heritage and offering a context-specific, institutionally aware framework for bridging elite and community heritage valuation within a constrained political system.

Building on the theoretical hypothesis that disciplinary knowledge can shape heritage valuation in authoritative governance contexts, this study introduces the Evidence-Based Disciplinary Assessment (EBDA) as a multidimensional framework that both explains how this influence occurs and fosters more inclusive heritage. As a conceptual tool, EBDA clarifies the relationship between sustainability and cultural heritage in cultural districts and bridges conceptual analysis with practical implementation. In practice, it can guide sustainable heritage development. Using art history as an illustrative case, the EBDA emphasizes the artistic legacy, spatial history, and collective memory embedded in often-overlooked sites such as artists’ residences and studios. By doing so, it broadens conventional heritage frameworks and challenges narrowly defined, ideologically constrained valuation criteria. Drawing on disciplinary expertise in art history, the EBDA identifies underrecognized cultural assets and elevates their significance within wider urban development and heritage planning agendas.

To test the applicability of EBDA, the research employs a mixed-methods approach in two historic neighborhoods in Shanghai that were home to prominent Republican-period artists. The empirical work draws on a geo-referenced dataset of 1800 addresses linked to 1347 artists, spatial mappings of the historic art world, site visits, participatory observation, 60 questionnaire surveys, and semi-structured interviews with district- and municipal-level officials. Survey responses were analyzed using both descriptive statistics and thematic coding to assess how residents and policymakers perceive the sustainability impacts of preserving artists’ residences. Based on the findings, we argue that the EBDA offers both a culturally resonant conceptual lens and an institutionally feasible empirical tool for advancing multidimensional sustainability, demonstrating that disciplinary expertise can recalibrate heritage valuation and support the sustainable development of heritage-based historic art districts.

Section 2 outlines the formulation of the EBDA criteria, drawing theoretical insights from the literature on sustainable development across five dimensions and concluding with a matrix that consolidates all criteria. Section 4 reports the survey results and discusses how triangulating qualitative and quantitative methods supports the evaluation of each criterion. Section 5 concludes with the key findings as well as the theoretical and empirical implications.

2. Constructing the Multidimensional Explanatory Conceptual Framework: EBDA

2.1. Multidimensional Frameworks in the Literature

The primary contribution of this paper lies in constructing a multidimensional explanatory framework that demonstrates how the art-historical valuation approach can enhance the sustainability of heritage-based art districts.

Multidimensional frameworks are widely used in sustainable cultural heritage research. Maggiore and Vellecco [18] view cultural districts as dynamic networks shaped by shared identity, social capital, and governance leadership. Santagata [15] outlines four models of cultural districts, including the institutional model, which centers on property rights to safeguard cultural assets. Yung et al. [20] identify key factors linking historic building conservation to social sustainability. Positioned within this literature, our art-historical valuation framework builds on and adapts the institutional cultural district model to heritage governance contexts marked by limited property rights and constrained democratic processes.

2.2. Evidence-Based Disciplinary Assessment as a Framework for Sustainable Heritage

This section aims to develop a conceptual tool (presented in Table 1) that clarifies how the EBDA framework can contribute to more sustainable cultural heritage by providing structured guidance. The framework’s criteria represent conditions that, if effectively applied, are expected to promote sustainable outcomes in heritage valuation. It should be noted, however, that the framework itself is not designed to directly assess these outcomes.

2.2.1. Institutional and Governance Sustainability

Scholars have observed that cultural programs often occupy a relatively marginal position in urban planning [21,22,23], which makes governance and institutional alignment particularly important for advancing sustainable heritage. Vitkova and Silaci [9] argue that sustainable cultural development requires more than branding or programming; it depends on the institutional alignment of economic, social, political, and spatial conditions. Meaningful transformation emerges only when contextual cultural capital and urban planning strategies are integrated.

At the level of cultural districts, governance emerges as a central determinant of sustainability. As Chapple et al. [14] argue, formal art districts are created through centralized planning and design, often anchored by major developments and strong leadership. While such approaches offer a coherent district image, they may limit the autonomy and benefits afforded to individual artists. In contrast, informal districts emerge organically from artistic communities, more authentically reflecting local cultural dynamics but lacking institutional mechanisms for long-term resilience. Their research underscores the need for planning tools that align top-down interventions with bottom-up cultural values, particularly in the face of gentrification and redevelopment pressures. Similarly, De Luca et al. [24] demonstrate how formalized cultural governance frameworks—when combined with institutional learning and trans-local knowledge exchange—can enhance legitimacy and sustainability. Kong [16] adds that the rise of heritage-based cultural flagships in Asia illustrates how cultural districts are used to project state legitimacy, yet vary in their institutional robustness depending on whether they evolve organically or are state-imposed. Building on these insights, our proposed framework emphasizes how disciplinary knowledge—particularly art-historical expertise—can mediate between governance imperatives and community-based cultural memory, enhancing institutional sustainability in heritage-led urban development.

While some scholars have emphasized the non-economic valuation of cultural assets as a foundation for economic and governance legitimacy (e.g., Santagata [15]), this paper extends that line of inquiry by demonstrating how art-historical knowledge can be strategically mobilized to shape and expand heritage valuation frameworks. Drawing on the concept of “disciplinary knowledge,” we explore whether art history, as a form of high culture, can serve as a unique resource that aligns with the ideological preferences of state-led governance, thereby enhancing sustainability in the governance and institutional dimension. Lazzeretti [10], for instance, analyzes Florence as a high culture local system, where “cultural districtualization” transforms symbolic heritage into both cultural identity and productive infrastructure—reinforcing sustainability through artistic legacy. Building on this perspective, our paper proposes art-historical valuation as a method to identify underrecognized cultural assets—such as artists’ residences and studios—and to challenge the ideological narrowness of state-led heritage criteria. In doing so, it highlights how disciplinary expertise can mediate between state priorities and community memory, especially in contexts like China, where heritage governance remains highly centralized.

2.2.2. Cultural Sustainability

Cultural sustainability refers to a community’s capacity to sustain and evolve cultural expressions that reflect local identities, particularly amid globalization [25]. It requires embedding indigenous idioms in creative production and fostering a sense of belonging without veering into isolationism. However, scholars caution that cultural agendas are often subordinated to economic priorities. Stevenson [26] argues that framing culture through productivity metrics undermines its emancipatory potential, a concern echoed by Miles and Paddison [27], who warn of reinforcing inequality. Bassett [28] emphasizes that economic regeneration does not ensure cultural renewal, which depends on genuine creative engagement. Blandy and Fenn [29] add that urban sustainability must include cultural vibrancy and inclusive practices, highlighting cultural workers as vital to resilient cities.

Applying these insights to the Republican-period artists’ neighborhood as a historic art district, we hypothesize that sustainability depends on preserving the intangible cultural values embedded in daily practices, artistic traditions, and social networks. This requires maintaining the relevance and reinterpretation of artistic heritage—not merely showcasing it for economic gain but sustaining its role in contemporary creative life. Cultural sustainability, in this context, hinges on the active involvement of local artists, historians, and residents, fostering an ongoing dialog with the past while resisting instrumentalization for narrow development agendas. The criteria used (Section 2.2.2 of Table 1) draw on insights from Kong [16,30], Yung et al. [20], and others.

2.2.3. Social Sustainability

Social sustainability encompasses the systems, practices, and values that foster inclusive, equitable, and cohesive communities. It involves respecting diversity, protecting vulnerable groups, and enabling individuals to participate as autonomous yet interconnected members of society [25]. In cultural policy, it is achieved when activities foster interaction, bridge differences, and build shared civic identities. However, critics warn that these goals are often undermined by economic reductionism. Stevenson [26] critiques the conflation of social inclusion with market participation, arguing that those excluded economically are also excluded culturally. Miles and Paddison [27] similarly note that top-down cultural investments often fail to resonate with local communities, risking alienation and ineffectiveness.

Effective cultural initiatives require participatory frameworks that reflect lived experience and empower communities. Lopes et al. [6] examine creative hubs like LxFactory, Ateneu Popular 9 Barris, and 59 Rivoli, where artist-led reuse of abandoned buildings generated economic, social, and cultural value outside top-down models. These efforts activated local economies, strengthened social ties, and fostered urban transformation. Greater artist and resident participation—especially via networked communities—enhances satisfaction, trust, and inclusion [31], outperforming conventional governance models [12,13]. Yung et al. [20] demonstrate these dynamics in Shanghai’s Tianzifang, where community-led heritage transformation reflects collective memory, place attachment, and active participation.

2.2.4. Environmental Sustainability

In this context, environmental sustainability refers to the responsible management of urban space—particularly the preservation, adaptation, and integration of historic environments. It requires balancing development with conservation, ensuring that transformation enhances rather than erodes the cultural and symbolic significance of place. Urban spaces are not just physical sites but repositories of memory and identity. Thus, sustainability must consider how historic areas are adapted for contemporary use while maintaining heritage value. Evans [21] critiques sustainability assessments for favoring quantifiable economic metrics over cultural and environmental concerns. Likewise, Yarker [32] highlight the neglect of affective and symbolic dimensions—such as public appreciation and esthetic value—in urban regeneration. These critiques underscore the need for sustainable urban environments that are ecologically sound, economically viable, and culturally meaningful. Zhang et al. [33] emphasize that preserving traditional street structures while incorporating pedestrian access and local commerce is key to maintaining historic districts. Street texture, or the spatial configuration of pathways, supports heritage continuity and neighborhood vitality. Yung [20] adds that architectural authenticity is essential for preserving defining features of original structures. Such districts act as cultural and educational resources, revealing past lifeways and architectural heritage.

Our framework incorporates cultural district design principles [34,35,36]—such as mixed land use, accessibility, vibrancy, and legibility—while adapting them to the unique context of Republican-period Shanghai artists’ homes, lifestyles, and creative practices.

2.2.5. Economic Sustainability

Cultural strategies in urban policy have often been critiqued for economically and ideologically instrumentalizing culture [4,22,37]. In the heritage context, economic sustainability refers to cultivating a resilient, diversified job market, fostering independent creative industries, and attracting talent through supportive infrastructure and long-term planning [38,39]. While cultural tourism can be a valuable economic driver, it must be balanced with local needs and sustainability goals.

Maggiore and Vellecco [18] stress that culture should not be reduced to tourism commodities but recognized as a force for identity-building, social capital, and economic diversification. Economic sustainability in culturally rich districts depends on localized systems of production, not symbolic commodification.

Lazzeretti et al. [10] highlight how clusters of cultural production—such as art restoration firms—can support long-term economic development while reinforcing artistic identity. This “districtualization” process ties economic vitality to cultural specificity, integrating tradition with innovation.

In the Republican-period artists’ neighborhood, economic sustainability involves affordable spaces for marginalized artists, room for creative industry firms, and infrastructure for both cultural consumption and tourism. As a living art district, it should sustain both heritage and contemporary cultural practice within Shanghai’s creative economy.

Table 1 summarizes how disciplinary knowledge may contribute to the sustainable development of cultural heritage in art districts within the Chinese context. To clarify the link between the discussion in this section and the table, each dimension is labeled with the corresponding subsection number and references cited in that subsection. In addition, each criterion is numbered to align with the findings from the empirical analysis presented in Section 5.

Table 1. Conceptual framework illustrating the EBDA approach for sustainable cultural heritage in historic art districts.

The Corresponding Subsection No.	Dimensions	Criteria	Reference
2.2.1	Institutional and Governance Sustainability	2.2.1.1 Assessment of compatibility with existing cultural relics laws and alignment with elite-led heritage assessment frameworks in China.	Evans [21]; Vitkova and Silaci [9]; Chapple et al. [14]; De Luca et al. [24]; Kong [16]; Santagata [15]; Lazzeretti [10].
		2.2.1.2 Potential for expanding state-sanctioned heritage narratives toward a more inclusive valuation framework in China.
		2.2.1.3 Recognition of experts, artists, and cultural practitioners as participants in dialog between top-down planning and grassroots cultural memory.
		2.2.1.4 Valuation of the mediating role of narratives between state objectives and local identity, contributing to institutional legitimacy and cultural governance.
		2.2.1.5 Integration of art-historical evidence into planning as a means of strengthening institutional resilience by linking symbolic capital with policy frameworks.
2.2.2	Cultural Sustainability	2.2.2.1 Minimum threshold (e.g., 25%) of land use in the core preservation area reflecting Republican-period artistic life.	IJECESS [25]; Stevenson [26]; Paddison [27]; Bassett [28]; Blandy and Fenn [29]; Kong [16,30]; Yung et al. [20].
		2.2.2.2 Inclusion of educational programming on the history and achievements of Republican-period Shanghai artists.
		2.2.2.3 Valuation of everyday cultural practices, creative processes, and social environments of Republican-period artists.
		2.2.2.4 Visibility of local cultural identity and esteem linked to Republican-period art history through commemorative and public cultural forms.
		2.2.2.5 Inclusion of local artists, historians, and residents in heritage-related planning, programming, and interpretation.
		2.2.2.6 A contemporary reinterpretation of Republican-period artistic traditions within ongoing cultural activities.
2.2.3	Environmental Sustainability	2.2.3.1 Retention of the traditional street and lane network characteristic of Republican-period artists’ neighborhoods, including the spatial configuration of pathways and enclosures.	Evans [21]; Johnson and Thomas [32]; Zhang et al. [33]; Yung et al. [20]; Montgomery [34,35]; Roodhouse [36].
		2.2.3.2 Conservation of the original architectural styles and defining elements of Republican-period artists’ residences.
		2.2.3.3 Preservation of the overall spatial integrity and continuity of the Republican-period art district, maintaining its historical coherence as a unified cultural landscape.
		2.2.3.4 High spatial permeability, ensuring accessible and well-connected pedestrian pathways to key artistic and cultural venues within the district.
2.2.4	Social Sustainability	2.2.4.1 Collaborative development frameworks involving art historians, artists, art organizations, and hopefully local residents.	IJECESS [25]; Stevenson [26]; Paddison [27]; Lopes et al. [6]; Baek et al. [31]; Darchen [13]. Sacco and Blessi [12]; Yung et al. [20].
		2.2.4.2 Public participation mechanisms enabling art history specialists and local residents to comment on and influence project planning and implementation.
		2.2.4.3 Capacity-building programs in heritage restoration and cultural skills for local residents.
		2.2.4.4 Preservation and activation of collective memory and sense of place associated with Republican-period artistic heritage.
		2.2.4.5 Provision of affordable creative workspaces for emerging artists to promote inclusiveness and intergenerational cultural exchange.
		2.2.4.6 Strengthening of social networks and community trust.
2.2.5	Economic Sustainability	2.2.5.1 Supporting a vibrant creative economy rooted in local cultural production.	Miles [37]; Skrede [4]; Garcia [22]; Landry [38]; Florida [39]; Maggiore and Vellecco [18]; Lazzeretti et al. [10].
		2.2.5.2 Sustaining a diverse job market for artists and creative professionals, building on the legacy of Republican-period Shanghai.
		2.2.5.3 Providing affordable living and working spaces for economically marginalized artists.
		2.2.5.4 Leveraging Republican-period artistic heritage as cultural capital for tourism and cultural consumption.

Table 1. Conceptual framework illustrating the EBDA approach for sustainable cultural heritage in historic art districts.

The Corresponding Subsection No.	Dimensions	Criteria	Reference
2.2.1	Institutional and Governance Sustainability	2.2.1.1 Assessment of compatibility with existing cultural relics laws and alignment with elite-led heritage assessment frameworks in China.	Evans [21]; Vitkova and Silaci [9]; Chapple et al. [14]; De Luca et al. [24]; Kong [16]; Santagata [15]; Lazzeretti [10].
		2.2.1.2 Potential for expanding state-sanctioned heritage narratives toward a more inclusive valuation framework in China.
		2.2.1.3 Recognition of experts, artists, and cultural practitioners as participants in dialog between top-down planning and grassroots cultural memory.
		2.2.1.4 Valuation of the mediating role of narratives between state objectives and local identity, contributing to institutional legitimacy and cultural governance.
		2.2.1.5 Integration of art-historical evidence into planning as a means of strengthening institutional resilience by linking symbolic capital with policy frameworks.
2.2.2	Cultural Sustainability	2.2.2.1 Minimum threshold (e.g., 25%) of land use in the core preservation area reflecting Republican-period artistic life.	IJECESS [25]; Stevenson [26]; Paddison [27]; Bassett [28]; Blandy and Fenn [29]; Kong [16,30]; Yung et al. [20].
		2.2.2.2 Inclusion of educational programming on the history and achievements of Republican-period Shanghai artists.
		2.2.2.3 Valuation of everyday cultural practices, creative processes, and social environments of Republican-period artists.
		2.2.2.4 Visibility of local cultural identity and esteem linked to Republican-period art history through commemorative and public cultural forms.
		2.2.2.5 Inclusion of local artists, historians, and residents in heritage-related planning, programming, and interpretation.
		2.2.2.6 A contemporary reinterpretation of Republican-period artistic traditions within ongoing cultural activities.
2.2.3	Environmental Sustainability	2.2.3.1 Retention of the traditional street and lane network characteristic of Republican-period artists’ neighborhoods, including the spatial configuration of pathways and enclosures.	Evans [21]; Johnson and Thomas [32]; Zhang et al. [33]; Yung et al. [20]; Montgomery [34,35]; Roodhouse [36].
		2.2.3.2 Conservation of the original architectural styles and defining elements of Republican-period artists’ residences.
		2.2.3.3 Preservation of the overall spatial integrity and continuity of the Republican-period art district, maintaining its historical coherence as a unified cultural landscape.
		2.2.3.4 High spatial permeability, ensuring accessible and well-connected pedestrian pathways to key artistic and cultural venues within the district.
2.2.4	Social Sustainability	2.2.4.1 Collaborative development frameworks involving art historians, artists, art organizations, and hopefully local residents.	IJECESS [25]; Stevenson [26]; Paddison [27]; Lopes et al. [6]; Baek et al. [31]; Darchen [13]. Sacco and Blessi [12]; Yung et al. [20].
		2.2.4.2 Public participation mechanisms enabling art history specialists and local residents to comment on and influence project planning and implementation.
		2.2.4.3 Capacity-building programs in heritage restoration and cultural skills for local residents.
		2.2.4.4 Preservation and activation of collective memory and sense of place associated with Republican-period artistic heritage.
		2.2.4.5 Provision of affordable creative workspaces for emerging artists to promote inclusiveness and intergenerational cultural exchange.
		2.2.4.6 Strengthening of social networks and community trust.
2.2.5	Economic Sustainability	2.2.5.1 Supporting a vibrant creative economy rooted in local cultural production.	Miles [37]; Skrede [4]; Garcia [22]; Landry [38]; Florida [39]; Maggiore and Vellecco [18]; Lazzeretti et al. [10].
		2.2.5.2 Sustaining a diverse job market for artists and creative professionals, building on the legacy of Republican-period Shanghai.
		2.2.5.3 Providing affordable living and working spaces for economically marginalized artists.
		2.2.5.4 Leveraging Republican-period artistic heritage as cultural capital for tourism and cultural consumption.

3. Research Methods

The research was carried out in four interrelated phases. In the first phase, we developed the Evidence-Based Disciplinary Assessment (EBDA) by formulating a set of criteria across five dimensions of sustainable development, drawing on insights from the relevant theoretical literature. This conceptual development concluded with a consolidated matrix of criteria that served as the foundation for empirical investigation. In the second phase, we designed a questionnaire to examine the applicability of the EBDA framework, with questions structured to test the clarity, feasibility, and perceived relevance of the proposed criteria in the context of heritage-based art districts. The third phase involved data collection through the administration of the questionnaire, supplemented by qualitative inquiry to capture diverse perspectives from community residents, workers, and visitors. In the fourth phase, we conducted data analysis by triangulating quantitative and qualitative findings to assess how the EBDA framework could guide heritage valuation in practice. This step-by-step process ensured that the framework was not only theoretically grounded but also empirically examined in terms of its potential to inform sustainable cultural heritage preservation.

The empirical component of this research tests the applicability of the proposed conceptual framework in the context of Shanghai. Shanghai is selected as the case study site due to its extensive built heritage from the Republican period (1912–1948), which is increasingly acknowledged as a vital part of the city’s cultural landscape [16,17,40,41,42]. This study draws on a newly compiled geo-referenced dataset of 1800 addresses linked to 1347 artists active in Shanghai during the Republican era, as well as spatial mappings of the city’s evolving art world [43,44,45,46]. Based on three selection criteria—(1) concentration and integrity of the built fabric; (2) historical significance of artists’ residences; and (3) prominence of artists formerly in residence—two representative neighborhoods were identified and selected as empirical case studies of Republican-period artists’ districts.

One neighborhood, historically situated in the north-central part of the former French Concession (1914–1943), is bounded by Hefei Road, Danshui Road, Zizhong Road, and South Chongqing Road, covering an area of approximately 98,000 square meters. The residential buildings date back to the 1930s, and the area was home to 23 prominent artists, including Liu Haisu (1896–1994), Huang Binhong (1865–1955), and Tao Lengyue (1895–1985) (Figure 1).

The other neighborhood, the Huanghe Road neighborhood situated in the International Settlement, is bounded by Fengyang Road, Wenzhou Road, Qingdao Road, and Xinchang Road, covering an area of approximately 101,150 square meters. The residential buildings date back to the 1930s, and the area was home to 16 prominent artists, including Zheng Wuchang (1896–1994), Ying Yeping (1865–1955), and Xu Bangda (1895–1985) (Figure 2).

In the empirical phase of this research, we employed a triangulated methodology combining both qualitative and quantitative approaches. The qualitative component consisted of interviews, participatory observation, and site reconnaissance. Adopting a purposive sampling method, we conducted interviews with municipal-level government officers from the urban planning and cultural heritage departments to explore the potential institutional acceptance of the EBDA and its capacity to contribute to China’s multidimensional sustainable heritage development. Additionally, we interviewed neighborhood-level officials from the street offices and residential committees in both case study areas. Prior to the interviews, participants were introduced to our latest research findings on the Republican-period artists’ residences. Discussions then focused on their assessment of the significance of these sites and their anticipated impact on sustainability. In total, six interviews were conducted—two with municipal-level officers and four with neighborhood-level officials—between May and July 2025.

During the same period, we conducted six field visits to the two neighborhoods, focusing on participatory observation and site reconnaissance, aiming to explore how local residents interact with heritage spaces. In parallel, site reconnaissance was carried out to assess how the proposed preservation measures might support environmental sustainability, particularly in terms of spatial integration, building integrity, and adaptive reuse potential.

We followed standard interpretive methods, analyzing interview transcripts, field notes, and site records through coding and thematic categorization across five sustainability dimensions. In addition to inductive coding, we used discursive, narrative, and ethnographic strategies to uncover deeper contextual meanings.

Two rounds of questionnaire surveys assessed how preserving Republican-period artists’ residences and developing heritage-based art districts affect residents’ perceptions of neighborhood sustainability. Survey questions, derived from Section 2.2.2, Section 2.2.3, Section 2.2.4 and Section 2.2.5 of our framework, addressed cultural, social, environmental, and economic aspects. Respondents received a brief overview of the historical and artistic significance of the sites before completing Likert-scale, yes/no, and open-ended questions. Fieldwork included two visits to each site, with 60 surveys conducted between November 2024 and July 2025, alongside interviews with local and municipal officials.

Quantitative analysis used descriptive statistics and composite scores to assess perceived sustainability strengths and weaknesses. Qualitative responses were thematically coded and analyzed for sentiment and frequency. Findings were synthesized to evaluate whether art-historical valuation is seen as supporting sustainable development.

Contextual differences between Huaihai Road (heritage-oriented) and Huanghe Road (food-focused) were considered, along with variables such as age, education, occupation, and arts involvement. Chi-square tests explored the impact of these factors on survey responses.

4. Results and Discussions

Our qualitative and quantitative analysis indicates that the Evidence-Based Disciplinary Assessment (EBDA) approach holds potential to enhance cultural sustainability and the cultural consumption dimension of economic sustainability in heritage-based art districts. It also shows promise in advancing environmental as well as institutional and governance sustainability. However, its impact on social sustainability is more mixed, particularly due to limitations in fostering community-led conservation and supporting marginalized artists.

This pattern is reflected in the composite scores from the survey data. In the Huaihai Road neighborhood, respondents rated cultural, environmental, and economic (cultural consumption) sustainability dimensions highly, each exceeding 4.5 out of 5. By contrast, social sustainability received a slightly lower score of 4.38. Although scores were generally lower in the Huanghe Road neighborhood, the same trend persisted, with cultural, environmental, and economic dimensions rated higher than social sustainability.

4.1. Advancing Institutional and Governance Sustainability

Our findings suggest that the EBDA holds strong potential to enhance the institutional and governance sustainability of heritage-based art districts.

Our findings support Criterion 2.2.1.1, showing that the EBDA aligns well with China’s existing cultural relics legislation and its expert-driven heritage evaluation model. At the national level, art-historical valuation mirrors principles in the Cultural Relics Protection Law (Wenwu Fa) (2024 edition), reinforcing a framework that privileges scholarly expertise. As noted by an official from the Shanghai Urban Planning Bureau, current legal criteria already favor domains traditionally assessed by experts, making EBDA a natural fit within institutional heritage designation and preservation policies (Interview, 2025). Shanghai’s evolving urban renewal policies further reinforce the institutional compatibility of EBDA. According to the head of the Huaihai Street Office, recent heritage listings have expanded beyond landmark architecture to include artists’ residences, as seen in the fourth and fifth listing batches. The Zizhong Road neighborhood, now part of the Hengshan–Fuxing Historic Area (Hengfu Fengmaoqu), is protected by municipal guidelines that mandate preservation of original architectural features and prohibit major alterations. The official emphasized a clear policy shift from the demolition-led renewal of 1990s Xintiandi to today’s preservation-first approach—“like-for-like restoration” (xiu jiu ru jiu)—with demolition as a last resort (Interview, 2025).

EBDA also enjoys strong community support, particularly when it involves genuine expert guidance and facilitation. In a neighborhood survey, 88.3% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that “community residents, historians, and artists should participate in the planning and interpretation of cultural heritage activities,” the highest-rated item (mean = 4.33). In contrast, support for more participatory roles—such as joining discussions (mean = 4.2; 78.3% agreement) or receiving heritage training (mean = 4.12; 71.7%)—was lower. These findings suggest that in China’s governance context, public involvement in heritage tends to be viewed as expert-led rather than grassroots-driven.

Our findings partially support Criterion 2.2.1.2, demonstrating that EBDA has the potential to expand state-sanctioned heritage narratives and contribute to a more inclusive valuation framework in China. While current heritage assessment criteria do not explicitly exclude artistic contributions, they generally require that artistic value be accompanied by ideological relevance—particularly alignment with so-called “red culture,” the dominant historical narrative rooted in Communist Party ideology. As the head of the Huaihai Street Office explained, “The artists who historically lived along this street, whether through their artistic production or intellectual pursuits, can be seen as patriotic and pro-Party intellectuals. Therefore, our red cultural heritage and the arts are closely linked in the preservation process. Both national and local governments have been actively promoting this process” (Interview, 2025).

However, domain expertise and rigorous academic research can play a critical role in shaping heritage policy indirectly. According to this official from the Urban Planning Bureau, well-substantiated professional opinions can provide crucial support for national representatives in the National People’s Congress (Quanguo Renda) and the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference (Zhengxie), the political bodies through which broader societal views are incorporated into the policymaking process. “Professional opinions based on rigorous academic research,” the official stated, “will provide strong support for congressional representatives to argue for broadened historic valuation criteria” (Interview, 2025).

Our findings support Criterion 2.2.1.3, demonstrating that EBDA can serve as an effective platform for engaging experts, artists, and cultural practitioners while bridging top-down planning with grassroots cultural memory. In doing so, EBDA contributes to diversifying the roles and public functions of local government agencies, particularly at the community level. These agencies are increasingly acting as cultural entrepreneurs, mediating between professionals and residents to curate and deliver culturally resonant activities. As the director of the Dingxing Residential Committee explained, the committee often acts as a “communication bridge between artists and cultural institutions” (Interview, 2025). Rather than serving solely as logistical organizers, community officials now perform a curatorial role, selecting cultural activities that match the neighborhood’s demographic and cultural profile. “Our role is to select programs suited to our community—something that integrates senior-friendly, child-friendly, and neighborhood-specific cultural elements” (Interview, 2025). Also, EBDA functions as a rallying point, capable of convening funding bodies, artists, volunteers, and local residents toward shared goals. As one official noted, “While community-level governments may lack the financial resources to support heritage maintenance and cultural dissemination, cultural activities are still powerful tools for mobilizing volunteers and engaging residents in public affairs” (Interview with the Huaihai Neighborhood Residential Committee, 2025).

The findings partially support Criterion 2.2.1.4, suggesting that EBDA narratives can enhance institutional legitimacy and strengthen the cultural governance capacity of local authorities to a certain degree. According to the director of the Huaihai Residential Committee (Interview, 2025), officials believe a neighborhood’s cultural and historical legacy positively influences residents’ behavior and engagement. Those in historically significant areas, the official noted, tend to be better educated, more culturally aware, and more cooperative in urban governance (Interview with the director of the Dingxing Residential Committee, 2025). In this context, EBDA contributes to building stronger community-government relationships, as historically aware and culturally invested residents are more likely to engage with and support preservation-oriented governance. The perceived cultural capital of these neighborhoods becomes a valuable asset in legitimizing heritage policy and enhancing community compliance. That said, neighborhood-level government officials noted a challenge of this approach, emphasizing that culture-related projects could divert resources from livelihood improvements and potentially generate discontent within the community.

Moreover, our research supports Criterion 2.2.1.5, which posits that incorporating art-historical evidence into planning processes can enhance the institutional resilience of heritage-based art districts by linking symbolic capital with formal policy frameworks. According to the official from the Shanghai Urban Planning Bureau (Interview, 2025), current urban planning efforts increasingly recognize and respect the protection of listed heritage sites, which, in turn, contributes to a sense of cultural dynamism and vibrancy within these communities. As observed during field inspection, several artist residences have already been marked. By establishing historical links among artists’ lives and residences, EBDA will help to reconstruct the cultural geography of the Republican-era Shanghai art world.

4.2. Realizing Cultural Sustainability

This research shows that EBDA most significantly contributes to cultural sustainability by embedding art-historical evidence into creative practices, daily life, and place-based narratives—strengthening local identity and connecting past and present. More than a documentation tool, EBDA actively shapes and sustains the evolving cultural fabric of historically significant communities.

All interviewed officials and most survey respondents supported Criterion 2.2.2.2, which emphasizes the role of educational programs on Republican-period Shanghai artists in promoting cultural sustainability. A municipal Urban Planning Bureau official described these artist residences as part of the city’s collective memory, noting that educating the public about their legacy would enrich neighborhood cultural life (Interview, 2025). At the grassroots level, the Huaihai Residential Committee director cited school–community initiatives in which long-term residents share stories with students to help “Old Shanghai culture reach a meaningful level of saturation” (Interview, 2025). Similarly, the Dingxing Residential Committee director noted that linking artists’ stories to lilong (lane house) life deepens public appreciation of local heritage. Survey data support these perspectives. Across both neighborhoods, agreement with the statement “The history and achievements of Republican-period artists should be promoted in this community” averaged 4.2 out of 5, with 81.7% in agreement; in Huaihai, the average rose to 4.6, with 96.7% agreement. Chi-square tests revealed statistically significant differences by respondent identity and art-related background (χ² = 0.85–1.00, df = 2, p < 0.05), with residents, workers, and those with art experience expressing the strongest support.

All interviewed officials and most survey respondents (average agreement score: 4.35 out of 5; 83.3% agreement) supported Criterion 2.2.2.3, which emphasizes preserving and promoting the everyday cultural practices, creative processes, and social environments of Republican-period artists. Currently, this heritage is expressed primarily through object-based displays—for example, a calligraphy work by Liu Haisu is exhibited at a local cultural center, alongside historical books available for public reading (On-site observation, 2025). Officials consistently stressed that intangible heritage—artistic traditions, stories, and skills—is as vital, if not more so, than preserving physical structures. The head of the Huaihai Street Office referenced the film Coco: “Death is not the end—being forgotten is,” underscoring the need to keep artists’ legacies alive for future generations (Interview, 2025). She and others advocated for accessible platforms like short-form video to reach wider audiences. Similarly, an Urban Planning Bureau official emphasized the importance of communicating artists’ histories to foster public appreciation, recommending city walks enhanced with signage, QR codes, and interpretive materials (Interview, 2025).

All interviewed officials supported Criterion 2.2.2.4, which stresses making local cultural identity and pride in Republican-period art history visible through commemorative and public cultural initiatives. Community-level officials expressed clear willingness to support proposals from artists or historians, with institutional mechanisms—such as funding and staffing—available upon project approval. The Huaihai Residential Committee director noted that strong proposals could become permanent co-construction projects with stable support (Interview, 2025). The Dingxing Residential Committee director emphasized reserving community spaces to showcase the lives and works of Republican-period artists (Interview, 2025). This commitment is already reflected in murals and commemorative plaques in the neighborhoods, depicting Republican-era architecture and daily life (On-site observation, Huaihai neighborhood, 2025).

Further, findings support Criterion 2.2.2.5 that EBDA can foster the inclusion of local artists, historians, and residents in heritage-related planning, programming, and interpretation. One official remarked on the necessity of coordination among government bodies, art enthusiasts, and cultural workers to connect collective memories. Government protection of cultural heritage enables activities such as solo exhibitions commemorating deceased artists, public events showcasing works inspired by these artists, and workshops that engage art lovers in replicating historical art forms. Such initiatives allow communities to understand and revisit important historical narratives (Interview with the director of the Huaihai Residential Committee, 2025).

All interviewed officials support Criterion 2.2.2.6, which highlights the importance of reinterpreting Republican-period artistic traditions through contemporary cultural activities. In the Huaihai Neighborhood, on-site observations show a growing emphasis on modern artistic expression. Contemporary works by artists like Li Shoubai are displayed in Fengyuli, while the museum (No. 213 Danshui Road) features exhibitions by current artists. Through EBDA, the head of the Huaihai Street Office asserted that art-historical knowledge would strengthen community cultural facilities. Specifically, grounding programs in local art history allows these venues to more effectively engage residents in reading, reinterpreting, and practicing Republican-period artistic traditions (Interview, 2025).

Criterion 2.2.2.1 is only partially supported, due to limited space for art and cultural activities. In Huanghe Road, most street-level shops are occupied by antique dealers, restaurants, or hotels, with few visibly linked to art or heritage. However, around 24% of commercial units could be repurposed (On-site observation, 2025). Despite current limitations, public support is strong—86.7% of survey respondents (avg. score: 4.35), and 96.7% in Huaihai (avg. 4.73), favor expanding spaces for Republican-period art. Officials agree that EBDA can help reimagine these neighborhoods as historic art districts, gradually attracting creative tenants and increasing cultural land use (Interviews, 2025).

4.3. Preserving Environmental Sustainability

This research demonstrates that EBDA can advance the environmental sustainability of heritage-based art-historical districts by supporting the preservation of spatial patterns, architectural integrity, and visual identity, while enhancing pedestrian connectivity and integrating historic environments into everyday urban life.

Most interviewed officials and survey respondents supported preserving the traditional street and lane networks of Republican-period artist neighborhoods (avg. agreement: 4.2/5; 78.3%). The Huaihai Residential Committee director emphasized their emotional and cultural significance, recalling childhood experiences in Shanghai’s alleys and stressing the importance of preserving such heritage to maintain urban identity—comparable to the old-new town coexistence in European cities. The Dingxing Residential Committee director similarly valued preserving the architectural style over demolition. At the same time, officials acknowledged the need for balance between conservation and residents’ daily needs. The Huaihai Street Office head pointed to challenges in restoring certain architectural details (e.g., window sills), noting potential disruptions to familiar living environments. Survey data also revealed that support for preserving spatial and cultural landscape features varied significantly by education level (χ² = 0.85 and 0.53, df = 1, p < 0.05), highlighting education’s role in shaping heritage perceptions.

Findings support Criterion 2.2.4.2, which highlights preserving the architectural styles and defining elements of Republican-period artists’ residences as vital to environmental sustainability in heritage art districts. Both officials and residents emphasized that tangible heritage is essential for connecting younger generations with Shanghai’s urban cultural history. The director of the Huaihai Residential Committee noted that while books provide historical knowledge, physical spaces—like former residences—foster deeper emotional engagement. He described the neighborhood’s French-style villas and new lane housing as key Republican-era forms, now prioritized in conservation efforts guided by EBDA principles. With district and housing bureau support, restoration work has intensified in recent years. On-site investigations confirm that the Huaihai neighborhood retains well-preserved Republican-era typologies and spatial character, offering strong value for heritage conservation and research (Site reconnaissance, 2025).

All interviewed government officials and a strong majority of questionnaire respondents support Criterion 2.2.4.3, which emphasizes preserving the overall spatial integrity and continuity of Republican-period art districts as unified cultural landscapes. The average agreement score for this criterion was 4.49 out of 5, with 93.3% of participants expressing support (Questionnaire Survey, 2025). According to the head of the Huaihai Street Office, maintaining spatial coherence is vital to safeguarding Shanghai’s urban cultural memory. “Shanghai has a uniquely rich accumulation of culture. If all historic buildings are replaced by modern steel and concrete structures, we will lose not only the cultural memories but also the material evidence of the city’s evolution. Preserving Republican artists’ residences is essential for sustaining this heritage” (Interview, 2025). Similarly, the director of the Dingxing Residential Committee stated that the committee is fully committed to implementing measures for architectural preservation (Interview, 2025). Institutional support is confirmed by physical evidence: a comparison of Republican-era maps with current neighborhood maps reveals that original lilong (lane) patterns and circulation systems remain largely intact. This suggests that under EBDA guidance, the spatial fabric and cultural coherence of these heritage art districts can be effectively preserved.

Site reconnaissance supports Criterion 2.2.4.4, showing that EBDA can enhance spatial permeability in heritage-based art districts by improving pedestrian connectivity to key cultural sites. In the Huanghe Road neighborhood, clear pedestrian pathways link multiple lilong-based artist residences, with Huanghe Road serving as the main axis. The district’s southern edge directly connects to major landmarks like the Park Hotel and Grand Theater, ensuring strong external and internal circulation. In the Zizhong Road neighborhood, former lilong compounds—once isolated—are now interconnected, offering four access points and enabling smoother pedestrian flow. These spatial transformations have improved internal movement, though access to cultural venues still varies based on their location and current use.

4.4. Negotiating Social Sustainability

This research shows that the EBDA has the potential to enhance the social sustainability of heritage-based art-historical districts by fostering culturally grounded public participation, strengthening collective memory, and encouraging community engagement—though its impact may be limited in areas requiring structural policy support or land-use reform.

The research findings strongly support Criterion 2.2.3.4, affirming that the EBDA would contribute to preserving and activating the collective memory and sense of place associated with Republican-period artistic heritage. According to the head of the Huaihai Street Office, narrating and promoting the history of Shanghai’s Republican-era art world through artists’ residences can significantly enhance residents’ sense of belonging (Interview, 2025).

The research findings support Criterion 2.2.3.1, indicating that the EBDA has strong potential to foster a collaborative development framework involving art historians, artists, cultural organizations, and potentially local residents. The strategy can enhance community members’ sense of belonging and reinforce cultural identity by positioning art-historical evidence as both a symbolic anchor and a catalyst for engagement. As the head of the Huaihai Street Office explained, the local government plans to support art-history-themed cultural festivals. These events are expected to attract public participation (cultural dimension), generate business through surrounding shops offering discounts and social spaces (commercial dimension), and include interactive exhibitions for visitors to photograph and share online (cultural-experiential dimension) (Interview, 2025). The community’s strong support for this approach is reflected in the questionnaire results, where 88.3% of respondents agreed that commemorating this cultural heritage enhances local identity and cultural pride, with an average agreement score of 4.3 out of 5.

Our research also supports Criterion 2.2.3.6, suggesting that the EBDA has the potential to strengthen social networks and community trust. On-site observations reveal a clear demand for informal social spaces. In both neighborhoods, residents frequently gather at formal and informal nodal points—such as alley entrances, small open areas, and community cultural venues—for conversation, interaction, and cultural participation (On-site observation, 2025). Government officials expressed optimism about EBDA’s potential to expand such participation and strengthen neighborhood ties, ultimately fostering a more inclusive community environment. As the head of the Huaihai Residential Committee noted, recent urban redevelopment has introduced many new luxury residences, often occupied by outsiders unfamiliar with the area’s cultural history. Revitalizing historic buildings and promoting local art and heritage, he argued, could facilitate cultural transmission and help integrate newcomers into this historically rich district (Interview, 2025).

The findings partially support Criterion 2.2.3.2, suggesting that EBDA has the potential to strengthen public participation by enabling both art history specialists and local residents to engage meaningfully in planning and implementation. While mechanisms such as town hall meetings and informal channels exist, officials from street offices and residential committees noted these are typically focused on daily social issues rather than heritage matters. As the head of the Huaihai Street Office stated, it remains crucial to “listen more to what the people have to say” (Interview, 2025). Residential committees primarily act as intermediaries, reporting community feedback to higher-level authorities who retain final decision-making power. Community events are often used to encourage engagement, but officials acknowledged low participation due to weak cultural resonance (Interviews, 2025). The EBDA could help bridge this gap by rooting engagement in shared cultural memory and history. Survey results show strong public interest: 78.3% of respondents expressed a desire for more involvement in heritage discussions, with an average agreement score of 4.2 out of 5. Chi-square analysis indicates that age significantly influences these attitudes (Zizhong Road = 0.14, Huanghe Road = 0.59; df = 2, p < 0.05).

However, this research finds that the EBDA would have limited immediate impact on two criteria. First, community-level government agencies currently do not offer heritage conservation training or capacity-building programs for residents (Criterion 2.2.3.3). Although the EBDA could engage relevant departments—such as the Cultural Relics Bureau—to promote such initiatives (Interview with Huanghe Road Residential Committee official, 2025), institutionalizing them remains unlikely under the current governance framework (Interview with Urban Planning Bureau official, 2025).

Second, the EBDA is unlikely to provide affordable creative workspaces for emerging artists in the short term (Criterion 2.2.3.5). Both neighborhoods are predominantly residential, leaving limited room for land-use diversification. The Dingxing Residential Committee raised concerns that introducing creative enterprises might disrupt community life and pose management challenges, especially given the aging population and their resistance to nearby commercial or studio activities (Interview, 2025). Repurposing frontage spaces for creative uses would require long-term planning, coordination, and policy support.

4.5. Challenging Economic Sustainability

Our research finds that the EBDA has the potential to enhance the economic sustainability of heritage-based art districts primarily through cultural consumption, though its contribution to cultural production may be more limited or require long-term policy interventions.

Findings strongly support Criterion 2.2.5.4, which focuses on leveraging Republican-period artistic heritage as cultural capital to boost tourism and cultural events. Survey responses to the statement “Promoting Republican-period artistic heritage will help the district become a cultural destination for tourists interested in art history” were highly positive, with an average agreement score of 4.45 out of 5 and an agreement rate of 91.7%. Similarly, interview data reflect optimism among community leaders. As the head of the Huaihai Residential Committee noted, the district’s cultural legacy has the potential to elevate its overall character, attract high-quality resources, and generate significant foot traffic. Citing examples like Wukang Road and Hengshan Road, the official emphasized how a strong cultural atmosphere, once established, could shape a distinct identity and boost local prestige (Interview, 2025).

The findings partially support Criteria 2.2.5.1, 2.2.5.2, and 2.2.5.3, suggesting that while EBDA has potential to stimulate the creative economy, generate employment, and offer affordable housing and workspaces for artists, its impact on cultural production remains modest. Survey responses were largely favorable (average agreement score: 4.35 out of 5; 86.7% agreement), but government interviews revealed reservations. Officials emphasized that economic revitalization in historic districts requires a mixed-use land model balancing residential, cultural, commercial, and retail functions. Artists currently engage with the neighborhood by renting street-facing shops, living or working in lilong residences, and exhibiting in district-run museums (On-site observation, 2025). However, structural constraints limit EBDA’s transformative potential. Many historic properties are protected but privately owned, restricting systematic conservation and adaptive reuse. Unlike vacated heritage sites repurposed for tourism, most lilong remain active residences. Rising rents further complicate affordability—despite older buildings generally costing less, officials noted that “emerging artists will struggle unless exceptionally talented.” These conditions underscore the need for long-term public support and strategic planning to ensure EBDA contributes meaningfully to inclusive cultural and economic development.

Table 2. Applicability and relevance of the EBDA framework in historic art districts within the Chinese context.

Dimensions	Criteria	Applicability	Dimension Relevance
Institutional and Governance Sustainability	Assessment of compatibility with existing cultural relics laws and alignment with elite-led heritage assessment frameworks in China.	Strongly supported—EBDA is fully compatible with existing cultural relics laws and expert-led heritage assessment practices, making it readily adoptable within China’s institutional framework.	EBDA demonstrates strong institutional and governance relevance, with clear evidence of compatibility, policy uptake, and community engagement. While some criteria face constraints—particularly around balancing cultural and livelihood priorities, and the persistence of “red culture” dominance—the framework overall has strong applicability to China’s governance context.
	Potential for expanding state-sanctioned heritage narratives toward a more inclusive valuation framework in China.	Partially supported—EBDA has the potential to broaden state-sanctioned narratives, but current policies still prioritize ideological alignment with “red culture.” Influence is possible mainly through expert advocacy.
	Recognition of experts, artists, and cultural practitioners as participants in dialog between top-down planning and grassroots cultural memory.	Supported—EBDA effectively engages experts, artists, and residents and is already functioning as a bridge between top-down governance and grassroots memory in community cultural activities.
	Valuation of the mediating role of narratives between state objectives and local identity, contributing to institutional legitimacy and cultural governance.	Partially supported—EBDA can strengthen cultural governance and legitimacy, but risks arise when cultural projects divert resources from livelihood improvements, creating tension at the neighborhood level.
	Integration of art-historical evidence into planning as a means of strengthening institutional resilience by linking symbolic capital with policy frameworks.	Supported—Integrating art-historical evidence into planning enhances resilience by linking symbolic capital to policy, with practical uptake already observable in Shanghai’s planning practices.
Cultural Sustainability	Minimum threshold (e.g., 25%) of land use in the core preservation area reflecting Republican-period artistic life.	Partially supported—Current physical constraints limit practice, though strong public support and future potential exist.	The most strongly supported and feasible dimension for EBDA. Evidence shows it not only documents heritage but also actively sustains cultural identity by embedding art-historical narratives into education, daily life, community pride, and creative reinterpretation. Applicability is particularly high for criteria tied to intangible heritage, education, visibility, and reinterpretation, while spatial constraints remain the primary limitation.
	Inclusion of educational programming on the history and achievements of Republican-period Shanghai artists.	Highly supported—Strongly supported by officials, communities, and survey data; clear pathways for integration in schools and communities.
	Valuation of everyday cultural practices, creative processes, and social environments of Republican-period artists.	Highly supported—Officials emphasize intangible heritage; supported by community observations and survey evidence.
	Visibility of local cultural identity linked to Republican-period art history through commemorative and public cultural forms.	Highly supported—Strong government and community willingness; existing murals and plaques demonstrate feasibility.
	Inclusion of local artists, historians, and residents in heritage-related planning, programming, and interpretation.	Supported—Institutional structures and practices already in place; EBDA can enhance coordination and engagement.
	Contemporary reinterpretation of Republican-period artistic traditions within ongoing cultural activities.	Highly supported—EBDA strengthens community cultural facilities and enables reinterpretation via contemporary art.
Environmental Sustainability	Retention of traditional street and lane networks characteristic of Republican-period artists’ neighborhoods.	Supported—Strong community and official support; emotional and cultural significance recognized; practical challenges exist in balancing conservation with daily needs.	EBDA demonstrates strong environmental sustainability relevance. The approach effectively preserves spatial patterns, architectural integrity, and visual identity, while supporting pedestrian connectivity and integrating heritage into everyday urban life.
	Conservation of original architectural styles and defining elements of Republican-period artists’ residences.	Supported—EBDA-aligned restoration efforts actively preserve Republican-era residences; tangible heritage fosters intergenerational engagement.
	Preservation of overall spatial integrity and continuity of the district as a unified cultural landscape.	Supported—Spatial continuity maintained under EBDA guidance; high institutional and community commitment; clear evidence from maps and observations.
	Maintenance of high spatial permeability, ensuring accessible pedestrian pathways to key cultural venues.	Supported—Improved circulation between residences and landmarks; internal movement enhanced, though access depends on location and current use.
Social Sustainability	Collaborative development frameworks involving art historians, artists, art organizations, and local residents.	Supported—Strong potential to foster engagement among art historians, cultural organizations, and residents; backed by community and official support.	EBDA demonstrates partial social sustainability relevance, as it strengthens public participation, collective memory, and community engagement. Applicability varies by criterion: collaboration, collective memory, and social networks are well supported, while capacity-building programs and affordable creative spaces face structural and spatial limitations.
	Mechanisms for public participation enabling specialists and residents to influence planning and implementation.	Partially supported—Engagement exists but is limited by current governance structures; EBDA can strengthen meaningful participation over time.
	Capacity-building programs in heritage restoration and cultural skills for local residents.	Limited applicability—Current institutions do not provide heritage training; implementation requires structural policy support.
	Valuation of collective memory and sense of place associated with Republican-period artistic heritage.	Supported—Strongly endorsed by officials and communities; enhances local identity and belonging.
	Provision of affordable creative workspaces for emerging artists, supporting inclusiveness and intergenerational cultural exchange.	Limited applicability—Short-term feasibility constrained by land use and community acceptance; long-term planning required.
	Strengthening of social networks and community trust.	Supported—EBDA can expand informal gathering spaces and foster inclusive neighborhood ties; backed by observations and survey data.
Economic Sustainability	Support for a vibrant creative economy rooted in local cultural production.	Partially supported—EBDA can stimulate creative activity, but impact is limited by land-use constraints and residential predominance; long-term policy support needed.	EBDA demonstrates economic sustainability relevance. The relevance is strong, particularly in terms of leveraging heritage for cultural consumption and tourism. The framework can partially support local creative economies, employment, and affordable artist spaces, but these outcomes depend on structural and policy conditions.
	Sustaining a diverse job market for artists and creative professionals linked to Republican-period legacies.	Partially supported—EBDA can facilitate employment opportunities in creative sectors, though effects are modest and contingent on broader urban planning measures.
	Provision of affordable living and working spaces for economically marginalized artists.	Partially supported—By property ownership, rising rents, and active residential use; requires strategic interventions.
	Leveraging Republican-period artistic heritage as cultural capital for tourism and cultural consumption.	Supported—Strong potential to enhance cultural tourism, attract resources, and generate foot traffic; supported by surveys and interviews.

summarizes the applicability and relevance of the EBDA framework in historic art districts in Shanghai.

5. Conclusions

This paper explores the potential of the Evidence-Based Disciplinary Assessment (EBDA) Approach as a tool to promote sustainability in heritage-based art-historical districts within state-led governance contexts. Drawing on art-historical methods, EBDA foregrounds marginalized spatial narratives—especially those related to Republican-period artists’ communities—by working within existing institutional frameworks to subtly expand cultural preservation criteria. It leverages historically grounded narratives that resonate with both community memory and state heritage values, enabling more inclusive, context-sensitive conservation strategies.

Framed around five interconnected dimensions, the study finds that EBDA’s strongest contribution is to cultural sustainability. By embedding overlooked artistic legacies into local planning, public spaces, and cultural programming, EBDA fosters collective memory, reinforces neighborhood identity, and bridges grassroots cultural expression with official heritage agendas. This cultural grounding also bolsters environmental sustainability by supporting preservation of historic spatial fabrics amid redevelopment pressures. EBDA further advances economic sustainability through cultural consumption, enhancing neighborhood vitality via increased visibility, tourism, and community events. However, its impact on creative production is limited by high rents, zoning restrictions, and uneven institutional support. Social sustainability outcomes are mixed: while public engagement and a sense of belonging improve, capacity-building and support for marginalized groups remain insufficient. Institutionally, EBDA offers a pragmatic model for enhancing governance sustainability in state-led governance settings. Instead of opposing centralized control, it aligns strategically with sanctioned values—historical, artistic, and scientific—to open new policy avenues and stakeholder collaboration. This approach navigates the tension between elite-led heritage governance and bottom-up memory, suggesting scalability to similar political contexts.

By situating these findings within broader debates on heritage sustainability, the paper contributes to understanding governance beyond the Western context. It shows how disciplinary expertise can innovate within state-led governance frameworks by tactically reinterpreting constitutional heritage principles to recognize underacknowledged sites without ideological conflict. This reframes prior emphases on enforceable rights, illustrating alternative legitimation through state-aligned cultural valuation.

Moreover, the study highlights the strategic power of deep disciplinary knowledge—art history specifically—not just as a cultural tool but as a means to reshape valuation frameworks for sustainable urban governance under political constraints. While developed in Shanghai, EBDA’s framework is applicable to other tightly governed cities (e.g., Singapore) where public participation is limited, offering a pragmatic method to institutionalize cultural memory and bridge official policy with overlooked histories.

In sum, this research addresses gaps in heritage and sustainability scholarship and proposes a transferable strategy for enhancing cultural governance in state-led governance frameworks.