The Museumification of Immovable Cultural Heritage: Insights from the Jin Dynasty Sansheng Pagoda in China

Abstract

As urban spaces and cultural contexts continue to evolve, the conservation of immovable cultural heritage faces increasing challenges. This study adopts museumification as an extension of the living heritage continuity approach and examines how a religious monument can be re-embedded in contemporary social life. Using the Jin dynasty Sansheng (Three Saints) Pagoda in Qinyang City, Henan Province, as a case study, it analyzes the mechanisms through which museumification reshapes heritage value and public engagement. A three-dimensional analytical framework—field, space, and society—was developed, and data were collected through field observation, 205 questionnaire responses, and in-depth interviews with museum staff. The results show that museumification has enhanced the pagoda’s public visibility and symbolic meaning, strengthened local identity, and supported the transmission of historical knowledge. Visitors reported cultural pride, historical immersion, and emotional connection, demonstrating the museum’s role in maintaining the living continuity of the site. However, challenges such as limited exhibition space, insufficient narrative coherence, and the tendency for emotional experience to outweigh knowledge acquisition remain. Overall, the study offers empirical insights into the contemporary transformation of religious heritage and provides practical implications for conservation strategies based on museumification.

1. Introduction

With the acceleration of urban renewal, the historical context and spatial functions of heritage sites and monuments have undergone profound transformations, creating both challenges and opportunities for preservation. Globally, many monumental structures that once held religious, social, or political significance have lost vitality as their original functions faded, although their intangible values remain essential. Among them, ancient pagodas are particularly representative. According to incomplete statistics, over 10,000 ancient pagodas are preserved across China [1]. The exact number, however, is difficult to determine, since numerous pagodas are undocumented, deteriorated, or hidden in rural and mountainous regions. Due to weak integration into contemporary management systems, many of these sites receive limited attention and maintenance, leading to gradual decay and marginalization [2,3].

The rise in museumification projects and the living heritage approach has introduced new directions for the preservation and reinterpretation of such heritage [4,5]. Meanwhile, as their religious nature fades, the spatial reconstruction and functional reuse of pagodas increasingly align with contemporary public culture. Within the broader field of immovable heritage management and sustainable development [6], ancient pagodas raise a critical question: how can the conservation of material fabric be balanced with the preservation of the spirit of place [7]. Recent studies have followed two main lines—historical and cultural analysis [8], architectural investigation [9], and conservation improvement [10]; and the renewal and utilization of pagodas in urban planning and tourism development [11]. These approaches, however, often overlook the dynamic and interactive process of heritage conservation. The Qinyang Museum in Henan Province, built around the Jin dynasty Sansheng Pagoda, provides a representative example of how a religious monument in a non-central city is being reintegrated into public life.

Building on these debates, this study regards museumification—the transformation of immovable heritage into a museum context—as an extension of the living heritage perspective. Previous research suggests that the focus of living heritage conservation lies not merely in preserving tangible materials, but in maintaining the intangible bonds between communities and heritage—even when the physical structures are partly deteriorated [12]. Within this framework, museumification not only preserves the material form of heritage but also revitalizes its social connections through spatial reconfiguration and cultural activities, enabling monuments that have lost their original functions to gain new relevance in contemporary contexts. Based on this perspective, the study addresses two research questions:

• How does museumification, through field construction, spatial reconfiguration, and social participation, enable immovable cultural heritage that has lost its original functions to regain vitality and achieve contemporary functional embedding in modern social life?
• Within these mechanisms, what opportunities and challenges does museumification present for social interaction and cultural transmission, and under what conditions do they emerge?

Taking the Qinyang Museum as a case study—and situating it within global examples of heritage sites that have lost their original functions—this research explores how museumification fosters cultural continuity and social renewal as an extension of the living heritage approach. The paper is structured as follows: Section 1 introduces the research background and significance; Section 2 develops the analytical framework following the literature review; Section 3 and Section 4 describe research methods and the Qinyang case; Section 5 examines the revitalization of the pagoda and its social interactions; and the final section summarizes the findings and conclusions.

2. Linking Living Heritage Continuity and Field–Space Theory to the Practice of Museumification

2.1. A Theoretical Review of the Concept of Continuity in Living Heritage

International attention to “living heritage” emerged in the 1980s and in 2009 was formally defined by the International Center for the Protection and Restoration of Cultural Property (ICCROM) in the Living Heritage Approach Handbook as “heritage sites, traditions, and practices created and still used by different authors in history, or heritage sites with core communities located in or near them” [13]. In China, the concept of “living heritage” first appeared in the field of intangible cultural heritage and long remained centered on intangible heritage protection. More recent scholarship, however, argues that as long as the material entity of heritage is preserved, diverse forms of revitalization should be encouraged to reconnect heritage with contemporary society [5,14].

Continuity is the central principle of living heritage. The 1994 Nara Document on Authenticity introduced the notion of “cultural continuity,” which has profoundly influenced the subsequent development of the concept. In the Living Heritage Project initiated by ICCROM in 2003, it was stated that “continuity is the key to describing the characteristics of living heritage,” and that “protection should continue cultural significance through the continuation of heritage functions and spaces.” It can be seen that, in the early stage, conservation strategies for living heritage mainly focused on the continuity of use and function [15]. However, with the development of related theories, scholars such as Poulios argued that the living heritage approach shifted the focus of conservation from merely “preserving” the past to “creating” in the present [16]. In this sense, the living heritage approach has shifted the focus of conservation from merely “preserving” the past to “creating” in the present, leading to the notion of potential-based authenticity, which suggests that authenticity may not only reside in existing material fabric but also in events and uses that are yet to come [17]. Recent studies on living heritage have further advanced the development of a conservation approach centered on “continuity,” which has been increasingly applied in the protection practices of historic urban areas [18] and cultural heritage districts [19].

2.2. Interpreting Museumification Through the Theories of Field and Space

The term musealization was first introduced by the German philosopher Joachim Ritter in the 1950s to describe how elements of the past that once belonged to living traditions become institutionalized within modernity [20]. In museological theory, musealization refers to the transformation of a center of life—whether a human activity space or a natural site—into a “museum-like” context; rather than simply transferring objects into museums, it involves a shift in context and display that alters the object’s social and cultural meaning [21]. This process typically unfolds through three interrelated dimensions: the loss or alteration of the object’s original function, the change in its contextual relationships, and the establishment of a new relationship between the viewer and the object, in which the former assumes a posture of contemplation and admiration [22]. Museum theory has been increasingly applied to the research on the conservation and adaptive reuse of historical and cultural heritage sites [23,24]. Many historic buildings have been converted into museums [25], while entire cities or archeological sites are often regarded as open-air museums [26]. The advancement of digital technologies has also been widely applied in the musealization of historic sites. For instance, Ahmed et al. utilized Autodesk 3ds Max to create 3D reconstructions of multiple historic buildings, embedding the models into a VR environment and establishing a digital archive for long-term preservation [27]. Moreover, Chen et al., taking the Liangzhu Museum as a case study, found that augmented reality (AR) technology enhances visitors’ satisfaction and revisit intention by improving their immersive experience in terms of educational, esthetic, and authenticity dimensions, further demonstrating the potential of digital technologies in promoting interactivity and cultural communication within museums [28].

The concept of “field” is a central element in Bourdieu’s theory of cultural capital. It provides an effective framework for understanding how museums carry out their social and educational functions [29]. By studying the interaction of different forms of capital within the museum field [30,31], Dicks reveals the internal structure of cognitive hierarchy and power relations [32]. In Bourdieu’s theory, social structures are continuously reproduced in multiple ways, among which the reproduction of cultural capital is particularly subtle and pervasive. His triad of field, capital, and habitus offers a conceptual lens for analyzing cultural reproduction. The field is defined as a network or configuration of objective relations among different positions, operating according to its own internal logic [33]; capital is understood as “accumulated labor” which, when possessed by actors or groups, provides access to social resources [34]; and habitus refers to socially constructed systems of dispositions, rooted in life history and family background, through which external structures are internalized as schemes of perception, cognition, and action [35]. Bourdieu argued that individuals with greater educational attainment tend to visit museums more frequently and for longer durations, as their higher cultural capital not only encourages participation but also enables a deeper understanding and appreciation of artworks [36]. As Fyfe explains, the legibility of art presupposes cultural capital, which determines who can decode museum meanings and who may feel excluded from them [37]. Hristova et al. extended Bourdieu’s argument that cultural inequality both widens and legitimizes economic inequality to the urban context, demonstrating that the distribution of cultural and economic capital similarly determines spatial hierarchies and participation patterns, thereby revealing the role of cultural capital in the reconstruction of social fields [38].

Spatial theory provides an important analytical perspective for explaining the relationship between spatial structure and social interaction in the process of the museumification of immovable cultural heritage. In his theory of the “sociology of space,” Simmel pointed out that space gains meaning through social interaction and has features such as exclusivity, division, localization, proximity and distance, and variability. Lefebvre believed that space is not a static “container” but a product of social relations, continuously produced and reproduced through social practice [39]. Giddens and Gottdiener, though following different theoretical paths, both revealed the two-way relationship between space and social interaction: social interaction shapes space, while space in turn influences social relations [40,41]. This theoretical logic is clearly reflected in museumification practices. Foucault, through the spatialization of knowledge and power, revealed the deep connection between space and governance [42]. This multi-agent and multi-factor perspective helps deepen the understanding of spatial logic in the conservation practices of immovable cultural heritage. Spaces that once served religious, domestic, or historical purposes are transformed into exhibition and educational spaces during museumification. Through exhibition design, functional reorganization, and symbolic meaning, heritage spaces are reproduced and show new vitality through both “static conservation” and “dynamic conservation” [43].

It is necessary here to briefly distinguish between “field” and “space.” A field is an imagined and abstract space that is almost independent of physical constraints; it represents a network of relationships between social actors and spatial positions [44]. A position in the field only gains meaning when it is occupied by an individual or a group. In contrast, space is built upon physical dimensions and time. Not every spatial position must be occupied by an actor, and it is precisely these unoccupied positions that allow movement and interaction to occur within space [45]. Therefore, the field is relatively more stable than space. From this perspective, field theory focuses on explaining how museums operate within the structure of society, revealing their nature as institutional fields and mechanisms for the reproduction of cultural capital. Spatial theory, on the other hand, examines how physical spaces are produced and how social behaviors interact within the process of museumification. The combination of these two perspectives provides a complementary theoretical basis for understanding the transformation of social functions and the spatial reproduction of immovable cultural heritage in the process of museumification.

2.3. Understanding the Revival of Ancient Pagodas in the Context of Museumification

Recent studies on ancient pagodas have focused on two main directions. On the one hand, scholars focus on the historical and cultural meanings [8], architectural changes [9,46], and new protection techniques of ancient pagodas [10,47], exploring their religious symbols [48], artistic styles [49,50], and structural features. On the other hand, research has gradually shifted toward the regional distribution patterns of ancient pagodas [51] and their development and utilization within the context of urban tourism [11]. Researchers from different academic backgrounds adopt their own theoretical perspectives and methodological approaches in this field. Studies in architectural history and Buddhist art reveal the style evolution and religious meanings of pagodas [52], while the field of cultural relics protection pays more attention to structure strengthening [53], material repair, and disaster prevention [54,55]. In general, these studies provide an important foundation for understanding the historical value and technical features of ancient pagodas, but they still mainly focus on the tangible aspects of heritage, with little attention to the cultural transformation and social meaning of pagodas in modern society.

This limitation can be explained by three interrelated factors. First, the disappearance of the original religious and community functions of ancient pagodas has weakened their connection with daily life, leading to their gradual marginalization, as a recent study observed in the fading “Xizi” culture and the decline of related pagodas in modern China [52]. Second, heritage resources are unevenly distributed across regions. In China, even national-level cultural relics, if located in areas with relatively weak resources, still have limited social visibility and public support, which further intensifies their marginalization. Yu and Wang noted that hierarchical scales and political selectivity in heritage-making reinforce such spatial disparities [56]. Third, existing studies mainly focus on the historical forms [50] and modern restoration techniques of ancient pagodas [47], paying little attention to the overall conservation process and its influence on local society. In particular, there is a lack of systematic research on how the process of museumification reshapes spatial and social relationships, integrates cultural resources, and strengthens regional cultural identity. The Jin Dynasty Sansheng Pagoda in Qinyang City, Henan Province, provides a typical case for exploring how a national key cultural relic in a non-central city experiences museumification and reintegrates into local life. This paper not only analyzes the conservation model of pagoda museumification but also reveals the new social functions it has been given in the contemporary context, offering a new perspective for cultural heritage conservation and revitalization.

In summary, existing studies provide multiple theoretical foundations for this research: the concept of living heritage continuity emphasizes the dynamic generation of cultural meaning and offers a holistic perspective for understanding the re-functionalization of ancient pagodas in contemporary society; studies on museumification reveal the logic of value reconstruction involved in the institutionalized display of immovable heritage; field theory explains the interactions among power, cultural capital, and symbolic production within museum spaces; and spatial theory highlights the mechanisms through which physical space is transformed into cultural space. Building on these theoretical foundations, this study develops an analytical framework composed of three interrelated dimensions—field, space, and society (Figure 1)—to systematically examine the value reconstruction, spatial reproduction, and reconfiguration of social identity in the museumification of the Sansheng Pagoda. This framework provides an integrated perspective for uncovering the operation of institutional power and cultural capital within the museum field, the cultural logic of spatial transformation, and the role of public participation in the reproduction of cultural identity.

3. Research Methodology

This study employed a case study methodology (see Section 4 for details) and adopted a mixed-methods approach combining questionnaire surveys, interviews, and field observations for data collection.

The questionnaire was developed based on the core concept of “continuity” in the living heritage approach. It consists of two parts: the first collects demographic information including age, gender, education level, occupation, and residential area; the second focuses on respondents’ perceptions, visiting behaviors, and experiential evaluations of the museum (see Appendix A). Items in the second part were structured around three analytical dimensions derived from the study’s theoretical framework. The first dimension, the authoritative museum field, examines respondents’ familiarity with the Qinyang Museum, its perceived representativeness, and its role in interpreting local history and culture, thereby revealing its position in the reproduction of cultural capital. The second dimension, spatial transformation and functional use, employs visit frequency, visiting motivations, and experiential impressions to reflect the transformation of the Sansheng Pagoda from a religious site into a public cultural space. The third dimension, social participation and identity formation, uses preferred experiences, social-media sharing, and perceived meanings of visits to explore how the public participates in local cultural reproduction and constructs cultural identity.

The questionnaire was distributed online via the Wenjuanxing platform on 10 September 2025 and remained open for seven days. Respondents included visitors to the Qinyang Museum and local residents. Beyond on-site invitations, the research team also circulated the survey link through WeChat Moments to broaden the sample coverage. Participation was voluntary and anonymous, and all respondents were informed of the study purpose and confidentiality statement prior to answering. A pilot test involving 20 participants was conducted before formal distribution; based on their feedback, commonly mentioned themes were incorporated as structured options to improve the clarity and validity of the questionnaire. No personal or sensitive information (e.g., names, contact details, IP addresses) was collected, and thus the study posed no ethical risks. A total of 205 valid questionnaires were obtained (see

Table 1. Demographic characteristics of respondents (N = 205) (Source: The Authors).

Variable	Category	Number of Responses (n)	Percentage (%)
Gender	Female	119	58.05
	Male	86	41.95
Age	46–60	75	36.59
	36–45	51	24.88
	26–35	31	15.12
	18–25	26	12.68
	Over 60	14	6.83
	Under 18	8	3.90
Occupation	Education sector worker	40	19.51
	Government or public institution staff	33	16.10
	Enterprise employee	33	16.10
	Independent media/content creator	31	15.12
	Retired	20	9.76
	Student	16	7.80
	Self-employed/business owner	13	6.34
	Cultural heritage/tourism practitioner	11	5.37
	Other	6	2.93
	Freelancer	2	0.98
Education	Bachelor’s degree	90	43.90
	High school/technical secondary school	52	25.37
	Associate degree	39	19.02
	Junior high school or below	19	9.27
	Master’s degree or above	5	2.44
	Total	205	100.00

). Data were automatically compiled and cleaned by the platform and subsequently exported to Excel. Given that the questionnaire consisted mainly of closed-ended and categorical items, descriptive statistics (frequencies and percentages) were used to identify overall trends in respondents’ perceptions, visiting behaviors, and experiential evaluations, providing foundational insights for the study. These descriptive results were then integrated with insights from interviews and field observations to identify convergent and divergent patterns, forming the analytical basis for the findings presented in the Results section.

A small-sized focus group interview was conducted in this study. Based on the principle of homogeneity, five professionals from Qinyang’s museum and cultural heritage administration system were purposively selected from the survey population, covering positions in museum management, cultural relics conservation, and administrative affairs. The focus group was held on 26 September 2025, lasted approximately 90 min, and was fully audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim with participants’ consent. Using a semi-structured outline, the discussion covered exhibition concepts, spatial use, operational management, public participation, and current development conditions. The transcripts were examined through close reading, marking, and grouping based on the analytical framework of “authoritative field–spatial transformation–social participation.” Although the analysis was guided by the theoretical framework, the themes were derived from recurrent participant views rather than researcher preconceptions. Three themes were ultimately identified: “managerial logic,” “functional use,” and “social participation,” and are presented in the Results section with representative viewpoints.

For field observations, one member of the research team volunteered at the Qinyang Museum from 2 December 2024 to 31 January 2025, participating in daily operations, public-activity organization, and exhibition-related discussions. During this period, continuous spatial and behavioral observations were conducted, and photographs were taken to document gallery layouts, visitor flows, and patterns of interaction. The observations focused on three aspects: the composition of visitor groups and their typical modes of use; the practical functioning of the courtyard and exhibition spaces; and the symbolic and affective uses of the Sansheng Pagoda expressed through visitors’ interactions on site.

To further supplement the questionnaire and interview data, this study systematically collected publicly available materials related to the Qinyang Museum and the Sansheng Pagoda, thereby constructing a more comprehensive understanding of the institutional background, communication practices, and local cultural narratives. Three types of materials were used. First, a systematic search was conducted of all historical posts published since 2016 on the museum’s official WeChat account. Using keywords such as “exhibition,” “Sansheng Pagoda,” and “activity,” a total of 286 relevant posts were identified and consolidated after deduplication to analyze exhibition updates and patterns of public programming. Second, four key policy documents were retrieved from the Qinyang Municipal Government’s online portal, covering heritage protection, cultural-relics management, and cultural-development planning issued between 2020 and 2025, including the municipal historical-building list, the list of protected heritage units, the 2024 museum-and-cultural-venue information sheet, and the 2025 cultural profile of Qinyang. Third, local news reports, media articles, online videos, and public-platform posts related to the Sansheng Pagoda and museum activities were reviewed to understand local narrative styles and social-communication patterns.

These materials generated several contextually meaningful insights. Policy documents highlighted the central position of the Sansheng Pagoda within the local cultural-resource system and reflected recent governmental priorities regarding public culture, heritage protection, and city-image building. WeChat posts revealed a strong reliance on festival cycles for public activities, relatively slow rhythms of exhibition updates, and the continual symbolic reinforcement of the Sansheng Pagoda. Media texts showed a pronounced tendency toward historical storytelling and cultural promotion. In addition, field observations revealed salient patterns of everyday spatial use, such as the prevalence of parent–child groups, the popularity of leisure activities such as fish-feeding and viewing stone carvings, and the frequent evocation of family and local memories around the Sansheng Pagoda.

Although these contextual materials were not used as independent analytical data, they provided essential background for interpreting everyday cultural practices that could not be fully captured by questionnaires or interviews. They also offered situational support for understanding the institutional logic, communicative pathways, and spatial practices underpinning the museumification process.

4. Study Area

4.1. Case Overview

The case examined in this study is the Qinyang Museum, whose core structure is the Jin Dynasty Sansheng Pagoda located in Qinyang City, northwest Henan Province (Figure 2). Qinyang, established as a county in 205 BCE, served as a regional administrative center for over a millennium and is recognized as one of China’s “Millennium Ancient Counties.” The Sansheng Pagoda, originally part of Tianning Temple, was constructed in 1171 CE during the Dading reign of the Jin Dynasty. It is a thirteen-story square brick pagoda with dense eaves, standing 32.76 m tall. The temple complex has disappeared, leaving the pagoda as the sole remaining structure. Its fine craftsmanship—such as the precisely pre-fired bricks with no visible tool marks—makes it one of the best-preserved examples among ancient Chinese pagodas. Together with the Qiyun Pagoda in Luoyang and the Baolun Temple Pagoda in Sanmenxia, it is regarded as one of the “Three Great Jin-Dynasty Pagodas of Henan.”

Beyond its architectural merit, the Sansheng Pagoda also holds religious significance. The term Sansheng (“Three Saints”) may refer either to the Three Saints of the Western Pure Land or to those of the Avatamsaka Sutra, symbolizing compassion and virtuous deeds. During the Jiaqing period of the Qing Dynasty, Prefect Zhang Zeng inscribed “Zhongtian Yizhu” (“A Pillar of the Mid-Heaven”) on the pagoda, a phrase that remains widely used by locals as a symbol of integrity and vitality (see Figure 3).

Since being listed in 2001 as part of the fifth batch of National Key Cultural Relics under the State Council of China, the Sansheng Pagoda has gradually been included in a multi-level heritage protection system. At the national level, the Regulations on Museums and the Several Opinions on Strengthening the Reform of Cultural Relic Protection and Utilization emphasize protection, education, and public engagement [57,58]. At the provincial level, Henan’s Measures for the Implementation of the Law on the Protection of Cultural Relics further define protection zones and management mechanisms [59]. Within this framework, the Qinyang Municipal Government issued the Three-Year Action Plan for the Basic Guarantee of Cultural Relic Safety (2019–2021), allocating funds for theft prevention, fire protection, and regular inspections of key heritage sites such as the Sansheng Pagoda [60]. Established in 1984 on the former site of Tianning Temple and officially opened to the public in 2009, the Qinyang Museum now functions as a regional cultural institution integrating preservation, exhibition, and education. In recent years, it has expanded its social role by organizing traditional festival events, intangible heritage workshops, and community education programs. Through these activities, the Sansheng Pagoda has become not only a symbol of Qinyang’s urban culture but also a vital space for public participation and cultural learning.

4.2. The Museumification of the Sansheng Pagoda in Qinyang

The museumification centered on the Jin Dynasty Sansheng Pagoda has not only achieved the long-term preservation of this immovable cultural relic but has also provided both institutional and spatial foundations for the integration and exhibition of dispersed historical remains in Qinyang City.

The current site of the Qinyang Museum was originally the location of Tianning Temple. In 1936, the Chinese architectural historian Liu Dunzhen recorded during his field investigation that the temple had already fallen into ruin, with only a few broken steles, the remnants of its gate, and the former Mahavira Hall, which had been converted into the “Zhongshan Club.” The Sansheng Pagoda, positioned along the north–south central axis, preserved the traditional Garan layout typical of Buddhist temples since the Northern Wei dynasty. During the Second Sino-Japanese War (1937–1945), the southern eaves of the pagoda were damaged by shellfire, and during the Cultural Revolution, the remaining temple buildings suffered further destruction. It was not until the late twentieth century that the area was once again incorporated into the cultural heritage protection system.

In 1984, the Qinyang Museum was established on the former site of Tianning Temple. Through spatial reorganization and functional reconstruction, the project achieved an integrated arrangement that combines historical remains with modern exhibition functions. Facing south, the museum covers an area of approximately 10,600 square meters, with a total floor space of over 2000 square meters. The overall layout follows a central axial arrangement, fully reflecting the spatial order characteristic of traditional Chinese architecture (see Figure 4). The museum houses more than 1600 cultural relics, primarily stone inscriptions, sculptures, and epitaphs, serving the functions of collection, exhibition, and public education. The restoration and operation of the Sansheng Pagoda and the museum rely mainly on financial support from both central and local governments. This institutionalized funding mechanism ensures the stable progress of the project, although private investment and community participation remain limited.

Building upon the historical and spatial characteristics of the Sansheng Pagoda and the Qinyang Museum, this study identifies this site as a representative case for examining the museumification of immovable cultural heritage in non-central Chinese cities. The case selection is based on three considerations: the site is a national key cultural relic of China with significant historical and architectural value; it represents the museumification of immovable cultural heritage in a non-central city—a phenomenon that has received limited scholarly attention; and it provides an opportunity to examine the interactions among heritage conservation, local society, and cultural identity.

Although similar pagoda heritage sites exist in other parts of China—such as the Giant Wild Goose Pagoda in Xi’an—this site is located in a major cultural center, has been extensively studied, and still retains its original religious functions [5,61,62]. At the same time, these pagodas and temples have also become prominent cultural landmarks within their respective cities, perceived and utilized more as tourist attractions than as museum spaces with interpretive and educational roles [63,64]. In contrast, the Sansheng Pagoda in Qinyang City is situated in a small regional city, where its museumification process represents not only a conservation path for immovable cultural heritage that has lost its original function but also a typical case of heritage revitalization in peripheral areas. Consequently, this case helps fill a research gap in the conservation and regeneration of national-level heritage in non-central regions, revealing how museumification practices can transcend metropolitan contexts to achieve the reactivation and social reconstruction of heritage at the local level. The findings also provide valuable insights for non-central or rural heritage sites worldwide that face similar challenges of limited visibility, low public participation, and difficulties in sustainable integration.

5. Results

This chapter integrates the results of questionnaires, field observations, and interview dialogs to analyze the revitalization and contemporary functional integration of the Qinyang Museum from three interrelated dimensions: site, space, and society. At the site level, the Qinyang Museum gains stable visibility and symbolic meaning by relying on the landmark status of the Sansheng Pagoda, becoming an authoritative carrier of local historical narratives and collective memory. At the spatial level, the religious heritage has been transformed through the process of museumification into a multifunctional venue that centers on social education while also serving leisure and urban image functions. However, its operation remains constrained by limitations in exhibition space, staffing, and financial resources. At the social level, the public participates through visitation, engagement, and online sharing, forming varying degrees of involvement and local identity. Nevertheless, the frequency of exhibition updates and the coherence of curatorial narratives remain crucial to enhancing visitor attachment and strengthening cultural identification.

5.1. The Authoritative Museum Field

5.1.1. Current State of Public Awareness

The museum, as an authoritative field, plays a decisive role in shaping the public expression and social understanding of cultural heritage. The questionnaire results clearly indicate the current level of public awareness of the Qinyang Museum (

Table 2. Public perception of the Qinyang Museum (N = 205) (Source: The Authors).

Survey Question	Response Options	Percentage (%)
Awareness of the Qinyang Museum	Generally familiar	56.59
	Very familiar	25.37
	Heard of it	15.61
	Not familiar at all	2.44
Perceived Representativeness of the Museum for Qinyang’s Cultural Heritage	Partly represents	45.37
	Fully represents	44.39
	Uncertain	9.76
	Does not represent	0.49
Perceived Role of the Museum in Interpreting and Presenting Qinyang’s History and Culture	Works together with other actors (e.g., government, experts, communities, schools)	43.90
	Plays a dominant role (core position)	41.46
	Limited role (mainly by other actors)	14.15
	Almost no role	0.49

). Among the 205 respondents, 72.2% reported either a general or limited understanding of the museum, indicating that the overall level of public awareness remains low. However, even under this limited understanding, 89.8% of respondents believed that the museum “fully” or “partly” represents the historical and cultural heritage of Qinyang, while only a few expressed uncertainty or disagreement. Interviews with visitors also revealed that the Sansheng Pagoda holds a central position in the public perception of the museum. It is widely regarded as a symbolic transformation from a religious structure into a cultural emblem of Qinyang.

Building on this, the public perception of the museum’s authority shows clear differences. When asked about “the museum’s role in interpreting and presenting Qinyang’s history and culture,” 41.5% of respondents viewed the museum as a “dominant” narrator, recognizing its institutional authority in building credible historical narratives and accepting the museum’s definition of the cultural value of the Sansheng Pagoda. As Macdonald notes, the material form of museums and their collections help to “objectify” culture and identity, making them appear as if they are natural and factual realities [65]. In contrast, 43.9% of respondents stated that the museum should “work together with other actors,” such as communities, government, and schools. This suggests that respondents are aware that the interpretation of history is a process of dialog and negotiation among multiple voices.

5.1.2. Drivers of Recognition Formation

As Hodgkin and Radstone point out, memorials and museums represent public statements about the past—they define how the present should acknowledge it, who should be remembered or forgotten, and which events are placed at the center or pushed to the margins [66]. Within this framework of authoritative discourse, the Qinyang Museum constructs a public understanding of local history and cultural heritage through its spatial organization and narrative strategy. The Sansheng Pagoda, as the core symbol of the museum, is not only positioned at the physical center of the site but also serves as a narrative bridge connecting contemporary experience with historical memory. By placing the pagoda along the main axis of the museum and using it as a visual and spatial focal point, the museum guides visitors to perceive the heritage as “continuously present,” shaping an emotional understanding of historical depth and cultural continuity.

Data from the demographic characteristics of respondents (see Table 1) show that visitors to the Qinyang Museum possess relatively high levels of cultural capital, yet such general capital does not equate to the domain-specific expertise required to interpret the architectural, religious, or historical dimensions of the Sansheng Pagoda. Consequently, even highly educated visitors rely largely on the museum’s spatial order and narrative framework to construct meaning. Within this context, the museum’s “non-interpretive” display strategy—marked by the absence of explicit explanatory text—both lowers the threshold for participation and reinforces institutional authority. Without the means to construct their own historical context, visitors’ understanding is guided toward the prescribed viewing paths and affective framework, resulting in a perceptual pattern in which emotional resonance outweighs historical comprehension. Thus, this ostensibly neutral display approach reproduces existing distributions of knowledge and power within the museum field, defining the boundaries of what can be understood and which interpretations are legitimized, thereby shaping the formation of public perception.

5.2. Spatial Transformation and Functional Utilization

5.2.1. The Formation of a New Cultural Space

The Qinyang Museum has undergone a spatial reorganization that transformed it from a religious heritage site into a public cultural space. As the temple’s religious functions declined, the surrounding architectural complex gradually fell into ruin. During the renovation, the museum preserved the Sansheng Pagoda and its central axial layout while adding new exhibition halls, storage rooms, and administrative spaces, giving the site modern functions of display, education, and management. The architectural style—gray tiles, white walls, and wooden structures—follows the Qing-dynasty esthetic, while the newly built lotus pond, surrounding corridors, Yuquan Tower, and water pavilion on the east side form an interconnected spatial sequence of “pagoda–water–corridor–tower–pavilion” (Figure 5). This spatial arrangement provides visitors with an open walking and viewing environment in which historical presence becomes perceptible through everyday movement.

Survey results indicate that visitors respond positively to this spatial transformation (

Table 3. Multiple responses: Visitors’ perceptions after visiting the Qinyang Museum (N = 205) (Source: The Authors).

Option	Description	Number of Responses (n)	Percentage (%)
Comfort/Relaxation	Pleasant mood and good leisure experience	110	53.66
Knowledge acquisition	Learning about history and culture, inspiring reflection	106	51.71
Sense of historical depth	Immersion in a long and profound history	106	51.71
Esthetic enjoyment	Fine exhibition quality and pleasant environment	80	39.02
Cultural identity/Pride	Strengthened sense of belonging to Qinyang or local culture	78	38.05
Nostalgia/Homesickness	Evoked personal memories or local feelings	64	31.22
Sacredness/Reverence	Religious or spiritual emotion toward the Sansheng Pagoda and artifacts	53	25.85
Promotion/City representation	Taking photos, posting online, or showcasing city image	48	23.41
Social experience	Spending time and interacting with family and friends	32	15.61
Criticism/Insufficiency	Incomplete exhibition or insufficient service facilities	8	3.90
Other	—	3	1.46
Total valid responses		205

). Comfort and relaxation (53.66%) as well as knowledge acquisition and a sense of historical depth (both 51.71%) are the most frequently reported experiences, suggesting that the museum is widely perceived as an open and shared cultural venue. Additional feelings—such as esthetic enjoyment (39.02%), cultural identity and pride (38.05%), nostalgia (31.22%), and reverence (25.85%)—show that the renovation has strengthened emotional connections to local history. Meanwhile, relatively lower responses for “local display and external promotion” (23.41%) and “social experience” (15.61%) suggest that although emotional engagement enhances local identity, its capacity for broader knowledge transmission and outward communication remains limited.

5.2.2. Multiple Functions: Prioritizing Social Education and the Coexistence of Dual Roles

The survey results show that 87.32% of respondents visit the Qinyang Museum at least once a year, and 21.95% visit once a month or more (

Table 4. Frequency of visits to the Qinyang Museum (N = 205) (Source: The Authors).

Option	Number of Responses (n)	Percentage (%)
Once a year	71	34.63
Two to three times a year	63	30.73
Never visited	26	12.68
Once a month	19	9.27
Once a week	13	6.34
More frequently	13	6.34
Total valid responses	205	100.00

), indicating stable and sustained public engagement. The Sansheng Pagoda is the primary motivation for visits (51.22%), followed by “visiting with children” (37.07%) and “education” (33.66%) (

Table 5. Multiple responses: Main motivations for visiting the Qinyang Museum (N = 205) (Source: The Authors).

Option	Number of Responses (n)	Percentage (%)
Sansheng Pagoda	105	51.22
Visiting with children	76	37.07
Education	69	33.66
Exhibits/Collections	66	32.20
Special exhibitions	58	28.29
Leisure/Entertainment	46	22.44
Taking photos/Checking in	30	14.63
Other	7	3.41
Total valid responses	205

). The permanent collection (32.20%) and special exhibitions (28.29%) provide continuous content, while “leisure or entertainment” (22.44%) and “taking photos or checking in” (14.63%) are not the main factors. From the public perspective, the museum is regarded as a cultural garden that integrates history, landscape, and learning. Its free admission policy and pleasant environment attract local residents for daily walks, parent–child activities, and repeated visits. Several respondents also mentioned that they often bring friends from other cities to the museum to introduce Qinyang’s history and culture, suggesting that the museum functions not only as a space for knowledge acquisition but also as an entry point to understanding the city.

In-depth interviews and field observations further reveal that, beyond its public educational role, the Qinyang Museum also functions as an “official reception hall.” At the governmental level, it undertakes institutional responsibilities such as ceremonial receptions, external exchanges, and city-image presentation. According to officials from the Bureau of Culture and Tourism, about 90% of government receptions are held here: “To learn about Qinyang’s economic development, visit the enterprises; to understand its history and culture, come to the museum.” In these formal settings, exhibitions and spatial storytelling create a sense of emotional authenticity, enabling visitors to experience the city’s history and memory through processes of “seeing—listening—retelling.” Thus, while social education remains the core function, the museum simultaneously assumes a dual identity: it is both a public cultural garden used in daily life and an institutional venue for shaping the city’s image.

5.3. Social Participation and Identity

5.3.1. Cultural Identity and the Continuity of “Care”

The Qinyang Museum enriches visitors’ cultural experiences through a range of festival- and event-based programs that encourage public participation, interaction with artifacts, and the continuation of “living heritage.” Scheduled free guided tours combined with temporary exhibitions integrate leisure routes and narrative displays into a cohesive cultural environment. Activities such as mooncake sharing, rubbing reproduction, traditional games (archery, pitch-pot, iron ring rolling), and programs like “Digital Heritage Guardians” and “Wearing Hanfu to Appreciate Lanterns” (Figure 6a,b) transform exhibition viewing into participatory and embodied festive experiences.

Survey data (

Table 6. Multiple responses: Visitors’ preferred experiences when visiting the Qinyang Museum (N = 205) (Source: The Authors).

Option	Number of Responses (n)	Percentage (%)
Educational/Informational experience (learning history, acquiring knowledge)	115	56.10
Immersive historical experience (feeling the historical atmosphere through exhibitions and artifacts)	114	55.61
Leisure and sightseeing (relaxing visits and sharing time with family or friends)	88	42.93
Emotional resonance (empathy and respect for ancestors or craftsmanship)	85	41.46
Memory-related experience (connection with personal or local history)	56	27.32
Cultural and tourism experience (purchasing cultural products or integrating tourism)	31	15.12
Digital/Interactive experience (multimedia, immersive interaction, photo-taking, and sharing)	17	8.29
Other	3	1.46
Total valid responses	205

) further confirm this tendency: visitors’ most preferred experiences include educational and informational activities (56.10%) and immersive historical experiences (55.61%), followed by leisure and sightseeing (42.93%) and emotional resonance (41.46%). These preferences align closely with the museum’s festival programs and public-engagement initiatives, indicating that such activities effectively meet visitors’ needs for learning about history, experiencing cultural atmospheres, and emotionally engaging with heritage.

In the presence of the Sansheng Pagoda and under the “gaze of objects,” festival temporality overlaps with the historicity of heritage. The pagoda provides a symbolic and ritual framework for continuity, while artifacts are “revived” through public participation—shifting from static displays to mediators linking daily life and collective memory. Cultural identity thus develops through a cyclical process of “interpretation–experience–reproduction,” and “care” becomes tangible through practices such as making rubbings or observing site etiquette.

Overall, festival-based and participatory programs reinforce cultural identity and the continuity of care through spatial integration and institutionalized celebration. In this context, the Sansheng Pagoda serves as both a spatial and symbolic nexus, while cultural relics are reactivated during moments of high engagement, transforming them into carriers of shared memory and reintegrating heritage into everyday urban life.

5.3.2. Participation Characteristics and Improvement Expectations

Survey data reveal that visitors exhibit relatively introverted and rational participation patterns. Only 13.66% of respondents frequently share museum-related content on social media (

Table 7. Frequency of sharing museum experiences on social media (N = 205) (Source: The Authors).

Option	Number of Responses (n)	Percentage (%)
Occasionally	130	63.41
Never	47	22.93
Frequently	28	13.66
Total valid responses	205	100.00

), suggesting that online dissemination is not a primary motivation and tends to occur incidentally or for work-related purposes.

Regarding the museum’s significance in everyday life, the most frequently cited factors were “enhancing local belonging and cultural identity” (56.59%) and “enriching daily leisure” (54.63%) (

Table 8. Multiple responses: Meanings of visiting Qinyang Museum in respondents’ current lives (N = 205) (Source: The Authors).

Option	Number of Responses (n)	Percentage (%)
Enhancing sense of local belonging and cultural identity	116	56.59
Enriching leisure and lifestyle (becoming part of daily life)	112	54.63
Providing educational and learning resources (for self/children)	99	48.29
Inspiring attention to cultural protection or inheritance	75	36.59
Influencing my understanding and pride in the city’s image	63	30.73
Offering social and communication opportunities	58	28.29
Having little direct significance	7	3.41
Other [please specify]	1	0.49
Total valid responses	205

). This suggests that visitors primarily build cultural connections through learning, historical experience, and leisure activities rather than through social interaction or outward-oriented communication.

In terms of expectations for improvement, the highest priorities were “exhibition renewal and narrative coherence” (57.56%) and “interpretation and explanatory services” (42.44%) (

Table 9. Multiple responses: Visitors’ expectations for future improvements of the Qinyang Museum (N = 205) (Source: The Authors).

Option	Number of Responses (n)	Percentage (%)
Exhibition updates and narrative coherence (clearer historical context, more comprehensive cultural elements)	118	57.56
Guided tours and interpretation services (professionalism, engagement, language diversity)	87	42.44
Digital experiences (audio guides, AR/VR, online exhibitions)	69	33.66
Diversified voices (including input from communities, experts, and the public)	65	31.71
Cultural and tourism integration (creative products, local tourism linkage)	63	30.73
Leisure and basic facilities (rest areas, dining, accessibility, convenient parking)	55	26.83
Community participation and public programs (lectures, study tours, volunteer projects)	52	25.37
Cultural communication and promotion (social media, cross-regional exchange)	49	23.90
Optimization of spatial use (interactive areas, child-friendly spaces)	46	22.44
Other (please specify)	2	0.98
Total valid responses	205

), followed by digital experiences, diverse voices, and cultural-tourism integration. Visitors thus recognize the museum’s current educational and cultural value while expressing a desire for enhanced display quality and interpretive depth.

Overall, visitors tend to participate through learning, understanding, and reflective experience rather than external expression or consumption. This sustained and thoughtful participation pattern is characteristic of contemporary museum audiences and reflects their active engagement in the ongoing process of cultural identity formation.

Notably, these participation characteristics are closely linked to visitors’ general cultural capital. Although many respondents have relatively high levels of education and stable occupational backgrounds, such “general cultural capital” does not equate to domain-specific expertise in architectural history, Buddhist studies, or museology. As a result, visitors display a degree of autonomous understanding while still relying on the museum’s narrative and spatial framework. Within this tension, cultural identity emerges through a dual mechanism of independent interpretation and institutional guidance rather than being shaped unilaterally by either side.

6. Conclusions and Discussion

This study applies the concept of “living-heritage continuity” to examine the musealization of the Sansheng Pagoda through the interconnected dimensions of field, space, and society. The findings demonstrate that musealization provides an institutional framework that enables immovable heritage—whose original function has vanished—to regain cultural relevance in contemporary life. At the field level, the pagoda gains renewed legitimacy by being incorporated into the public museum system. At the spatial level, the former religious site has been transformed into a multifunctional cultural venue combining education, leisure, and city representation. At the social level, guided tours, temporary exhibitions, and festival-based activities allow cultural relics to move from static displays toward lived, participatory experiences, strengthening local identity and emotional connection.

Despite these achievements, several constraints remain. First, the predominance of emotion-driven visiting experiences may limit deeper knowledge acquisition. Second, due to spatial and financial constraints, maintaining consistent exhibition updates and coherent narratives is challenging. Third, limited communication capacity weakens the museum’s broader social impact. These tensions indicate that while musealization successfully revitalizes heritage, its long-term effects require continued evaluation.

The study has several limitations. The questionnaire relied primarily on closed-ended items, reducing the ability to capture nuanced visitor perceptions. Data were also collected from a single city and a single museum, without cross-regional or longitudinal comparison. Future research could expand the sample scope and incorporate qualitative methods to deepen understanding of musealization processes and public perception.

Overall, the case of the Sansheng Pagoda demonstrates that musealization can effectively reintegrate immovable heritage into contemporary society. Through institutional grounding, spatial reinterpretation, and sustained public participation, heritage acquires renewed social vitality. This case also offers a valuable reference for heritage protection practices in non-central urban contexts.