For each of the sites, respondents indicated whether they were aware of the sites, and if so, how they rated the sites in terms of four domains: knowledge, memories, physical appeal and importance.

1. Knowledge points to how familiar respondents are with historical facts associated with the site. This includes, for example, the sociocultural significance of the site, significant events that occurred there, and why it may be considered a site of heritage value.
2. Memories is associated with personal or collective experiences attached to a site. These memories are most likely to be based on personal experience, but may also be transmitted or inherited from others – respondents may have memories of a site based on stories retold or representations in the media as well.
3. Physical Appeal refers to the aesthetic value of the site. Respondents might appreciate the architecture and design of the site, for its beauty or for its perceived uniqueness and rarity.
4. Importance is based on the subjective evaluation of how significant a site is to the respondent. This might have to do with the uniqueness and function of the site, its association with certain values, or cultural and religious significance, among many other evaluations.

• Public perceptions of heritage sites are often varied, and efforts to promote heritage should account for age as one important factor which affects respondents’ point of view. Personal memories and societal narratives are likely to influence why certain places are valued as heritage sites. As these experiences and social contexts are different for respondents of different ages, contrasting perspectives were often observed when the function of a site had changed over time.


• Recent contestations over conservation may resonate more with the two younger groups of respondents than those aged 49 and above. Recent public debates around conservation and advocacy movements have largely played out in online spaces. This may explain why some of these hotly debated sites were more important to the younger respondents than those aged 49 and above. The Toa Payoh Lorong 6 Dragon Playground and Bukit Brown Cemetery are two examples – they were evaluated as more important by the two younger groups than the oldest group of respondents, even if they were not necessarily more well-remembered.


• Programmes and initiatives led by institutions, especially educational ones, have a strong impact on public perceptions across all age groups. Sites identified as iconic symbols of Singapore in efforts to promote tourism or national identity, such as the Merlion, were given relatively favourable ratings in all four domains by respondents of all age groups. Furthermore, our analysis suggests that the two younger groups of respondents associated some sites with each other and knew more about them because of the experiences of school field trips, including Fort Canning, Singapore Science Centre and Fort Siloso.


• National identity for the two older groups of respondents was influenced by notions of symbolic significance and personal memory, but factors predicting strength of national identity among the youngest group were more elusive. Unlike the 2 older groups, none of the factors derived from the sites in this study significantly predicted the sense of national identity for respondents aged 18-28. This suggests that the relationship between perceptions of heritage and strength of national identity is less straightforward for this group. Alternatively, for them, national identity may be more directly associated with other sites which are not covered in this sample.