‘We always say hi’ : an explorative case-study to the communal value of heritage and its integration in the urban regeneration of Ng’ambo, Zanzibar.

(1)

‘We always

say hi’

An explorative case-study to

the communal value of heritage

and its integration in the urban

regeneration of Ng’ambo,

Zanzibar.

Master thesis Urban and Regional Planning Marie Morel Student number 5656907 Supervisor: Anita Blessing Second reader: Menno van der Veen 18th_{of August} Word count: 28.400

(2)

(3)

Abstract

Underlying study explores the case of Ng’ambo, Zanzibar, which has been a pilot project for a new approach developed by UNESCO, called the Historic Urban Landscape approach. In this research the communal value of heritage, i.e. the value of the residents who relate to the heritage, is under

consideration and how this can serve as a tool in the heritage-based urban regeneration of Ng’ambo. Heritage is designated by institutions like UNESCO, but at the same time is being appropriated by the people who relate to it. The tension between heritage conservation and development becomes clear in the use of heritage in urban regeneration. Heritage is seen as a tool in improving the quality of life for the people in a given urban area, preserving the link to the past while developing for the future. Heritage is used in its wider form, concerning tangible as well as intangible heritage. The relevance of culture and heritage in urban regeneration in general and in the urban planning of Zanzibar are identified. Furthermore, the HUL-approach is under consideration and its relevance in the notion of heritage-based urban regeneration. Not only specific to the case of Ng’ambo, but also in a wider context. Most important in underlying study is the role of the local residents of Ng’ambo, how they appropriate heritage and which values deem as important to them, which is useful knowledge in any future urban development of an area.

(4)

Acknowledgements

First and foremost, I want to thank Berend van der Lans and Antoni Folkers for the opportunity to go to Zanzibar and participate in the project of Heritage based urban regeneration of Ng’ambo. They shared all the documents with me I needed and were very helpful in every stage of the process. Second, dr. Muhammad Juma, the Director of the Department of Urban and Rural Planning, who has provided me with all the knowledge on Zanzibar, but moreover, I would like to thank him for inspiring me and making me believe in a better future for Zanzibar as long as he is the director of the

Department.

Of course, without my assistants Maryam and Ahmed, I would not have been able to conduct any interviews and without Mama Amina, I would not have learned so much about the culture of Zanzibar and the type of questions I could ask. This research would not have been the same without my true friend Abdul who assisted me throughout the research, in return for introducing him to all my German friends so he can practice his German. I hope when he read this, he will use those great words: ‘ah so fantastic’. In addition, also my supervisor Anita Blessing cannot be forgotten here; she was willing to provide me with feedback on the very last notice.

Last, but certainly not least, all those great respondents, who were willing to let me in their homes and who shared their stories with me. Not only them, but all those people in Zanzibar that took the time to talk to me and made me feel welcome on the island.

(5)

1. Heritage-based urban regeneration

1.1. Introduction

‘A better environment implies a satisfying of social and cultural life for those who make use of the environmental resources. It is the human inhabitants who create and constitute the social-cultural and economic systems which give life to the physical environment. There, the focus of

revitalization and rehabilitation of historic centers has to be on whole areas, not just on individual buildings, and on social communities, not just the physical environment’ (Steinberg 1996: 467).

During the conduct of underlying study, it was only at a later stage that I encountered this phrase, which in my belief captures the essence of this research. The notion that rehabilitation of historic centers should focus on entire areas, as opposed to merely on individual buildings, is at the core of the issue at hand. Although this notion has become more prevalent over the past decades – even in the planning education – the notion of heritage in urban development is rather underexposed: only culture in general and its importance in urban planning and development have been part of the curriculum.

Within the context of sustainable urban development, cultural and architectural heritage are increasingly gaining space in public debate and making a contribution to strengthen local identity and better quality of life. Up until the 1940s few countries in the world appreciated the value of their older cities. Conservation was limited to a concern for historical buildings of importance, like castles and churches. In addition, the modern school of architecture led to believe that the old housing stock was of no significance and that order could be created with new building blocks, often coinciding with the so-called ‘bulldozer’ school of urban planning (Steinberg 1996: 466). It was the Second World War and its mass destruction of historic inner cities that provided a stimulus for rebuilding older urban areas. This enhanced awareness of the unique character of the old areas (Steinberg 1996; 467).

An essential question within the issue of planning for historic sites is how the urban pattern of the historic city areas can be preserved in the face of necessary upgrading and land use changes. How can the historic quality of the mixed-use environment be adapted to modern conditions? This tension or dichotomy between preservation and development is imperative to heritage-based urban

regeneration. An essential remark about this is made by Nasser: ‘preserving the past for its intrinsic value and the need for development in response to changing societal values is conflicting’ (Nasser 2003: 467). Conservation reminds of conservatism and conservatism is an obstacle in progress or development. As progress implies movement or growth and development the act or process of developing, the element of time is essential (Krul 2007: 265). Furthermore, another difficulty arises when planning for intangible or immaterial heritage. As the concept of heritage has shifted from solely tangible to more intangible forms, in addition to a more general notion of culture, the greater challenge lies in how to deal with these intangible forms in spatial (material) development.

Another significant issue in heritage based urban regeneration is the role of local communities. The consolidation of rhetoric of participation within public political discourse has increased the policy effort that promotes local practices of inclusion within decision-making in cities (Savini 2011: 95). Especially in the case of heritage, the inclusion of the community seems crucial, since it is the people who give meaning to and are active creators of their heritage. Furthermore, in the notion of sustainable urban development, society is an important pillar. As Steinberg’s (1996: 467) quote rightly proclaims, it is the ‘human inhabitants who create and constitute the social-cultural- and economic systems which give life to the physical environment’, therefore, it is their opinions and perceptions that need to be

(8)

integrated in heritage based urban regeneration (. In addition, heritage is pre-eminently subject to a process of meaning-making by the people who relate to it, resulting in an even greater role for the local communities.

For the purpose of this research I travelled to Zanzibar, Tanzania. There, I was involved in the first stage of the project Ng'ambo | The Other Side | Heritage-based Urban Regeneration Zanzibar, in which a new approach of the UNESCO, the Historic Urban Landscape approach (hereafter referred to as HUL-approach), was demonstrated and adapted to the context of Zanzibar, and in particular Ng’ambo. The neighbourhood Ng’ambo is partly the buffer zone of the World Heritage Site Stone Town, which is interesting in numerous ways for Zanzibar Town and the island as a whole. The growth of the population indicates a growing pressure on Ng’ambo. In order to accommodate the projected population growth, this part of town needs to be developed, and in order to guide this development of Ng’ambo, the Department of Urban and Rural Planning of Zanzibar has initiated the integration process of Ng’ambo into the new Historic Urban Landscape approach of UNESCO, which is still in a developing phase (UNESCO 2013). A pilot area has been designated (see appendix 1.1. and 1.2. for map) to demonstrate and adapt the HUL approach to the context of Zanzibar and East Africa. It includes a variety of buildings and public spaces that are part of the Kisimamajongoo and

Kisiwandui neighbourhoods which border Michenzani.

1.2. Problem statement and justification

The problem statement under consideration is how the development of Ng’ambo should occur or be guided, while taking into account the historic values and intangible heritage values of Ng’ambo. This is what the HUL-approach aims to establish. However, the pressing question is to what extent the people’s needs and perceptions on these values are coherent with those of the HUL-approach and policy-makers in general. When we are talking about ‘important historic values’ and ‘intangible heritage values’, what are we really referring to? And how do local residents actually perceive these values? Additionally, by placing a great emphasis on historic values, are we not overlooking their actual needs? Especially in an African country is the poverty prevails, these seem crucial questions.

Thus, to sum up, the problem statement at hand concerns finding the right balance between local community needs and the demands of heritage based urban regeneration, in order to reach more sustainable and equitable urban developments. Consequently, the research question is framed as followed: drawing on the case of the Ng’ambo project, to what extent can the communal value of

heritage serve as a tool in urban regeneration?

There are several underlying assumptions made in the problem statement, which will be elaborated on further in the theoretical framework. The first one is that heritage is often designated rather than appropriated. The designation of heritage relates to the listing of monuments, which is addressed by existing legislation. The latter is often more difficult because it generally emerges from public behavior rather than through organized lobbying. In addition, it might also acquire its status through use rather than through deliberate consideration (Tweed and Sutherland 2007; 64-65). This latter type of heritage is what is referred to here as ‘the communal value of heritage’. It is the value that local residents assign to heritage that is under consideration here. This is especially relevant as well as necessary, due to the research area being located in the buffer zone of the World Heritage Site, hence as such does not constitute of ‘designated heritage’. The buffer zone represents a zone that in itself is not of outstanding universal value, however, it is thought that it may still influence a World Heritage Site (Mürner in: Martin and Piatti 2009; 11-12).

A second underlying assumption is that cultural heritage has a causal relation with societal and community being and can therefore serve as a catalyst for a certain area in terms of economic

(9)

well-being and improved liveability, i.e. quality of life. The third assumption is in line with the second one, namely that it is important to incorporate communities while planning for heritage based urban regeneration. Finally, it must be stressed that the Ng’ambo project is still in a developing phase and thus recommendations or conclusions are therefore mainly process-oriented.

The case is used to identify strengths and weaknesses of this heritage-based urban regeneration in terms of meeting local communities’ needs and the better integration of their own values and

perceptions on their living environment. The case is significant since it is one of the few cities in which the Historic Urban Landscape approach of the UNESCO is ‘tested’. However, the case is representative for other places, since it covers a buffer zone of a world heritage site. At the same time, the case of Ng’ambo is not limited to already designated heritage zones by UNESCO, but covers the field of heritage in general and its role in urban development. The insights generated by this research will most likely be of interest to policymakers in Zanzibar concerning urban development and heritage conservation, whilst also serving policymakers within UNESCO, specifically those involved in the Historic Urban Landscape approach. In addition, the results aim to lead to valuable recommendations for policies regarding the further development of Ng’ambo. More in general, it sheds light on a broader question of what heritage actually represents for the people who relate to it and whether or not this can be reconciled in policy-making.

1.3. Research aim and objectives

The study aims to deepen an understanding of how local residents’ values and perceptions towards the quality of their living space, their life and their heritage can be integrated in heritage based urban regeneration projects, in the specific context of Ng’ambo, Zanzibar. In order to provide an answer on the main research question, several sub questions have been framed, according to which the thesis is also organised.

TABLE 1. SUB-OBJECTIVES AND RESEARCH QUESTIONS

Research sub-objectives Research Questions

1. To identify the role of culture and heritage in the current urban planning system of Zanzibar

a. How is the role of culture and heritage expressed in the current plans of Zanzibar? b. To what extent are urban planning and

heritage conservation interwoven in Zanzibar?

2. To identify the strengths and weaknesses of the application of the Historic Urban

Landscape approach in heritage-based urban regeneration.

c. How has the HUL-approach contributed so far to the heritage-based urban

regeneration of Ng’ambo?

d. What is the perspective taken in the HUL-approach in regards to community participation?

3. To identify the local community values and perceptions on heritage and their

neighbourhood and how these can be integrated in the planning of Ng’ambo

e. How do local communities value their neighbourhood?

f. How do local communities perceive heritage and does their neighbourhood constitute of built heritage?

g. What are their needs and how can these be reconciled with heritage-based urban regeneration?

(10)

1.4. Thesis structure

First, in the academic debate the existing literature on the concepts under consideration in the underlying study are explored, which creates a theoretical framework for the research. The key-concepts are indicated, in addition to an elaboration on how these key-concepts have been used in this research. Next, chapter three will provide an overview on the methodological framework in which the research has been carried out; the type of research design, the different research methods, the units of analysis and the research area are described. In the following chapter the context of the case is

provided. In this chapter the characteristics of the research area come to the fore, in addition to a more general understanding of the role of culture and heritage in the current urban planning of Zanzibar and the relation between heritage conservation practices and urban planning practices. In chapter five the HUL-approach is under consideration. Within this chapter, the contribution of the HUL-approach in heritage based urban regeneration in general and in specific to the case of Ng’ambo is analyzed, with a definitive focus on community participation. By generating these findings, a better understanding is provided on whether or not the HUL-methodology provides a valuable bridge in the gap between theory and practice. In chapter six, the communal value of heritage is under consideration, in addition to other key-values in the neighbourhood as identified by the local residents of Ng’ambo. In the discussion, the findings will be linked to the conceptual framework, followed by a conclusion in which the answer on the main research question is provided.

Furthermore, by answering the sub questions as well as the main research question, recommendations on the following topics will be provided:

 The development of guidelines for the specific case of heritage based urban regeneration of Ng’ambo.  How can the local community be incorporated in planning for heritage-based urban regeneration?  Is the HUL-approach the ‘right’ tool or is it too global to fit such a small scale?

In the final chapter, reflections on the conduct of the research are given, which will provide insights on the pitfalls of the research and how future research in this field can be improved.

(11)

2. Academic debate

2.1 Heritage in sustainable urban development

‘Urban areas in developing countries and their inhabitants face the highest population growth and suffer, due to the lack of sufficient infrastructure and urban development control’ (Scholz 2011; 1). Urban renewal is often closely related to cultural planning, with which is referred to a strategic and integral use of cultural resources in community development. It can assume multiple meanings and be applied to different contexts, but at the basis there is the argument of ‘joint-up thinking’, to link arts to mainstream agendas in several fields, such as the physical environment. It involves the art of putting different local policies in dialogue for the benefit of the community rather than an institution (Sirayi 2010; 335). This indicates that cultural elements should be included in every phase and on every level of the planning and development process.

The notion of heritage is more and more acknowledged as being an important part of sustainable development. Although Campbell (in Nasser 2003; 468) argues that ‘the romanticized past offers little to planning’ and thus implies that the modern way to sustainability lies not behind us, but forward, there is a growing attention for the function of culture in general, and heritage in specific, in sustainable urban development. Syversen (2007) states that the concept of sustainability has undergone a range of transformations. According to her ‘it has gone from material progress in the 1950s through human, social and economic development in the aftermath of the UN Conference on the Human Environment in 1972, to the Rio Summit. The Stockholm Action Plan on Cultural Policies in 1992 brought the notions of culture and sustainable development into the debate. Currently, the concept of sustainability is closely related to the ethical value loaded concepts of human rights and democracy, identity, social cohesion and culture’ (Syversen 2007; 1). As the future of humanity depends on effective planning and management of resources, conservation has become a strategy to achieve a balance between urban growth and quality of life on a sustainable basis (O’Donnell and Turner 2012; 10) As the concept of sustainability contains of three different pillars; economy, society and ecology (environment), O’Donnell and Turner (2012) argue that culture functions as an umbrella. Since the term sustainability is a very broad concept it is important to define the role of culture in general, in addition to reflecting on the built heritage in specific, within each of these pillars.

First of all, the environmental dimension of sustainability seems to be the most dominant one in the debate. It is mainly directed to the use of human resources, which have become constrained. The issue of environmental concerns is a well-established topic and is countable since it is often measured in quantitative standards and it addresses basic human needs. In terms of the built environment, carbon emissions directly depend on how we design our cities and buildings; our cities and buildings need to be designed with sustainable and equitable footprints. Consequently, the role of built heritage within this dimension is often related to the technical problems of maintaining the fabric of existing

buildings. In the economic dimension, the importance of the built heritage seems to be better

integrated. Economic growth in general and on a personal level is a prerequisite for the fulfillment of human needs; built heritage can contribute to the local or national economy, due to its attraction to tourists, thus ‘promoting economic growth through urban regeneration’ (Tweed and Sutherland 2007: 63).

Finally, society embraces the multitude of human actions and interactions that make up human life, and all these actions have an impact on the environment. Within this more social dimension of sustainability, one crucial element is the need to improve the quality of life (O’Donnell and Turner 2012; Tweed and Sutherland 2007; Beriatos 2012). Quality of life in turn is a whole comprehensive concept and can have different meanings for different people. First, defining ‘the good life’ can be

(12)

based on the satisfaction of preferences. People select the best quality of life for themselves that is commensurate with their resources and their individual desires. One could consider this the more rational approach towards quality of life and often implies the notions of economic progress and utility. However, there are limitations to a definition of quality of life that rests ‘solely on economics and people’s ability to obtain the marketplace goods and services that they choose’, because there are other important factors that contribute to the quality of life (Diener and Eunkook 1997; 190). These other important factors are more subject to individuals’ experiences. If a person experiences her life as good, than it is good. Feelings of safety, belonging to a social group, enjoying work, feelings of joy and sentiment, are all qualitative aspects of life that are not solely based on economic conditions and whether or not one can fulfill his own desires. The subjective well-being can be explained for by more than solely the choice utility (Diener and Eunkook 1997: 190).

Still remains the question why the existence of cultural built heritage constitutes a crucial element for the sustainable spatial development of towns and cities. This touches upon the correlation between the notion of a sense of place and the quality of life. Often it is argued that due to globalization and rapid urban transformation, it is important to try to create place identities with a local reference, a clear identity and authenticity. The cultural and built heritage can contribute to this unique character of a place. The use of heritage resources is also fruitful in help dealing with social problems, it can provide a community with a focus, identity and pride as well as making a contribution to regional economies (Newman and McLean 2007). Heritage places represent layers of evolving traditional forms of architecture and city building that have together created a sense of place (Nasser 2003; 468). And in turn, this sense of place can contribute to an improvement for the quality of life (Beriatos 2012; 1). Furthermore, heritage can contribute positively to the reduction of poverty, if used within a development-oriented intervention, in which forms of redistribution policies can be included. For instance, the restoration program can be used to set up a building-school on the site, which would result in the empowerment of the local residents (Razzu 2003; 411).

Owing to the subjectivity of the notion of quality of life, its conceptualization has evolved out of people’s own perceptions and experiences. As the methodological framework will indicate, the notion of individuals’ experiences is of great significance within this research. The qualitative aspects of the subjective well-being are central here. These perceptions are under consideration because in trying to establish the relation between built heritage conservation and local communities’ needs and

perceptions, it is important to understand how people value the heritage, i.e. the communal value of heritage.

2.2. Heritage in urban planning: a shift in paradigm

The existence of cultural built heritage constitutes a crucial element for the sustainable spatial development of towns and cities. In particular, the built heritage can contribute to local place identity, creating a sense of place and thus can enhance quality of life, as well as contributing to national, regional and local economies. From the late 1970s onwards, heritage conservation practice in most Western European countries shifted from the legal protection of objects towards becoming part of a broader movement for urban and regional regeneration (Ashworth 1997). According to Steinberg (1996: 473), note the time of writing is ‘1996’, ‘there is an urgent need for rehabilitation approaches that aim to avoid static conservation, resulting in open-air museums’. It is the tension between conservation and development that is imperative to the concept of heritage-based urban regeneration, or more in general, the potential benefits that can be generated by the preservation of heritage. Ashworth (1997) refers to a development or shift in paradigm with the concept of heritage. Preservation, according to Ashworth, refers to the idea of preserving material heritage ‘the way it was’, while the shift is characterized by the evolving development of heritage. Thinking about the

(13)

ways in which historic assets and values can be used and adapted for social and cultural and economic uses is now evident, but in practice, the idea of an integration of heritage conservation and urban planning is quite recent and is still lagging behind (Janssen et al. 2014; 2).

In most Western European countries, planning is weakly integrated with heritage conservation objectives. Reference here should be made to the previous mentioned tension of development and conservation, which in policy-making is reflected. As an urban planner one is concerned with creating plans for future development, which, as has been stated before, is especially problematic in the case of heritage. The tension of conservation and development is imperative to the profession of planning for heritage places. Heritage is the link with the past, while planning is concerned with the improvement of conditions in a future perspective. As Graham (2002; 1004) points out:

‘If heritage is the contemporary use of the past, and if its meanings are defined in the present, then we create the heritage that we require and manage it for a range of purposes defined by the needs and demands of our present societies’.

According to Janssen et al. (2014) and Ashworth (1997), one might speak of a paradigm shift in the approach to heritage. As Ashworth (1997) already indicated; heritage is now linked to the idea of how heritage can be used for economic or urban revitalization, using it in development for other purposes, which changed a lot in retrospect from the sole preservation of heritage. This is closely related to the change in perception with regards to the integration of heritage within the planning system. Over the course of the 1990s a number of European countries recognized that heritage planning had to move from control-based approaches to conservation towards those based on a more dynamic management of change (Janssen et al. 2014; 2). To facilitate this dynamic approach, the need to integrate heritage with planning became more prevalent.

Since the case study of the research of Janssen et al. (2014) concerns the Netherlands, the specific cause of the paradigm shift within this country was the so called ‘Belvedere Memorandum’. This memorandum presented a vision regarding the importance and the direction of how cultural-historic qualities of the physical environment can and should be addressed during future spatial interventions, in the Dutch context. One of the important lessons is that the heritage sector should be brought out of its isolated position and be better integrated with the spatial dynamics and planning of a city, as Janssen et al. conclude: ‘towns and cities where heritage management is interwoven with urban and spatial planning succeed best in bringing their own heritage into the reprogramming of their town or city’ (Janssen et al. 2014; 18). Consequently, a democratization of the approach to heritage developed, in addition to a better collaboration between different parties. Not only experts, but many non-experts were involved in especially local-scale projects, resulting in a more democratic heritage. Or as van der Zande and during put it (in Janssen et al. 2014; 13): ‘heritage had been taking from the people, and it was up to Belvedere to remedy the situation’. From the outset its objective was to not predefine aesthetic restrictions that a building, neighborhood or region may undergo, hence taking upon an open view on heritage (Janssen et al. 2014; 17).

Furthermore, within this policy-framework, the issue of place-identity was explored and deemed as important. The reasoning was that heritage gives meaning to physical landscapes that reflects a spatially local identity. However, as Janssen et al. (2014) explain, the conceptualization of this place identity was not clear. It was based on the premise that identity is ‘enclosed in spatial structures and could be recognized, localized and listed’, while many academics emphasized that identities are continuously recreated by different people and thus cannot be ‘freeze’ and preserved for eternity (Janssen et al. 2014; 8).

This localization of place identity adds to the issue of how to spatially plan for intangible

(14)

social relations, meanings and (heritage) values? Moreover, the issue of place identity fits well into the paradigm of communicative planning. Since place identity is continuously created and recreated by different people and different groups of people, it is important to identify these different meanings and values. However, to reiterate, it does not make the relationship between the tangible and the intangible any less difficult.

The shift in paradigm of the notion of heritage, from solely preservation to the functionality of heritage (Ashworth 1997), is characterized by the more dynamic approach. An open view on heritage is needed to enhance its relevance in urban development. Heritage can contribute to a sense of place and enhance the quality of life, it can cause a major contribution to the urban upgrading of an area and it gives meaning to physical landscapes that reflect a spatially local identity. Therefore, heritage is not solely used in conservation practices, but is gaining more relevance in urban planning and in urban planning systems. The concept of heritage should thus be integrated with the concept of sustainable urban development.

2.3. The meaning of heritage

When discussing the concept of heritage-based urban regeneration, it is essential to define the concept heritage, a difficult task that lies in front of us due to the broadness of the concept, which in addition has seen a considerable paradigm shift in the past decennia (Grijzenhout 2007; Ashworth 1997). Still today, many different meanings and labels of heritage are existing and therefore relevant within this research. The concept of heritage will be thoroughly dealt with here, to allow for a better understanding of the concept in addition to allow for flexibility in defining the heritage in Ng’ambo.

In the first conventions of UNESCO, Athens Charter 1931 followed by the Venice Charter 1964, the concept of heritage referred mainly to monuments, i.e. physical heritage, as can already been seen by the title of the Venice Charter ‘the international charter for conservation of historic monuments and sites’ (ICOMOS 1964). The Burra Charter 1982 proposes to protect the cultural significance of the site, due to its aesthetic, historical, cultural or social values. Hence, an object can no longer be

evaluated on its intrinsic quality and thus, conservation can no longer be based on the objects intrinsic value (Vecco 2010; 324). From the 1970s onwards, the idea of intangible heritage, as opposed to material heritage, became more relevant in conservation programs. According to UNESCO:

‘the intangible cultural heritage is transmitted from generation to generation, and is constantly recreated by communities and groups, in response to their environment, their interaction with nature, and their history. It provides people with a sense of identity and continuity, and promotes respect for cultural diversity and human creativity (...).It is sometimes called living cultural heritage, and is manifested inter alia in the following domains: oral traditions and expressions, including language as a vehicle of the intangible cultural heritage; performing arts; social practices, rituals and festive events; knowledge and practices concerning nature and the universe; traditional craftsmanship’ (UNESCO 2001).

The adoption of the safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage Convention (ICHC) of UNESCO in 2003 is the outcome of a longer process in which our way of thinking about the relation between culture and development has changed over the past two decades. Safeguarding of the ‘living culture’ has become one of the major assets of a multidimensional type of development (Akagawa and Smith ed. 2009, p. 48-50). Often, the safeguarding of the ICHC shows a direct connection with community empowerment and local development. It contributes to a sense of place, in addition to a certain pride, which can result in a greater sense of ownership.

(15)

The work of Smith on The Uses of Heritage (2006) argues the importance of these conventions of UNESCO, by defending that heritage is always a process of meaning-making and therefore more dynamic than is often stated in these type of conventions. According to Smith (2006: 47) ‘heritage has to be experienced for it to be heritage’. Heritage is a form of communicative practice, it is a relational idea. In addition, it is always a dynamic process, a process of meaning making. This is in accordance to what Tweed and Sutherland refer to as the difference between the designation and appropriation of heritage (Tweed and Sutherland 2007). The former relates to the listing of monuments which is addressed by existing legislation. The latter is often more difficult because it generally emerges from public behavior rather than through organized lobbying, i.e. the communal value of heritage. In addition, it might also acquire its status through use rather than through deliberate consideration. Furthermore, following the line of thinking of Smith, heritage is a cultural and social process, in which people find ways to engage and deal with the past in the present. Smith (2006) and Ashworth (1994) refer to this process of ‘heritagization’; heritage is created by people and thus can have plural

meanings. However, the discourse of institutions like UNESCO seem to be too rigid; propagating the dominant claim on heritage.

If all heritage is created through a process of active meaning making and thus stating all heritage is intangible, then heritage is not necessarily linked to a place (Smith 2006; 87). Therefore, the values and meanings of heritage are the subject of heritage preservation, whether these values or meanings are symbolized by a physical site, place, landscape or other physical representations. Claiming all heritage is intangible results in multiple interpretations of heritage and therefore one can only speak of the word heritage in its plural form: ‘heritages’, according to Ashworth (1997; 94-95). Heritage thus has different meanings for different persons and different stakeholders who relate to the heritage in question. In addition, there are not only different claims on, but also different uses of the term heritage. 1

In addition to a process of ‘heritagization’ and the claim that all heritage is intangible, because it is always a process of meaning making, Kaufman (2010) argues also that intangible heritage does not solely constitute of art forms. Culture finds intangible expression in social customs and patterns of community organization. Intangible heritage addresses people’s habitual interactions with each other and their environments. In this way intangible heritage is more seen as a set of social practices, as also referred to in the above citation of UNESCO (2001). In addition, great emphasis is placed upon the issue of ‘intangible heritage – in- place’, indicating that while intangible heritage can be expressed in social customs and patterns of community organization, these expressions also take tangible form in the physical space (Kaufman 2010: 29-30).

2.4. Intangible in the tangible?

The problem of the concepts of intangible heritage and tangible heritage and its interrelation are of great importance for the profession of urban planning. As an urban planner one is concerned with the spatial development of areas. When all heritage is intangible, how does this intangible heritage finds expression in the spatial development and planning? As Kaufman (2010) indicates, and this is a very important point, the expressions of intangible heritage take tangible form in the physical space as well. This seems to be self-evident for the urban planner: as the physical form changes, social changes can and often will occur. This might not always be self-evident, however, in the execution of actual plans and developments, it is really something that should be taken into account.

1_{Also found in: ‘Research Proposal Thesis Anthropology’, written by Marie Morel as well, in which the concept heritage is}

under critical examination and tries to find an answer on how people create their own heritage in the context of Ng’ambo, Zanzibar.

(16)

Thus, the question remains, how to deal with the interrelation between tangible and intangible heritage? According to Bouchenaki (2003: 2), Assistant Director General for Culture of UNESCO, the interrelationship between tangible and intangible heritage is evident, arguing that:

‘cultural heritage is a synchronized relationship involving society, norms and values. Symbols, technologies and objects are tangible evidence of underlying norms and values. Thus they establish a symbiotic relationship between the tangible and the intangible. The intangible heritage should be regarded as the larger framework within which tangible heritage takes on shape and significance’.

The interrelation between the two seems self-evident, but its safeguarding might need different approaches. The tangible heritage is easy to catalogue, often in the form of a monument or a landscape, and consequently its protection often comes in the form of conservation and restoration measures. However, intangible heritage consists of processes and practices and thus requires a different approach in its safeguarding. In addition, ‘it hinges on actors and social and environmental conditions that are not subject to rapid change’ (Bouchenaki 2003; 3). The guidelines that Bouchenaki offers for solving this duality in heritage safeguarding are twofold. First, tangible heritage should be regarded in its wider context, referring to the need of a more holistic approach, in which its relation with the communities is more concerned. Second, intangible heritage should be translated into materiality, such as archives, museums and inventories (Bouchenaki 2003; 4). However, the main concern that authors like Smith and Ashworth have is that all heritage is intangible and that not all intangible heritage is linked to an object or materiality, thus ‘freezing’ the intangible heritage into something material would omit this idea

Is it may be the case that the tangible is always found in the intangible? That without

intangible heritage, the tangible heritage is not valued as heritage? Munjeri (2004: 13) makes a strong argument for this, saying that ‘objects, collections, buildings etcetera become recognized as heritage when they express the value of society and so the tangible can only be understood and interpreted through the intangible’. This is also reflected in the Convention for the Safeguarding of Cultural

Intangible Heritage.

In conclusion, the concept of heritage is very broadly defined, the question now is how to deal with such a broad concept in this research? One of the main concerns is how local communities’

perceptions are in regards to heritage, thus it is their own definition of heritage that will be the most interesting and useful within this research. However, as heritage is an abstract concept, this is a challenge as well and it might need to be more in the researcher’s analysis that their heritage is defined. It seems that heritage is always something that is defined in retrospective. Furthermore, in relation to the earlier statement by Bouchenaki (2003:3) that intangible heritage ‘hinges on actors’ provides evidence for the importance of incorporating these actors, or the local communities, in the policy-making process, and furthermore, in the methodology of this research. That intangible heritage is created by actors, also implies that the outcomes of this research are concerned with these

constructions and processes of the place and heritage making of people and thus is framed within the paradigm of communicative planning.

Moreover, the previous discussion on the integration of heritage conservation and urban planning has demonstrated that the difficulty especially lies in how to develop spatially for intangible heritage. It is not the objective here to provide an answer on the basis of the literature research. This is still a difficult issue that probably can only be explained within each specific context. It will be considered within the analysis of the data, and has also guided the research methodology and the continuous consideration during the fieldwork. It is actually an issue that policy-makers today in Zanzibar are trying to integrate in the plan-making of Zanzibar.

(17)

2.5. Community participation to close the gap between theory and practice?

As the notions of place-making and place identity have come to the fore in regards to the role of heritage in urban development, the role of the community, that is an essential actor in the creation of place-identity, becomes crucial. Furthermore, it is the people that create heritage, referred to before as the communal value as opposed to the designated value, and thus their role in heritage-based urban regeneration projects seems crucial (Tweed and Sutherland 2007; 64-65). In addition, as society is one dimension of sustainable development, the role of the community is significant. Their social relations is what constitutes the physical environment and changes in the physical environment will or can affect these relations and interactions. Communities are composed of individuals with histories, values, identities and attachments and these do not develop outside of place; they also play a critical role in place-based improvements and planning (Manzo & Perkins 2006; 344).

Reference should be made here to the communicative planning paradigm, in which a political arena is envisaged in which decision-making is made by all the people involved and is hence characterized by collaborative planning and consensus building, framed by a more general notion of participatory democracy (Bailey 2010; Healey 2003). Interaction with stakeholders or interest groups, communicating ideas, forming arguments, debating differences in understandings and finally reaching consensus on a course of action replace detached, expert-driven plan-making as the primary activity of planners (Watson 2002: 29). Consequently, communicative planning theory has changed the focus from outcomes to processes and from consequences to consciousness (Watson 2002; Healey 2003).

Building on the idea of communicative planning theory of deliberative democracy in urban planning, i.e. planning should be a just process, considerable effort is invested to translate these principles to practice. It is often argued that collaborative planning theory offer policymakers a way forward in achieving more effective community participation (Maginn 2007; 25). While there are debates about the specific techniques for promoting participation in concrete decision-making

situations, it is very difficult to argue against citizen participation in policymaking (Savini 2011; 949). However, there still seems to be a wide gap between the theory of participatory approaches and the practice. Often the techniques to do so, such as Participatory Rural Appraisal, merely result in

extracting local peoples knowledge for planning purposes and do not succeed in actually empowering them or involving them in the decision-making process (Mosse 2004; 648). In addition, according to Mosse, more attention should be paid to the process of policy-making rather than the direct results, hence ‘opening of the black box between policy intention and social effects’ (Mosse 2013; 232). In poor districts where there is low political capital, any new initiative might be perceived with skepticism, hence expectations that are not met could result in political dissatisfaction which in turn increases the risk of hindering future community participation (Savini 2011; 950). Hence, it is important to be clear on its definition.

Furthermore, the context of Africa and Zanzibar in particular, is very different from the developed world. In many parts of Sub-Saharan Africa, planning practice has changed little since colonial times. It is frequently top-down and aimed primarily at plan-production (Diaw et. al. 2002; 338). Since communicative planning theory is a very westernized concept, there are some limits with it (Harrison 2006: 319). First of all, the faith in a strong civil society to create pressure on the state to act more responsibly is not at all obvious in the African context. One has to consider the fact that economic scarcity is the reality and civil society is consequently not always willing to commit themselves to lengthy processes of debate and engagement in localized planning initiatives (Harrison 2006: 322). In addition, as been mentioned before, the objective of reaching understanding is often correlated to methods of participatory interaction in the planning system, which replaces detached, expert-driven plan-making. However, the strong focus on local initiative in contemporary planning theory seems idealistic in the African context. Again, the economic scarcity is imperative to this

(18)

(Harrison 2006: 323). The fact that financial external involvement is needed does not necessarily exclude the equally strong need for direct and effective participation of the community (Razzu 2003).

The perceived gap between the theory and the practice of community participation is caused by the difficulties encountered when defining ‘community’ as well as ‘participation’. First, the danger exists that community refers to a homogenous, idyllic, unified population, while it is not or might not be the case. According to Nelson and Wright, community is a concept that is often used by state and other organizations rather than the people themselves (Nelson and Wright 1995; 5-7). Second, the notion of participation is problematic and can especially be in the context of a developing (poor) country.

Arnstein (1969) created a ladder of participation of programmatic intent in the 1960s, which could range from low ‘manipulation’ to high ‘full control’, arguing that the degree of citizen participation in organizations is dependent on the type of structure that is imposed on the decision-making process. Mosse indicates that the explicitly bottom-up participatory approaches are also seen as structured by, rather than changing relations of power (Mosse 2013: 229). Community development ignores the facts of power and will have no lasting impact until the people are empowered to act on their own behalf. Empowering through participation is a whole different notion. Empowerment is a measure of the ‘significance’ of the role of the citizen in public-decision making (Savini 2011; 953). The other side of the coin can be that participation turns into ‘self-help’ (Berner and Philips 2005, 17-22). In demanding more participation from ordinary people, the fact that some people simply do not have the means to participate is often overlooked. Participation, or better said self-help, can then result in social inequality, which makes it socially unjust (Nelson and Wright 1995; 115-117).

For the purpose of this research, on the basis of the literature review, community participation in this research can be interpreted as (Arnstein 1969; Bailey 2010; Selman 2004):

 Minimal participation; comprising situations where participation is either passive and local

people are simply informed or on ‘information giving’ and stakeholders participate mainly by answering questions posed by researchers or policy-makes. In addition, it can refer to ‘consultation’ where external agents listen to views, but still are the ones defining both problems and solutions (Selman 2007; 369).

 Empowerment through participation: implies a transfer of powers, in which communities

acquire new powers in relation to others, may gain in influence and exert greater power over decision-making.

(19)

3. Methodology

3.1. Research framework

Before introducing the methodological approach within the underlying study it is important to be clear on the type of fieldwork that has been carried out. First of all, two different periods of fieldwork have been conducted for this study. The first period is coherently to the period in which the project and community event of ‘heritage based urban regeneration of Ng’ambo’ occurred. My involvement within the project can be considered more as an internship, but during the event data was collected that did provide some useful information in particular with regards to the issue of local communities’ needs. In addition, prior to the community event, 11 interviews have been held with people living in the area, which will be used in this research as well. Although not conducted by myself, they are important in the light of local residents’ perceptions and needs. Moreover, the questions cover the same topic and show great similarities to those used in the SUIT-method in terms of ‘the desired answers’, which have resulted in a high internal validity (Bryman 2004; 273). This indicates that the results of the interviews accurately reflect the study’s objectives, increasing the certainty with which the conclusions are being made.

The second fieldwork period was part of a longer period which has been conducted for my other master thesis in Anthropology, reflecting on heritage making, the consequences of labelling heritage, (cultural) values and perceptions of local residents on heritage, covering a wider area of Ng’ambo and with an additional focus on how people perceive Ng’ambo in regards to Stone Town, and a more general notion of cultural identity attached to a spatial area. Consequently, the main focus of this fieldwork period was on the Anthropological study, but time has been devoted on the conduct of additional interviews for the study of heritage in urban planning.

Research design

The research design for this research is an explorative case-study design (Yin 2014). By looking in depth into one case, the idea of heritage as a tool in the urban regeneration of the neighborhood, will be explored. The case-study design was particularly suitable for this research in two respects. First, the closeness of the case-study to real-life situations is important for the development of a nuanced view of reality, because of its inclusion of more details. Second, it generates context-dependent knowledge from which we can learn, which is more valuable in the study of human affairs than the vain search for predictive theories and universals (Flyvbjerg 2006; Eisenhardt 1989). The dense case study is more useful for the practitioner and more interesting for social theory (Flyvbjerg 2006; 238).

I have followed the line of thinking of Flyvbjerg within underlying study (2006; 237), framed as well by the communicative planning paradigm. The communicative planning approach focusses on how social realities are constructed and on how people give meaning through metaphors, language and discourses, to these realities (Salet and Faludi 2000). Consequently, the assigned value and meaning to heritage can contribute to a better understanding of how to utilize the built and non-built heritage within urban regeneration of an area. In addition, the communicative planning paradigm is useful in that sense that it recognizes that reality is interpreted differently by different groups of people, thus acknowledging that different claims on reality exists (Watson 2002: 30). Realities that cannot be captured by solely generalizations or predictions.

As a result from its contextual nature, a case-study design brings forth many detailed narratives, a great value that gets lost when trying to summarize and generalize. Consequently, there is a sensitivity to the issues at hand that cannot be obtained from theory. To avoid summarizing the case in some main results, the story has been written down in its diversity, as much as time and space has allowed for it. However, as one of the considerable flaws of a single case-study design is the low external

(20)

validity, i.e. the generalizability of the results (Bryman 2004; Yin 2014: Flyvbjerg 2006), analytic generalization has been the mode of generalization within this research: the theoretical framework is used as a template with which to compare the empirical results of the case study (Yin 2014). By doing so, the results of the case study do not solely apply to the domain of the research area, but are

generalizable to the wider notion of heritage based urban regeneration.

Fieldwork: period 1

The case under consideration is the project called ‘heritage based urban –regeneration of Ng’ambo’. In February three weeks of fieldwork have been carried out in Zanzibar. The fieldwork was mainly centered on the pilot project of the HUL in Ng’ambo. The selected pilot area (see appendix 1.1. for map) needed to demonstrate and adapt the HUL-approach to the situation of Zanzibar and East Africa. The area chosen is located in Ng’ambo, the buffer zone of Stone Town World Heritage property. It includes a variety of buildings and public spaces that is part of the Kisimamajongoo and Kisiwandui neighborhoods and is bordering Michenzani. The process of desktop, archival and field research, as well as community interviews (11 in total that have been recorded so far), has started in December 2013 and culminated in the community-based visioning event on 8 and 9 February 2014. During this event, the research output has been exhibited and presented.

Participatory exercises have been conducted to jointly develop visions on how to conserve, regenerate and develop the area based on its economic, cultural (physical and intangible), social and natural values, characteristics and assets.

These participatory exercises entailed (see appendix 3.1. for some examples):

 drawing a map of their neighborhood in order to find out daily routines and the public spaces local inhabitants use.

 finish drawings from different landscapes from the area, in which a part was left out. The people were asked to finish the picture according to their desired future view of the neighborhood

 a Q&A discussion was organized with the head of the Urban Planning Department, dr. Muhammad Juma

At this moment in time the project Ng'ambo | The Other Side | Heritage-based Urban Regeneration

Zanzibar has been defined as goal to develop a HUL-based methodology as alternative for the

redevelopment of Ng’ambo, Of the first stage of the HUL-approach a report has been produced by Antoni Folkers. This document has been used as a primary source within this research. In addition, it must be stressed here (and has already been explained in the introduction) that the project is still a work in progress. Currently, the DoURP in close cooperation of Antoni Folkers, are working on the planning guidelines for the pilot project area which will be applied to the wider area of Ng’ambo.

Fieldwork: period 2

In addition to the fieldwork in February, an extensive period of fieldwork of three months have been conducted for my other field of study Anthropology. The data that was gathered during these three months has not been analyzed at the time of writing of this thesis. However, some special attention has been paid to the issue of heritage in planning and community participation, resulting in several interviews with local residents of the pilot project area as well as experts in the field of heritage and urban planning, of which some were involved in the pilot project as well. In addition to the HUL-documents, these have been identified as the units of analysis.

(21)

Research area

The research area covers a wider area (map 2.1; of which a larger map is provided in the appendix 1.2.) than the pilot project site (map 2.2.). First of all, this has been done in order to facilitate the research project in terms of collecting respondents. Secondly, it is not in the interest of the research to limit the area to the same boundaries as the pilot project. The objective of the research is to draw on the case of Ng’ambo, not solely on the project, in a wider context of heritage in urban based regeneration. In addition, the extent of the research has not widened enough to lose sight of the pilot area, thus maintaining in the geographical boundaries of the neighborhoods Kisiwandui and Kisimamajongoo, in addition to that of Kikwajuni, which borders the two.

(22)

FIG.3.2.KISIWANDUI-KISIMAMAJONGOO-MICHENZANI TRIANGLE (PAPADAKI AND CHAUVE 2014).

Units of analysis

The units of analysis in this research are the residents of Ng’ambo and the several policy-documents of the HUL-approach. They are the units since it is their perceptions on the issue of heritage conservation and local community needs that are under consideration here, i.e. their communal value to heritage.

During the community event in February data has been gathered, which is under analysis here as well. Furthermore, an additional 11 interviews have been conducted prior to the community event. These interviews have not been conducted by myself, but by other members of the project team. These interviews are used here as well, due to the important information they contain in regards to the needs of the residents of the pilot project area.

During the second fieldwork period in June, additional data has been gathered, but due to a short amount of time, a number of 20 interviews have been held with local residents of the Kisiwandui and Kisimamajongoo area. These respondents were not so much chosen as they were ‘randomly

encountered’. However, paying attention to the external validity, or the generalizability of the study, the objective was to incorporate an equal amount of women and men, in addition to take into account the different ages. This has been quite successful. Of the 20 respondents, 11 were men and 9 were women. Of the 11 men, 2 were young and of the 9 women, 3 were young. As age is sometimes difficult to ask in Zanzibar, ‘young’ here is identified as roughly between 16 and 30 years old.

Where local residents were asked whether they felt involved, experts were asked how people were involved, could be better involved or even should be involved. Experts were mainly used in my research as informants for helping me asking the right questions to the local residents. The experts do not only have the expert knowledge in their respective fields, they are also local residents of Zanzibar and thus have a better understanding of how people relate to heritage. Therefore, the interviews of the experts have not been analyzed in the same manner as those of the local residents. They are referred to sometimes in support of an argument, but have served mainly in the guidance of the conduct of this research. The experts that have been interviewed are the General Director of the STCDA, the Stone Town Conservation Authority, two employees of the Department of Urban and Regional Planning

(23)

Zanzibar, who were involved in the project in Ng’ambo and the General Director of the Stone Town Heritage Society.

3.2. Research methods

The subject under consideration here is how the communal value of heritage can serve as a tool in urban regeneration, as the posed research question has indicated. Different data sources have been employed in answering one research question. Nevertheless they address different facts (Yin 2014: 116); the HUL-documents relate to the functionality of the approach itself, in addition to the pilot project in Ng’ambo; the interviews have been conducted in order to find local community perspectives on the issue of the perceived quality of space, in order to identify the value of heritage, and their needs. Observational evidence has been useful in understanding the context of the subject being studied; it has generated insights into interpersonal behavior and a more general notion of a cultural identity in Zanzibar.

The interviews, the HUL-documents, the observations and the data gathered during the event, reflect these multiple sources of evidence. Taken into consideration that all three methods have been used to identify different sub objectives, we speak of a non-convergence of evidence, as schematically presented below:

Research sub-objectives Research method

1. To identify the strengths and weaknesses of the application of the Historic Urban Landscape approach in heritage-based urban regeneration.

a. Document analysis

2. To identify the local community values and perceptions on heritage and their neighbourhood

b. Semi-structured interviews

3. To shape the context of the research subject, a more general sense of culture in Zanzibar,

community’s involvement during the pilot project in fieldwork period 1 and interpersonal behaviour.

c. Participant observation

Fig. 3.3.. Non-convergence of evidence

Document analysis

The documents under consideration here are those related to the document. Since the HUL-approach is still in the process of adaptation and recommendations, there is not just one policy document, but several. The documents have been analyzed by means of Atlas Ti. Leading questions in analyzing these documents are demonstrated in figure 2.4. below.

By means of Atlas Ti. the different documents have been coded. The coding of the documents started with open coding, meaning that no pre-defined codes were used (Bryman 2004; 401). However, questions have been formulated to guide the coding of the documents, as can be seen in figure 2.4. This was done on purpose to facilitate the process as well as to narrow the focus to my specific research question. Following the method of open coding, during the process of coding, some general codes and family of codes came to the fore, resulting in the method of axial coding. Axial coding entails the categorizing of the discovered patterns of coding. An example of an output of a network can be found in the appendix 5.1.

A constant comparison have been made between the codes and the theory, as to ensure that the concepts were sensitizing, not fixed (Bryman 2004; 271). Consequently, the conceptualization of the

(24)

data has evolved during the fieldwork/analysis and was in constant revision with the theoretical framework.

Leading questions in the analysis of the different HUL-documents

1. Swahili Historic Urban Landscapes (UNESCO 2013)

2. New life for historic cities, brochure regarding the Historic Urban Landscape approach (UNESCO 2011a)

3. Annex 3: Historic Urban

Landscape (Bandarin and Van Oers 2012). 4. HUL Conference

Recommendations, preliminary document concluding the Conference in February.

5. Recommendation on the Historic Urban Landscape (UNESCO 2011b) .

 How can heritage serve as a tool within urban rehabilitation and urban planning?

 How is the notion of intangible heritage expressed and its relation to tangible heritage?

 How is the relation between conservation and development explained?

 How is community participation defined?

Fi.g 3.4. HUL-documents

Semi-structured interviews

As the perceptions of local communities are one of the key objectives within this qualitative research, the use of the method of semi-structured interviews is evident. Semi-structured interviews are different from quantitative research methods such as questionnaires. They provide more flexibility by ‘letting the respondents talk’, while at the same time identifying certain topics that needs to be addressed. A semi-structured interview contains a topic-list, providing the interviewer with some guidance through the interview, while creating more space for the respondents to identity certain topics that are important to them, which shed light on their own perceptions. However, as the research site is located in Zanzibar and there was a language barrier, many questions did indeed were

formulated specifically, because of the required translation, which has been done in accordance with my research assistants. In the appendix 3.2. these questions have been formulated.

For the set-up of the semi-structured interviews, a reference should be made to the work of Tweed and Sutherland (2007). Their research focused on the issue of the role of cultural and built heritage in sustainable urban development, an important issue that has been explored in the academic debate in the previous paragraph. They applied a novel survey method, referred to as SUIT (Sustainable development of urban historical areas through active Integration within Towns), a method developed to assess people’s perceptions of and attitudes to urban historical areas and proposed changes within them, applied in the context of Victoria Square in Belfast. The objective of the research was to inform the closing discussion of some of the issues surrounding the conflicts between heritage and

regeneration (Tweed and Sutherland 2007; 63).

The task of the SUIT method is to ‘identify the relations between historical areas and perceived values’, and is described as a ‘field-tested methodology to measure perceived quality of historical areas’ (Sutherland et al. 2002; 1). One of the key objectives of the research situated in Ng’ambo is to identify these perceived values of the local residents of Ng’ambo and thus the method of SUIT seemed to be applicable there as well. The SUIT method is based upon a survey methodology and has been carried out in of three different cities, Belfast, Liege and Copenhagen, to facilitate comparison. Although the research in Ng’ambo is not based on a survey methodology or on a quantitative research

(25)

method, the different indicators from the SUIT method have been used in this research as topics within the semi-structured interviews. Only the indicators that have been used within the research in

Ng’ambo are under consideration here.

Following the academic debate concerning the issue of heritage in sustainable urban

development, the quality of life is important which is correlated with the notion of a sense of place and the quality of life. Heritage places can contribute to a unique character of place and thus a sense of place, in turn providing a stimulus for the improvement of quality of life (Nasser 2003). How people perceive the public space and the urban space -how they perceive the quality of that space- will contribute to a better understanding of a sense of place and how the quality of life within that urban space is perceived.

The important indicators for this quality of space have been identified as follows, with special reference to the SUIT method (Sutherland et. al. 2002: 4-5). By identifying operational measures that match the concepts, based on an earlier study that has made similar matches, the construct validity of the research has increased (Yin 2014; Bryman 2004). These four topics were the guidelines within the semi-structured interviews. In the appendix 3.2., the complete set up of the interviews, which have been used in this study, can be found.

1. The respondents’ awareness of his/her surroundings.

Five different photographs have been used, all of which are enclosed in the appendix 3.3. These photographs have been chosen for their character and the different kind of houses commonly found in Ng’ambo. In addition, each picture is taken in a different neighborhood of the area the research is focused in. For a map of these different areas see appendix 2.1. Furthermore, questions were asked what were important spatial elements of the area: streets, public spaces, buildings, shops or, when this seemed difficult to question, some people showed it on the map or tried to draw it on a blank paper.

2. The quality of the space perceived by the respondent.

The quality of the space perceived by the respondent was ‘measured’ by asking the respondents how they perceived the area where they live in. Respondents were asked to name the most important characteristics of their area, and in addition the most negative and the most positive characteristic about their area. These results shed light on how people themselves perceive the quality of the space they live in, in addition to issues that concern them when thinking about their own area, thus

contributing to a better understanding of local needs. Furthermore, questions were asked about the more cultural aspects of their area. In addition, more direct questions were asked in whether or not there was heritage to be found in their neighborhood. Heritage in Swahili is translated urithi, but this reflects inheritance, and not so much collective heritage. Therefore, questions were asked in relation to

urithi wa taifa (national heritage) and urithi wa kila mtu (heritage for everybody.)

3. Awareness of respondent to changes to their immediate surroundings and the attitude of respondent to various changes within the area of Ng’ambo.

In the SUIT method another set of pictures is used in which proposed changes are visualized by means of Photoshop. Within this research the means to do so were not there, but foremost it did not appear to be useful since some significant changes within the urban space are already occurring. Thus, pictures have been shown from several new developments in the area and questions were asked in regards to these changes; whether people liked this new type of development and why they valued it as such. In addition, more provocative questions were asked to shed light on the notion of (potential)