1
Integration of the Intangible Heritage Values in the
Heritage Management Approaches: A Comparative
Analysis of the Historic Urban Landscape Approach
(HUL) and the Quick Scan Method (QSM)
3 Abstract
Intangible heritage value’ is a term used to describe aesthetic, spiritual, symbolic or other social values that people may associate with a heritage site. (Deacon, 2004) The integration of intangible values in the heritage management is fairly a new concept. Heritage professionals even in the upper echelons of the heritage field find it hard to deal with this concept because of its vague identification. It is maybe because, this term is very subjective. It’s easy to define on paper but its actualization in planning laws is difficult. Bakker (2003) aphorism ‘the intangible values are ‘understanding of the socially constructed, multi-layered relationships between people and a physical site and related elements.’ (Bakker, 2003)
Also, at international cultural heritage organizations (UNESCO, ICOMOS, World Heritage Committee), there has always been discussions about developing integrated strategies for sustainable conservation. But intangible heritage values are mostly treated as separate entities whereas Jean Louis argues that ‘the distinction between physical heritage and intangible heritage is … artificial. Physical heritage only attains its true significance when it sheds light on its underlying values.’ (Louis, 2003)
In 2015, UNESCO developed a holistic agenda- Historic Urban Landscape approach for the sustainable conservation of heritage. It aims to integrate all the layers of a society including socio-cultural aspects to deal with the issues in heritage management. Apart from HUL, another key approach developed by the Shared Cultural Heritage programme of the Netherlands is ‘the Quick Scan’ method. This approach is used for heritage mapping and management in the countries which are collaborating with the Netherlands. Both approaches, Historic Urban Landscape and the Quick Scan method claim to be integrated and holistic agendas which deal with the tangible and intangible attributes of heritage. This study looks at investigating the case studies (Ballarat and Probolinggo) conducted under these two approaches to analyse the mapping of the intangible heritage values and their integration in the local heritage policies.
4
5 Table of Contents
Abstract ... i
Acknowledgements ... ii
Table of Contents ... iii
List of Illustrations ... iv
Chapter 1: Introduction ... 2
Conservation of the intangible heritage values: How the idea of the research started? ...2
Mapping the Intangible Heritage Values: Research Question(s) & Aims ...3
The Organization of Thesis ...4
Case Studies ...4
Intangible Heritage Values and State-of-the-Art ...5
Chapter 2: Research Methodology ... 8
Research Methodology ...8
Research Design ...10
Chapter 3: Literature Review ... 14
The Significance of Value in Heritage ... 14
Identification of the Intangible heritage values ... 16
Value, Sense of the place and the placelessness ... 18
The origin of the Historic Urban Landscape concept ... 19
The draft recommendation of the HUL ... 22
Historic Urban Landscape concept: Challenging Orthodoxy ... 23
The origin of the Historic Urban Landscape concept ... 24
The draft recommendation of the HUL ... 25
Historic Urban Landscape concept: Challenging Orthodoxy ... 26
The Quick Scan Methodology ... 28
Shared Cultural Heritage Programme ... 30
Chapter 4: Case Study Analysis-I ... 32
Probolinggo, Indonesia ...32
The old heritage management system and Challenges ... 33
Implementation of the Quick Scan Method ... 34
Analysis of the Intangible Heritage values’ mapping ... 37
Conclusion: Integration in the local heritage policies ... 39
Chapter 5: Case Study Analysis-II ...40
Ballarat, Australia ... 41
The old heritage management system and Challenges ... 42
Implementation of the HUL approach ... 44
Conclusion: Integration in the local heritage policies ... 46
6 List of Figures
Figure 1: Research Phases ... 9
Figure 2: Terms to define intangible heritage values in international cultural heritage doctrines... 10
Figure 3: Chronological development of the HUL concept... 19
Figure 4: Comparison b/w traditional heritage conservation and the HUL approach... 24
Figure 5: Location of the Probolinggo City...32
Figure 6: Probolinggo City’s Urban Growth...34
Figure 7: Probolinggo City’s Present situation mapping...35
Figure 8: Location of the Ballarat City...40
Figure 9: Introduction of the HUL concept in Ballarat...42
8 Chapter I Introduction
Conservation of the Intangible Heritage Values: How did the idea of the research start?
The understanding of heritage is always evolving with time, it is formulated and negotiated according to the context and societal relationships. Harvey (2000) states that the definition of heritage cannot be stipulated under one definition, over the past few decades, the notion of heritage and the practice of heritage conservation have changed significantly due to the direct results of the societal change. The present-day notion of heritage conservation is understood as practice to maintain the cult ural significance of a place where the meanings and (intangible) values of heritage have been seen as unifying principle of heritage conservation.
The idea to do thesis research on the role of intangible heritage values in heritage conservation was developed when I was doing internship at the Cultural Heritage Agency of the Netherlands. The Cultural Heritage Agency of the Netherlands was founded in 2000. It is mainly involved in conserving heritage and executing sustainable development plan for the most valuable historic landscapes. (RCE, 2009) In 2002, the Cultural Heritage Agency initiated an international project the Shared Cultural Heritage programme, it was originated to develop bilateral heritage management and development plans with the countries where the Netherlands once had strong influence either through trade or colonialism. (SHC, 2017)It aimed to exchange knowledge of shared heritage and consolidate local support for sustainable heritage conservation. The Shared Cultural Heritage programme also adopted a methodology, the Quick Scan Method: It is an integrated approach developed to analyse the current situation of historic place by mapping its tangible and intangible attributes. It further aims to develop recommendations for sustainable heritage management and development on the basis of conducted analysis. My internship research focused on analyzing the implementation of the quick scan method in case studies conducted under the Shared Cultural Heritage programme.
During this research, I analysed several case studies in Indonesia, Japan and Sri Lanka. These case studies include historic cities like Jatakrta, Probolinggo, Muntok and the world heritage places like Galler Fort Sri Lanka. This research led to very unsatisfactory results, in my experience, heritage analysis conducted under the Shared Cultural Heritage was very superficial. It only analyzed the selected and visible built features of the historic places. The whole analysis was mainly focusing the tangible attributes: It started from analyzing the historical buildings’ technical conditions, changes in material, façade and ended up somewhere in providing recommendations to improve their mechanical electrical plans. Although, in the written reports and proposals, the Shared Cultural Heritage programme addressed the importance of integrating social and cultural values in sustainable heritage conservation. It also formulated recommendations specifically addressing the factors like uniqueness, cultural significance, local and traditional knowledge. But it wasn’t addressed in the practical work. You couldn’t find these so-called social and cultural values in analysis phase, but, yet they were fully recommended in written reports. It was very absurd and confused setting. Further, there was a clear gap between heritage analysis, local community’s needs and their involvement in the heritage conservation process under the Shared Cultural Heritage programme.
Meanwhile, my research task extended and I started to work on another international approach, the Historic Urban Landscape. The Historic Urban Landscape approach is developed by UNESCO and it also aims to be an integrated agenda which intends to integrate all the social and cultural aspects of a historic
9 area in heritage conservation and development. The HUL addresses the concept of ‘landscape’ in heritage conservation. The fundamental concept of’ landscape’ includes all the layers of an area including tangible and intangible attributes; it also denotes the unique as well as the common elements of everyday landscape. The historic urban landscape also aims to highlight the close relationship between culture and nature. Its extending beyond the notion of ‘historic centre’ or ‘ensemble’ to include the broader urban context. The wider context of the HUL includes a historic sites’ natural features, its built environment, both historic and contemporary, its land use patterns, perceptions and visual relationships. It also includes the sense of place and memories’ foot prints of historic areas.
Mapping the Intangible Heritage Values: Research Question(s) & Aims
Similar to the intent of the Quick Scan method to conserve social and cultural values, the HUL also aims to conserve the sense of place and memories’ footprints of historic areas, according to Deacon (2004), the innate values such as place attachment, uniqueness, social experiences, spiritual, symbolic, social values that people may associate with a historic site are termed as the intangible heritage values. (Deacon, 2004) But the question arises how does the Historic Urban Landscape approach deal with intangible heritage values in heritage conservation process? Is it similar to the way the quick scan method has implemented? Or does it address different mechanisms to incorporate this phenomena? This can only be found out by conducting research to investigate the identification and mapping of the intangible heritage values under these two international approaches/methodologies.
But at the same time, even in the upper echelon of the heritage sphere, the conservation of intangible heritage values is multifaceted problem. Their actualization on paper is easy but, its problematic to depict the constructed definitions of intangible heritage values in practice. Further, there is not much debate on nature and scope of ‘intangible heritage values’ in the built heritage conservation. They are often considered as synonymous with the intangible heritage. The involvement of local communities also plays an important role in determining the intangible heritage values. It manifests the close relationship between place and society. This research, however, goes beyond the importance of the intangible heritage values in heritage conservation, which is a narrow focus. But having a broader focus, the study looks at investigating that:
‘How have the intangible heritage values been identified and mapped in the Quick scan method and the Historic Urban Landscape approach? And, in what ways the identified and mapped intangible values have been integrated in the local heritage policies? ‘
To answer this main question, the following sub-questions were formulated:
How did both approaches, the Historic Urban Landscape and the Quick Scan Methodology map the historical context and memories of the locals in the desired case studies to get understanding of the past social and cultural fabric?
In what ways the local community was involved to map the citizen’s relationship to historic places and the multicultural significance of a historic area?
What role local heritage professionals played in heritage conservation practices to understand the aspect of traditional conservation techniques?
To answer these question, a detailed analysis of the case studies conducted under the Historic Urban Landscape approach and the Quick Scan methodology was conducted. After that, a comparative analysis
10 was also steered to evaluate the mapping and integration of Intangible heritage values in the quick scan method and the historic urban landscape approach. The main objective of this research is to find and highlight the ways to integrate intangible heritage values in the local heritage policies. It explains the importance of intangible values in heritage management by identifying different mapping techniques. Intangible values constitute major significance in the heritage conservation practices. If we do not stress over conserving the underlying intangible values of a historic place, the localness, uniqueness and the sense of place will be no more retained.
The organization of thesis research
This main body of this thesis is divided into six major chapters. Chapter 1 is an introduction to the thesis research while specifying the aims, objectives and the state-of-the-art, Chapter 2 describes the research methodology and research phases. The framework to identify the intangible heritage values is also explained here and Chapter 3 is a review of literature on Historic Urban Landscape approach and the Quick Scan method. It’ll also include literature review on Intangible heritage values and their integration in the built heritage conservation. Chapter 4 and 5 explore the two main case studies, one from the HUL approach and another from the Quick Scan method. The intention is to analyse each case in detail to underline the intangible heritage values mapping and integration. Further, after analysis each case study, a detailed exploration of the local heritage policies will also be conducted to investigate the integration of intangible heritage values. Each case study chapter will also include historical background of the cases and analysis will involve evaluation of each case study and a critical appraisal which will then lead to the conclusion, final chapter of this research. In the final chapter, a comparative analysis of both cases will also be conducted.
Case studies: Ballarat (Australia) and Probolinggo (Indonesia)
Two-case study approach is applied in this research, as it not only allows to gain detailed and critical insights into the two different heritage management approaches but the analysis outcomes can be used to draw a comparative analysis. The research covers case studies from the HUL & Quick Scan method; one is in Australia (Ballarat) and another is in Indonesia (Probolinggo). Ballarat is considered as an ideal reference to understand HUL implementation because of the successful adaptation of the HUL approach. It was the first city to adopt Historic Urban Landscape approach in 2011 and integrate it in the local heritage policy framework. (Ballarat, 2018) Ballarat aimed to develop a synergy between urban development and conservation through interrelated elements that make constantly changing communities unique. (Dr Angela Murphy, 2015) Ballarat is a historic city located in the highlands of Victoria region, Australia. The current urban morphology of Ballarat started to develop in 1851, in the times of gold rush. (Susan 2015) The importance of Ballarat grew as a wealthy city because of the extensive gold resources discovery. In the nineteenth century, it became the colony of Victoria and city started developing rich architecture, broad streetscape, grand public spaces and artificially cultivated gardens. (HUL Ballarat 2015) The significant change in urban form of Ballarat city also altered its cultural traditions and intangible features. Ballarat is also considered as major attraction for tourism industry because of its nineteenth century-post-contract- settlement history, which formed rich heritage. It’s also an ideal reference to look into the concept of intangible heritage values identification, mapping and integration because the social cultural fabric of the city played an important role in defining heritage conservation policies.
11 Probolinggo is considered as one of the key study conducted under the Share Cultural Heritage programme. It is used as reference to understand the quick scan method because of the detailed explanation and implementation of the methodology. Probolinggo is a city located in East Java province, Indonesia. It’s one of the small cities, it was first inhibited in 1368 by Javanese ethnic group but now it has multicultural population which consists of Chinese, Arabs, Malay, Javanese, and Madurese. Currently, Probolinggo city is left with the extensive Dutch colonial heritage from residential districts to industrial units. It’s built heritage range from the Dutch residency mansions, harbour, club houses, hospital and Colonial houses. It also has hybrid society where different distinct cultures co-exist. The specific character of each district, urban pattern and socio-cultural fabric reflect the significant multicultural heritage of Probolinggo city. Both are the cases of heritage analysis and management conducted under two different international approaches. These two case studies exemplify two different heritage management approaches but with the same agenda of integration. These two cases were selected because in both cases, the initiative to implement international heritage conservation approaches was taken upon the request of the local municipalities’ authorities. Further, both approaches, the HUL and the quick scan method were implemented in Ballarat and Probolinggo respectively with the clear focus to develop recommendations which could be integrated in the local heritage policies. A detailed analysis on each case study will reveal how these two approaches had identified and mapped the intangible heritage values. It will also look into the details of the integration of intangible heritage values’ integration in the local heritage policies.
Intangible heritage values and the State-of-the-art
The idea of integrating intangible heritage values in the heritage management planning has been embraced well during the last decade. (Bakker, 2003) The actualisation of intangible heritage values on paper is easy especially through the multifaceted definitions but issues like the legibility of intangible values in a plural society are hard to manifest. Meanwhile, in the field of heritage conservation, the intangible heritage values are usually considered synonymous with the intangible heritage which also makes it difficult to decipher. But in this research, I will give a detailed overview of the four major concepts which make the understanding of intangible heritage values easy, and also helps to differentiate it from the intangible heritage. These key concepts are following:
The concept of Landscape conservation: The notion of Landscape Conservation was not recognized
internationally until 1992, when the World Heritage Committee adopted this term for the very first time in an international Convention (1992 WH convention). During this research, I intend to look at the evolvement of the landscape conservation approach as its introduction in the field of heritage conservation is considered pivotal to intangible heritage values’ identification. Although, this notion was introduced internationally in 1992, but it had never been implemented practically until 2005. A major initiative to practically implement this landscape approach was first set out at the UNESCO (2005) conference in Vienna. Vienna memorandum (2005) is considered as a pivotal point which clearly expressed the concerns about impacts of no adoption of cultural landscape approach. It also emphasized to develop an integrated landscape strategy with effective practical tools. This emphasis also hinted a shift in the field of built heritage conservation. Conservation strategies started to focus on conserving whole landscape rather than focusing on architectural heritage only. This was the time when the intangible heritage values were actually acknowledged in the heritage conservation practices.
12 The concept of landscape can be described as a combination of different ideas denoting the notions of socio-cultural values, human interaction with historic and new developments, built heritage and context. (Punekar, 2006) It also represents the diverse relations of humans with nature. A landscape approach facilitates various communities to become a part of that landscape. However, in heritage conservation, the landscape approach entails to include all the layers of an area in heritage conservation process, it includes all the tangible and intangible attributes. The landscape conservation also emphasizes on acknowledging the unique as well as the common elements of everyday landscape.
Place, memory & meaning: To understand the practical dimension of the intangible heritage values, the
most important work had been conducted by the by architect Karrel Antonnie Bakker (Conserving and Managing Intangible Heritage Values, 2003), he categorizes his work under the theme of Place, memory and meaning. This research will look into the definition of the place as explained by him. Bakker explains that the concept of place in heritage conservation practices is usually denoted in physical dimensions only where the aspects like associations, meaning, qualities, memories and values (spiritual and emotional) are not included. He further adds that when architects or heritage professionals talk about conserving the cultural significance, they relate it to the use, settings and old record only. But the heritage conservation should be based on a combined experience where retention of the associations, meaning, memories and respect for place’s fabric, culture and social values must be inseparable from the heritage conservation practices. Baker’s fundamental idea about heritage conservation is used as the main theme of this research. Bakker explains ‘place’ as a mental construct, he says that from a phenomenological perspective, a place exists because of the synergetic relationship between place and an individual/or element who provides meanings to it. The notion of any cultural landscape can only be understood if we try to decipher it’s encode meanings. These encode meanings can only be deciphered by recognizing a site as a multilayered entity filled with people-place relationships.
Sense of the Place: The most important concept which provided a solid dimension to the concept of
intangible heritage values is the concept of the sense of place. The inclusion of this concept has helped in elaborating the subjective notion of the intangible heritage values. Sense of place is comprised of all the elements which entail the intangible heritage values. It is a concept which deals with the transition of space into a place based on human attachment, emotions and values. It is usually defined as ‘an overarching impression encompassing the general ways in which people feel about places, senses it, and assign concepts and values to it.’ (Mina Najafi, 2011) Sense of place is a very broad and diverse concept. People relate to a place because it carries an influence or connection. This connection can be based on symbols that make a place exclusive or valuable. Steele explains the concept of sense of place as a particular experience of an individual in a particular setting. (Steele, 1981)
Sense of placelessness: Within the spectrum of the sense of place, another important concept has also been
introduced: The Placelessness. Relph explains the concept of placelessness as the absence of the sense of the place. It can also be understood as the absence of the intangible heritage values. Although, in this research, this approach of placelessness is not used directly because it will give this research an another direction: what would happen if there would be no retention of intangible values. But due to its core connection with the concept of the sense of place and intangible values, it important to explain this concept here. The placelessness can be explained as the changes in people’s dwellings, experiences and lifestyle due to uncontrolled growth of human settlements, further, despite the technological advancement, place conveys no meaning which is resulting in the sense of placelessness.’ (Mina Najafi, 2011) Relph states that the
13
placelessness can be associated as setting with no distinctive characters or sense of place. (Relph, 2008) He
says that ‘when places cannot be culturally recognized, they suffer from lacking a sense of place; in this case, people are faced with placelessness. Therefore, Placelessness can be explained as the physical characteristics of non-place, which is culturally unidentifiable environments that are similar anywhere.’ (Mina Najafi, 2011) (Relph, 2008) The concept of placelessness can be understood as the counter-concept of the sense of place. It arises when the places do not possess any cultural, social or emotional significance. It is very similar to the notion which I have described in the first section of this chapter that how did the idea of this research start? This thesis research about intangible heritage values mainly took off because I felt that the innate connection between heritage conservation and the (intangible) heritage value is missing in the heritage conservation practices which is resulting in placelessness of the heritage.
14 Chapter II Research Methodology
Research Methodology
The research about conservation of the intangible heritage values was conducted under qualitative research methodology as the research question(s) required a detailed understanding of the context. Quantitative research method cannot be applied here as the statistical analysis overlooks the unique aspects and it is not able to provide a thorough understanding. The primary approach for qualitative research included two main strategies; Literature analysis and the Case Study(s) research design. Literature analysis research methodology uses current research data to study a particular phenomenon. It helps to identify, analyse and synthesize the available research material of a fragmented topic and also identifies the gaps in previous researches. The case study(s) research design is another approach used in this research, given this explanation it might be helpful to highlight that a case study is not a method but a research strategy. (Harrison, et al., 2017) Researchers further define to read the case study with whatever methods either qualitative or quantitative.
This research mainly deals with the anthropological aspects like people’s experiences, collective memories, activities, and the sense of place. In the research fields where data about people’s lives, experiences and how they perceive their socio-cultural context is required, case studies help to give insight into how individual’s experiences can be interpreted. Yin describes the case study research strategy as an empirical analysis that investigates a phenomenon within its real-life milieu and in which several sources of evidence are used. (Yin, 1984) He further explains that case studies can be used as the most suitable research strategy when questions like ‘how’ are posed in the main research question. (Yin, 1984) And this research aims to approach this phenomenon by investigation that ‘how intangible heritage values are mapped and integrated in the heritage management policies’.
However, within the case study research design, there are several categories. This research was conducted under the exploratory case study strategy. Exploratory case study strategy explores the specific phenomenon which serves as an answer to the main research question, the objective of exploratory research is to explore the research question but it doesn’t offer any final solution. (Yin, 1994) It helps to provide a better understanding of the problem. Exploratory research strategy is flexible as it leads to alternative options for a single specific case. It simply helps researchers to explore various possibilities through research designs (accompanied with qualitative and quantitative methods) leaving enough room for decision making. (Creswell, 2014)
This research methodology is also comprised of other qualitative research methods such as literature analysis. In order to conduct a detailed literature analysis and provide context for the research, first step was to conduct an extensive literature review. Literature review helps to provide knowledge about past studies that had been conducted on the similar topic. A thorough literature analysis also helps in defining focus in research and to develop analytical framework for case studies analysis. The literature review was conducted from both primary and secondary resources. Primary sources include policy documents and government reports, however, secondary source mainly includes scholarly literature, journal articles and analysis reports.
After providing a detailed literature review, a detailed literature analysis was conducted using ‘descriptive analytical research’ method. Descriptive analytical research is used to obtain information about current scenario of research to describe ‘what exists?’ and by using these facts, researchers critically analyse the
15 already available data to make evaluation. (Veldpaus, 2015) Further, this evaluation is mostly used to explain a complexed phenomenon. This method is commonly used to draw comparative analysis in comparative literature studies. It helps to provide organized and efficient results for further assessments. (Veldpaus, 2015)
Research Design
In this thesis’ research design, different research methodologies have been integrated together in order to obtain detailed data on the specifics of each case study and their analysis. Research design has three different phases: Identification phase (1), Analysis phase (2) and Integration phase (3). In this chapter, first phase, its methodology and application will be discussed in detail to provide basis for the next two chapters of case studies analysis.
Fig.1 Research Phases
Identification Phase-I
This research is mainly based on analyzing integration of intangible heritage values’ in two international heritage conservation approaches: HUL and the quick scan methodology. But prior to that it requires to define the term intangible heritage values and how they have been addressed in international cultural heritage paradigm? The major part of this research’s literature review will provide a detailed overview of the origin of the intangible values’ concept and their definition in several international cultural heritage doctrines. To collect data about previous international cultural heritage doctrines, different legislative documents, conference proceedings and published reports by some international agencies (UNESCO, ICOMOS, WHC, ICCROM) will be consulted. Further, research papers, journal articles and few books will also be referred to obtain detailed information about recent and historical background of this research.
Identification
•Identification of the intangible heritage values •systematic framework development for International Policies'
taxonomy based analysis
•Identification of the intangible heritage values on the basis of common denominators
Analysis
•Analysis of the intangible values mapping techniques
Integration
•Integration of approache's recommendations
•Analysis of the recommendation by heritage management policy (HUL/Quick Scan)
•Analysis of the local heritage policy documents to investigate how the recommendations have been integrated
Phase 1
Phase 2
16 On the other hand, apart from providing a historical context of the term intangible heritage values, a systematic analysis of selected cultural heritage documents will be conducted. It will help to define the elements which denote the intangible heritage values. This analysis would be done by using descriptive analytical method. It will be done in two steps. First the international cultural heritage doctrines from the last 50 years will be selected on the basis of detailed overview provided in the literature review chapter. In the second step, the terminology identification of selected doctrinal documents will be conducted. It will help to categorize the similar and dissimilar terminologies used to define the intangible heritage values in doctrinal documents.
The three most relevant international cultural heritage policy documents are UNESCO’s World Heritage
Convention 1976, ICOMOS’ NARA Charter 1994 and UNESCO’s Vienna Memorandum 2003. They are
selected as follows: the first two documents are the most important and pioneer documents directly referring to the inclusion of other elements (apart from the tangible elements only) and also focus on involving locals to define heritage and authenticity, third document is considered revolutionary as it changed the traditional theories on heritage by suggesting to adopt integrated heritage management approaches like HUL.
In the following table, different terminologies used by international doctrines have been put. Every row denotes a different doctrine (put in the chronological order) addressing the terms defined as intangible heritage values. Sr. No International Cultural Heritage Doctrines 1. WHC-1976 social relationships human activities cultural values uniqueness 2. Nara Charter-1994 local values spiritual and emotional values unique local techniques context 3. Vienna Memorandum social relationships human experience Traditions socio-cultural compatibility Traditional knowledge context Common Denominator social relationships activities& experience cultural values spiritual and emotional values uniqueness Traditional knowledge context
Fig 2. Terms to define Intangible values under different international CH doctrines
In the last row, a series of common denominators has been listed. It shows similar terms used by different doctrines. These common denominators will be used as reference to assess mapping techniques of the intangible heritage values in case study analysis.
Following are the definitions of these common denominators:
Social Relationships are interactions between two or more individuals or groups with each other and Activities & Experiences can be defined as behaviors, actions and the process of living through an event,
phase or place. Cultural Values denotes importance of something in a culture, Spiritual and Emotional
Values denotes importance of something due to a sentimental connection and Uniqueness is the quality
or state of being unlike anything else in comparison. Local/traditional Knowledge is knowledge or skill Intangible Heritage
17 that have developed overtime in a society and passed from generation to generation and Context can be termed as a particular setting or circumstances of an area.
Analysis phase-II
As already described in the identification phase that the major part of this research is comprised of analyzing two international cultural heritage approaches: HUL and the Quick Scan methodology. The quick scan methodology is used by the Shared Cultural heritage programme (SCH) under the Cultural Heritage agency of the Netherlands (CHA). So, data required for Quick scan analysis will be mainly obtained from the online archives of the CHA and, also from the published reports. The data required for research on the QSM’s case study will also be collected from the published books and reports of the CHA. The HUL is also an international approach developed by some main international agencies: UNESCO, WHITRAP and ICOMOS. The international virtue of HUL made it easier to collect relevant data as its easily available online. HUL and its case study, Ballarat City, both have their own online database which had been very helpful during this whole research. A very little part of data collection is also comprised of non-formal and semi-structured interviews conducted with professionals from the HUL and Quick Scan method. They were conducted to get into the depth of these two approaches and understand their applications. Author also attended two training workshops under the HUL and Quick Scan method platform which helped to formalize data based on participatory observations.
This research covers two case studies from the HUL & Quick Scan method; one is in Australia (Ballarat) and another is in Indonesia (Probolinggo). Ballarat is a historic city in Australia, it was the first city to adopt Historic Urban Landscape approach. It’s also considered as an ideal reference to understand HUL implementation and Probolinggo is one of the key study conducted under the Share Cultural Heritage programme. It’s historic harbor city located in East Java province, Indonesia. It played in important role during the Dutch colonialism due to its important location (sea harbor) and railway line system till Surabaya province. (van Dun, et al., 2015) In the analysis phase, mapping of identified intangible values such as social relationships, activities and experiences, cultural values, uniqueness, spiritual/emotional values and context will be analysed in these two case studies. To analyse mapping techniques, following aspects will be investigated in each case study:
a. Mapping of the Historical Context & Spaces of Memories: It will be investigated that if the historical context (social, economic, political and religious conditions of the past) of the desired area has been mapped under HUL and Quick scan method. This analysis will give a comparative perspective to understand current situation in relation to the past.
b. Maximizing Engagements: Survey & Fieldwork: Surveys and field works conducted under HUL and Quick scan method will be analysed to find the public involvement in mapping process. The higher level of public involvement including minorities (especially in the multicultural society) indicates the unbiased mapping process. It also helps to understand the multicultural values of different groups and local communities’ involvement.
c. Communication & Involvement: Local Professionals and NGOs: Both policies, the Historic
Urban Landscape approach and the Quick Scan method are international approaches. They also involve international heritage professionals in the heritage mapping process. In this sub-phase, involvement of local professionals such as students, academics, architects, archeologists,
18 stakeholders and NGOs will be analysed. This analysis will help to understand that aspect of local knowledge, activities and experiences of the desired case study.
Integration Phase-III
In the final phase, analysis of the recommendations made by both approaches (HUL & Quick Scan) and local heritage policy documents will be done. The first step will denote that what important measures have been recommended to conserve the intangible values in heritage conservation and management process? This step will further help to analyse the local policy documents. Local policy documents will provide a final answer to the main research question: How intangible heritage values retention have been integrated in the local policy documents?
20 Chapter III Literature Review
The Significance of Value in Heritage
Underpinning this research there is an assumption that the conservation of intangible values in heritage management is essential as it strengthens the integrity, the localness, and the uniqueness of heritage. This research refers to the ultimate role of heritage conservation where objects and places must be conserved to maintain the values embodied by heritage. (Rami, et al., 2000) Valuing is a process which gives significance to something but it’s important to examine and understand ‘Why’ and ‘How’ heritage is valued and by most importantly by ‘Whom’. The value-based debate in heritage is a multivalent discussion; it depends very much on the cultural heritage professionals as well as the local communities to determine the notion of value, its significance and what is valuable. Some researchers debate about its self-explanatory stature explaining that ‘societies retain objects because they have value for the members of that society’ (Caple, 2009) . This section will discuss the evolvement of the concept of value and its significance in the international cultural heritage policy documents. The continuous evolvement of values’ concept further led to the development of landscape approach which gave propagation to the concept of intangible heritage values. This detailed discussion has mainly referred to the main topic of thesis research, the intangible heritage values and their integration in the heritage conservation approaches. This section will also provide an overview and analysis of the relevant concepts like the sense of place and the placelessness.
The Venice Charter (1964) and Artistic, Aesthetic & Historical Values
Value is a very complicated subject especially in contemporary society where ideologies like post-modern, post-nation and post-ideology have provided different meanings to same term. (Lowenthal, 2000) The incorporation of the term value in the field of heritage management is not a very old concept. (Szmelter, 2013) But the traditional conservation decisions also signify the ‘valuing’ system which was not clearly narrated under the term value but it can be denoted as the decisions valuing ‘artistic, aesthetics and historic’ elements. The Venice Charter (1964) can be regarded as the most appropriate example. Although the term ‘value’ isn’t directly used in the Venice Charter but the great emphasis had been laid on the aesthetic value of the tangible heritage. The Venice Charter (1964) introduced the concept of authenticity by referring a monument as historic evidence whose ‘historic value’ must be maintained. It states that “the restoration in any case must be preceded and followed by an archaeological and historical study of the monument. Its aim is to preserve and reveal the aesthetic and historic value of the monument which is based on respect for original material and authentic documents.” (Venice, 1964)
The Venice Charter refrained any additions in historic built structure to protect its original artistic value, “additions cannot be allowed except in so far as they do not detract from the interesting parts of the building, its traditional setting, the balance of its composition and its relation with its surroundings.” (Venice, 1964) The Venice Charter continued to be the most influential and well-adopted document until 1972 when the concept of Outstanding Universal Value was introduced.
21 The 1972 World Heritage convention & the Outstanding Universal Value (OUV)
The 1972 World Heritage convention addressed the most significant and novel concept of the ‘universal heritage value’. (Martini, 2013) According to UNESCO, Outstanding Universal Value basically denotes that some sites possess exceptional values which are equally important for all the humankind and no one can deny their value as an outstanding asset. (WHC, 1972)These sites can exist in any part of the world and they must be protected regardless of any social, economic, cultural and geographical difference.
The Outstanding Universal value concept refers to the tangible and intangible exceptional values both, one of the famous example of OUV is Jemaa el-Fnaa bazar, Marrakesh. (UNESCO, 2008) This place has exceptional intangible heritage and also regarded as one of the pioneer site to be listed in the World heritage sites for its unique intangible heritage. It’s important to refer to the World Heritage list inscription process as that the concept of Outstanding Universal Value is considered as the main criteria to nominate and include heritage in the UNESCO World Heritage list. (WH, 2018)
However, the main aspect of this concept was not to confine or restrict the definition of universal value. It aimed to keep it open and fluid. But ‘the dominant bureaucratic and ideological framing of applications and procedural advice given led to the bias towards the monumental, art-aesthetic and architectural that subsequently resulted in the World Heritage Committee being heavily criticised for its 'Eurocentrism', with an excessive focus on the monumental as expressions of genius, as well consolidating UNESCO’s role as the legitimator of global heritage (privileging a bias towards the nation/ states party as the originator and final arbiter of what constituted 'cultural property').’ (Rowlands, 2013)
The notion of Authenticity and Value in the NARA document (1994)
Due to dominant bureaucratic involvement, UNESCO and the World Heritage Committee re-evaluated the universal value concept in 1990s. Both agencies decided to extend the notion of value and it became very broad and extensive idea encompassing the intangible heritage values, socio-cultural aspects and the ideas of human creativity. This conceptualization of heritage value was an affirmation that heritage must recognize context as a living and evolving environment. Following the rigidity of the concept of artistic, aesthetic and historic values in the Venice Charter and the bureaucratic hegemony of the Outstanding Universal Value (OUV) in the 1972s International Heritage Convention, ICOMOS formulated another international doctrine with the evolving notion of authenticity in 1994 as NARA document.
The NARA document addresses the need of broader understanding of cultural heritage and diversity by incorporating the notion of authenticity and local values in the field of heritage conservation. (NARA, 1994) NARA document was created to deal with the inconsistent approach of the Venice Charter which caused many practical problems in conservation of historic buildings. Its development was also referred to the evolving concept of authenticity in the late 1990s. (Getty, 1994)This document emphasizes on respecting the cultural, social and local values of all societies. “The diversity of cultures and heritage in our world is an irreplaceable source of spiritual and intellectual richness for all human kind. The protection and enhancement of cultural and heritage diversity in our world should be actively promoted as an essential aspect of human development.” (NARA, 1994) It also refers to judge values and authenticity of cultural
22 property by stating that: “There are no fixed criteria to judge… it must be evaluated within the cultural context to which it belongs.” (NARA, 1994)
Value and the Historic Urban Landscape Approach
Following the recognition of diversity in heritage and its role as a living entity rather than stagnant, ‘heritage value’ shift occurred where heritage is valued on the base of typicality than uniqueness. The newly developed approach by UNESCO- Historic Urban Landscape (2011) affirms both concepts: Outstanding Universal Value (OUV) and ‘Heritage Value’. (UNESCO, 2011) In the Historic Urban Landscape approach, “an urban area is considered valuable because of the historic, cultural and natural layers of values and attributes extending beyond the notion of ‘historic centre’ or ‘ensemble’; it also includes the broader urban context and its geographical setting.” (UNESCO, 2011) However, HUL is the only international approach clearly mentioning the intangible heritage values (in case studies) and the importance of integrating them in the heritage conservation process. It also devised toolkit to practically implement this notion such as civic engagement tool, community engagement tool and knowledge and planning tools.
Identifying Intangible values in the Heritage Conservation Approaches
Before going into the detail, it’s important to answer some basic questions about this thesis research. What are the intangible heritage values? Are they different from the values in heritage? And how can we define them? If we refer to the international cultural heritage doctrines, it becomes clear that no document discussed the term intangible heritage values exclusively but it referred to the elements (in the 1972 World Heritage recommendations and the NARA chasrter) which constitute intangible heritage values such as traditions, localness, spiritual and emotional values. Deacon also explains that the ‘Intangible heritage value’ is a term used to describe spiritual, symbolic or other social values that people may associate with a site. (Deacon, 2004)
Meanwhile, at the international sphere, the intangible heritage values are mostly treated as separate entities whereas Jean Louis argues that ‘the distinction between physical heritage and intangible heritage is … artificial. Physical heritage only attains its true significance when it sheds light on its underlying values.’ (Louis, 2003) The NARA document also emphasizes on resolving the artificial boundary between intangible and tangible heritage as it puts great emphasis on considering cultural diversity and cultural context in the field of heritage conservation. (NARA, 1994) Several researchers have also discussed this unintended dualism of treating tangible and intangible heritage differently : Dealing with the material heritage as tangible and separating the values, feelings, norms, memories as intangible heritage. (Swensen, et al., 2013) But in reality, these intangible values define the character of the tangible heritage. Without these aspects of feelings and memories, tangible heritage is just an amalgam of materials and Architectural style which can be replicated anywhere in the world. As Laurajane Smith aphorismXSX: A tendency among international organisations about entitling the tangible and intangible heritage as separate entities are very visible in the international doctrine as well thus treating material artefacts, instruments and structures different from the cultural values. (Smith, 2006).
23 The idea of integrating intangible heritage values in the heritage management planning has been embraced well by the upper echelon of heritage conservation during the last decade. (Bakker, 2003) It aims to manifest the close relationship between place and society through its cultural landscape. Bakker (2003) argues that’ the conservation of intangible values is multifaceted and can be problematic, even in the upper echelons of the conservation world’. (Bakker, 2003) The actualisation of intangible heritage values on paper is easy especially through the multifaceted definitions but issues like the legibility of intangible values in a plural society are hard to manifest. Intangible values can be highly contested and politicized in a plural society so, how to ensure that they would be well incorporated in the planning/designing phases like all other engineering decisions. However, in the developing countries, sometimes tangible heritage disappears due to the ultimate need of development or the incapability of heritage management institutions. (Rogers, 2017) Such scenarios are fatal for the tangible and intangible heritage, both. But even after devising holistic approaches such as the Historic Urban Landscape, practical retention of intangible values in the built heritage conservation is a big deal. (Bandarin & van Oers, 2012) It is may be because of the unwillingness of the authorities to engage themselves in this concept. Some orthodox institutions argue that in the heritage management, site handling and conservation is the task of engineers and architects who deal with the material objects only.
Intangible values play an important role in heritage conservation, in process to conserve a historic old building, it doesn’t only require the conservation of materials, structure and the architecture style but also the values and experiences attached to it as well. Intangible values can also be regarded as the spirit or identity of a building which defines a building’s character. Environmental psychologists argue that ‘the Sense of Place is the particular experience of a person in a particular setting because of the specific character of that place (feeling stimulated, excited, joyous, expansive, and so forth) (Najafi & Mohd Shariff, 2011) and in Landscape Architecture: ‘A sense of place is something that we ourselves create in the course of time. It is the result of habit (affinity), custom or culture’ (Cross, 2001) So as a result of definitions mentioned above, we can draw an argument that the intangible values are what that constitute the sense of place and in case of losing the intangible values, a place would lose its sense of place as well.
Value, sense of place and the placelessness
These intangible values define the concept of sense of place and can also be termed as place attachment and association. Place is a particular space which is covered with meanings and values defined by the users. People value certain tangible and intangible constructs because it defines their identity also. Therefore, Sense of place is a general way someone feels about a place. In the field of cultural heritage, scholarly debates about values and heritage management systems put huge emphasis on context and society. How people treat their heritage and norms defines that what they want to values and what they want to conserve. (Swensen, et al., 2013) People’s attachment to a place or tradition is what makes it valuable. (Zakariya & Ujanga, 2015)
Meanwhile, sense of place is a concept which deals with the transition of space into a place based on human attachment, emotions and values. It is usually defined as ‘an overarching impression encompassing the general ways in which people feel about places, senses it, and assign concepts and values to it.’ (Najafi & Mohd Shariff, 2011) Sense of place is a very broad and diverse concept. People relate to a place because it carries an influence or connection. This connection can be based on symbols that make a place exclusive or
24
valuable. Steele explains the concept of sense of place as a particular experience of an individual in a
particular setting. (Steele, 1981) It is also important to mention that ‘the word place is often considered as a location of a city, neighborhood or town but place can be a mental construct as well; it includes associations, feelings, emotional attachment which can also be referred as intangible value of a(an) building/area.’ (Qazimi, 2014) However, it is also notable that the no conservation of intangible values (which constructs the sense of place) can result in palacelessness. Relph explains the concept of placelessness that ‘due to uncontrolled growth of human settlements, people are experiencing changes in their lifestyles and dwellings. Despite the technological advancement, place conveys no meaning which is resulting in the sense of placelessness.’ (Najafi & Mohd Shariff, 2011) He also states that placelessness can be associated as setting with no distinctive characters or sense of place. (Relph, 2008) Relph explains that ‘when places cannot be culturally recognized, they suffer from lacking a sense of place; in this case, people are faced with placelessness. Therefore, Placelessness can be explained as the physical characteristics of nonplace, which is culturally unidentifiable environments that are similar anywhere.’ (Najafi & Mohd Shariff, 2011)
25 The Significance of Landscape in Heritage
The term landscape can be defined as visible features of a land, considered aesthetically pleasing in terms of their visual characters. (Webster, n.d.) When term landscape is used in reference to Architecture, it usually denotes the design of an outside area surrounded by particular buildings for an appealing environment. But beyond the conventional definitions of the term landscape, it has been the focus of scholarly work by cultural geographers for the past 40 years. Human attachment to landscape and how we find identity in places and landscape is also a common theme in studies of the sense of place. The cultural landscape paradigm offers a trajectory to think and deal with the landscape study as a form of social history. (Taylor, 2016) The discourse about landscape and its definition in the urban sphere allows us to understand its cultural significance. Landscape is not static; it reflects changing human ideologies over time. (Biger, 1992) Meanwhile, in the field of built heritage, the dimension of landscape was extended beyond the physical territories from the 1970s onwards. But it was not implemented until 1992 World Heritage convention when it was felt crucial to define heritage with no longer focus on monuments solely because of the increasingly important role of heritage in urban development. Historic Urban Landscape approach is the first international strategy which used the world landscape in its title beyond the conventional definition of this term.
The Origin of the Historic Urban Landscape Concept
In the field of heritage conservation, ‘aesthetic-bias’ approaches and the hegemony of architects and art historian mostly resulted in protecting and restoring the monuments, even when the cultural significance was present throughout an urban area . (Smith, 2015) This object-based conservation approach dealt with the tangible attributes only ; building materials, structures, artefacts and facades. It positioned itself opposition to development by defining what to keep, to conserve and protect. But it couldn’t compliance with the needs of social and economic functions of cities. In this regard, it was felt crucial to develop integrated development approaches. The importance of integral and holistic approach towards heritage and urban development was first reflected by UNESCO in 1960s. Afterwards, heritage conservation moved to a much wider spectrum, incorporating the multi-disciplinary agenda. Concepts like place, landscape, and identity replaced the singular represented entity -Monument. Over the last few decades, this agenda has been manifested in several international cultural policy doctrines. The recent holistic concept of the Historic Urban Landscape is also a culmination of previous approach.
In the following section, a detailed background of the international doctrines linked to the origin of the Historic Urban Landscape approach is provided. It starts from the ‘Introduction of the term ‘Landscape’ in 1962 World Heritage Conference and precedes until the emergence of the HUL concept in 2011.
Beauty and Character of Landscapes and Sites: UNESCO Recommendations (1962)
Following the destructions took place during WWII, reconstruction of cities became one of the primary objectives of affected countries. Efforts to carry out fast reconstruction also resulted in ill-regulated development of urban centers. Vast plans for industrial and commercial progress accompanied with the modern developments badly affected the beauty and character of historic cities. (Taylor, 2016) Concerning the safeguarding of the beauty and character of landscape and sites, UNESCO called out its session in 1962
26 to formulate the proposal about conserving aesthetic value of landscape and sites. It was the very first time when the term landscape was used in relation to site. It also indicated the expanded approach of conservation which was now looking ahead of the singular entity conservation approach. The general purpose of this recommendation was “the safeguarding of the beauty and character of landscapes and, where possible, the restoration of the aspect of natural, rural and urban landscapes and sites, which have a cultural or aesthetic interest or form typical natural surroundings.” (UNESCO,1962)
Despite the inclusion of landscape dimension, this recommendation was still focusing on aesthetics and beauty. It also proposed to divide the areas with significant characters into zones and where necessary, isolate these zones and forbade communities acquisition to prevent further destruction. The General Conference recommendations states that, “In a scheduled zone, the aesthetic character is of prime importance, scheduling `by zones' should involve control of plots and observation of certain general requirements of an aesthetic order covering the use of materials, and their colour and height standards.” (UNESCO,1962) One of the important and unique aspect discussed in this recommendation was incorporation of ‘Education of the public’ agenda. It advised member states to work on developing strategies which could develop public respect for landscapes and publicizing the regulations to ensure citizen participation.
After the 1962 recommendations, the Venice charter (ICOMOS, 1964) recognized the value of surroundings of monuments. It addressed the value of historic centres and stressed to develop an international legislative framework. This charter not only promoted the previous concept of safeguarding the beauty and character od landscapes and sites but it also initiated the dialogues to promote integrated conservation. Venice Charter also passed a ‘motion concerning protection and rehabilitation of historic centres’ which states that, “we should keep the necessity of safeguarding and improving these historic centres and integrating them with contemporary life in view". (Venice,1964)
Some researchers argue that the Venice Charter is the first international doctrine to expand the definition of historic monument but it was already addressed in the 1962 recommendations. Venice Charter re-addressed the landscape dimension with different terminology. This time it re-addressed the landscape dimension as a historic monument which can be a rural and urban setting signifying a historic event or particular civilization. Following the Venice Charter recommendations, UNESCO published another document, the Preservation & Protection of Cultural Property in 1968 concerning the preservation of cultural heritage property endangered by public or private works. It called out to create a balance between socio-economic needs and urban development within the realm of heritage conservation.
In this section, few international cultural heritage doctrine (World Heritage Convention 1972 and 1992) are repeated but with different motivation and agenda. In the following analysis, the focus in on the concept of Landscape but in previous section, analysis was conducted to highlight the notion of values in heritage conservation.
27 Conservation of Cultural & Natural Heritage Resources: World Heritage Convention (1972)
The most prominent agenda to conserve Cultural and Natural heritage resources was addressed at the 1972 World Heritage convention. It was the very first time when the term cultural heritage was addressed internationally. The WHC (1972) convention referred monuments, sites and groups of buildings as cultural heritage, “because of their architecture, their homogeneity or their place in the landscape, are of outstanding universal value from the point of view of history, art or science”. The WHC (1972) recommended member parties to form conservation policies which could give cultural and heritage resources a prominent function in the lives of local communities. It also advised to incorporate cultural heritage conservation policies into planning and development projects.
It was also felt crucial to address the need to protect cultural heritage resources from threatening developments which are not only destructing the traditional way of life but also fatal for the socio-economic conditions. The concept of Outstanding Universal Value (OUV) was also first introduced in this recommendation, quoting that, “Outstanding universal value means cultural and/or natural significance which is so exceptional as to transcend national boundaries and to be of common importance for present and future generations of all humanity. As such, the permanent protection of this heritage is of the highest importance to the international community as a whole.” (WHC,1972)
Parallel to UNESCO, the need to conserve urban areas in Europe was felt immediately after the wave of Modernism in 1970. It was also addressed by the Council of Europe, COE, the European Charter of the Architectural Heritage and the Amsterdam Declaration 1975, both. These conventions are the example of initiation of this concept. (Amsterdam, 1975) Amsterdam declaration highlighted the need for new regulations and administrative measures to promote support for conservation. It also underlined the financial need, technical skills, international exchange programmes and training workshops for better practices.
Both declarations, the European Charter of the Architectural Heritage and the Amsterdam Declaration 1975 called for a developing an integrated approach where architectural heritage is conserved involving local communities and authorities, the European Charter of the Architectural Heritage stressed this notion by stating that, "integrated conservation involves the responsibility of local authorities and calls for citizens’ participation". (ECAH, 1975) It also called out to develop conservation education programmes for young generation. The conclusive ceremony of Architectural Heritage Year,1975 stipulated that despite all the financial, legal and technical support, there is an utmost need to develop cooperation strategies between local community and stakeholders to promote integrated conservation.
Conservation of Urban Areas: World Heritage Convention (1976)
Following the introduction of Cultural and natural heritage resources in the World Heritage Convention (1972), UNESCO adopted the recommendation about ‘Conserving of Historic Area’. Now the notion of cultural and natural heritage resources was extended by incorporating the elements like living beings and daily environment.
28 The 1976 recommendation also became the first approach developed by UNESCO specifically dealing with the protection and management of historic area as accumulation of tangible and intangible heritage both. (UNESCO, 1976) Reference to the 1976 recommendation is important because due to its holistic agenda, it became the most accepted doctrine until 1992. This recommendation was very broad, it states the definition of historic areas as, ‘Historic and architectural (including vernacular) areas shall be taken to mean any groups of buildings, structures and open spaces including archaeological and paleontological sites, constituting human settlements in an urban or rural environment, the cohesion and value of which, from the archaeological, architectural, prehistoric, historic, aesthetic or socio-cultural point of view are recognized.’ (Martini, 2013) The Recommendation further states that: ‘Every historic area and its surroundings should be considered in their totality as a coherent whole whose balance and specific nature depend on the fusion of the parts of which it is composed and which include human activities as much as the buildings, the spatial organization, values and the surroundings. All valid elements, associations including human activities, however modest, thus have significance in relation to the whole which must not be disregarded.’ (Martini, 2013) This declaration was also addressed the concept of Outstanding Universal Value which was first declared in the WHC (1972).
In addition to the introduction of the concept of historic areas and incorporation of OUV, the 1976 recommendations stressed to include the multi-disciplinary studies such as demographic data, analysis of economic, social and cultural activities, ways of life and social relationships, land-tenure problems, the urban infrastructure, the state of road system, communication networks and the reciprocal link between protected area and surrounding zones.
Historic Urban Landscape and the 1976 World Heritage Recommendation: Reference to the 1976 recommendation is important because, due to its holistic agenda, it was considered a prime reference for the development of the HUL. The first idea was to edit 1976 recommendations since HUL took reference from it but later it was considered more relevant to create a new recommendation.
Later, the International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) stated in the Historic Towns charter (1987) that there is an immense need to develop coherent policies by incorporating the conservation of historic towns and historic centres in the economic and social development planning. It also adopted the Washington Charter which focused on recognizing the city’s tangible and intangible attributes both. This charter aimed to include the spiritual elements, character of an area and urban morphology which widened the integrated heritage concept.
Adoption of the Cultural Landscape concept: World Heritage Committee (1992)
The notion of Cultural Landscape was not recognized internationally until 1992, when the World Heritage Committee adopted this term for the very first time in an international Convention – World Heritage Convention 1992. “All types of landscape can be considered, including urban and industrial ones, and inscribed on the World Heritage List as cultural landscapes if they are of outstanding universal value and meet the criteria.” Cultural landscape emerged as a fundamental concept for the protection of larger territorial entities. (Martini, 2013). After inclusion of the Cultural Landscape concept, this convention recommended to develop global strategy particularly focusing the promotion of OUV of the cultural
