Social Quality in the Conservation Process of Living Heritage Sites

Social Quality in the Conservation

Process of Living Heritage Sites

Proefschrift

ter verkrijging van de graad van doctor aan de Technische Universiteit Delft

op gezag van de Rector Magnificus Prof.dr.ir. J.T. Fokkema voorzitter van het College voor Promoties,

in het openbaar te verdedigen op 19 juni 2008 om 17.30 uur door

Ping KONG

Master of Arts (Architecture), National University of Singapore Master of Urban Planning and Urban Design, Tongji University, Shanghai,

P.R.China

Dit proefschrift is goedgekeurd door de promotors: Prof. A. Tzonis Prof. Dr.L. Lefaivre Prof. Dip. Ing H.J. Rosemann Samenstelling promotiecommissie: Rector Magnificus voorzitter Prof. A. Tzonis Technische Universiteit Delft, promotor Prof. Dr.L. Lefaivre Universitat fur Angewandte Kunst, Vienna,

Austria, promotor Prof. Dip. Ing H.J. Rosemann Technische Universiteit Delft, promotor Prof. M. Levin Technion Israel Institute of Technology Prof. V. Lykoudis University of Notre Dame, U.S.A. Prof. W. Patijn Technische Universiteit Delft Prof. X. D. Li Tsinghua University, China Published by International Forum on Urbanism (IFoU) Berlageweg 1, 2628 CR Delft The Netherlands Copyright © Ping KONG All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form, by any electronic or mechanical means without permission in writing from the author

ISBN: 978‐90‐78658‐08‐5

To Mama, Papa and Mark

‐ I ‐

Abstract The ‘UNESCO World Heritage Convention’ was ratificated on November 16,

1972. Since then, both public and private sectors around the world have

attached growing importance to the safeguarding and conservation of

selected cultural and natural ‘objects’, focusing on physical characteristics.

World Heritage sites receive major publicity and as a result become notable

attractions for large numbers of tourists from all over the world. However, in

spite of the clear economic benefits and political prestige, this massive influx

of tourists disrupts and in most cases, in the long run, destroys the social

quality of indigenous community. The deterioration of social quality could

ultimately undermine the application of conservation policy.

The aim of this research is to: 1) identify the negative impact of conservation

policies implemented in living World Heritage sites on the social quality of

traditional communities; 2) develop a design tool constraining spatial

morphology to overcome the negative influences on the social quality The

study leads to a new approach to conservation planning that takes into

account sustaining social quality while enforcing UNESCO World Heritage

conservation program.

Given the complexity and novelty of social problems as new activities and

actors enter into traditional living communities, a comparative case‐study

approach has been adopted, employing on‐site survey and in situ

investigations by the author1. Two cases of UNESCO World Heritage sites

have been chosen: the Dayan town in Lijiang, Yunan province of China, and

the Ogimachi village in the Chubu region of Japan. In both cases, the

conservation program has been applied with respect to physical features of

the sites. However, they have been implemented differently from a planning 1 The Dayan case study was conducted during the compiling of Conservation Plan for Lijiang ancient town, led by Dr. Shao Yong in June 2002. The social survey was carried out by a team of students in Tongji University. Questionnaires were distributed among the local residents in the five main neighborhoods in Dayan town, The Ogimachi case study was conducted solo by the author with the assistance of Japanese colleagues from ACCU (Nara) in Nov 2007

‐ II ‐

and design point of view, and thus have had different impacts on the social

quality of local communities: negative in the case of Dayan and positive in

the case of Ogimachi. In the first instance, the study has been used to

identify the various aspects and parameters of the problem, and to develop

a hypothesis about the role of constrained physical organization in retaining

social quality; in the second instance, the study aims to test the model

derived from the hypothesis and to develop a complementary design

guidelines.

Drawing from literature, the study defines social quality in terms of

observable, measurable social indicators in the context of living heritage

conservation. The data obtained from case studies have been analyzed and

generalized within the MOP (Morphology, Operation, Performance)

framework. Given the above analysis, the conclusion arrives as a new

knowledge‐based design tool in the form of design guidelines. The guidelines

constrain spatial morphology to enable social interactions and enhance

social quality. Extrapolating from this study, the new knowledge‐based

design tool works in parallel with the conservation of physical objects as

applied by current UNESCO policy to safeguard social quality of indigenous

community.

The conclusions of this dissertation are limited by: the number and the type

of cases selected; the methods of data collection and data analysis adopted.

These limitations might affect the generalization of the conclusions and

applicability of the tool. However, they suggest directions for further

investigations towards understanding better the relation between social

quality maintenance and environmental conservation.

Key words:

living heritage sites social quality conservation tourism development spatial morphology design guidelines

‐ III ‐

Preface and Acknowledgement The problems with living heritage conservation have been hovering in my

minds for years since I was involved as a student assistant in compiling

conservation plans and reconstruction designs for historic settlements in

China. The field work experience inspired me with insights into

understanding the conflicts between conservation and tourism development.

Currently working as a program specialist under the umbrella of UNESCO, I

have had the chance to review conservation programs at a number of World

Heritage sites from a more objective and comprehensive point of view. It is

evident that pressures from urbanisation and tourism development not only

exert negative impacts on the physical environment, but more substantially

destroy the social tissue of living heritage sites. The exodus of indigenous

inhabitants and the discontinuity of traditional life shed light on the research

theme. This dissertation integrated the indicators of social quality in the

conservation progress of living heritage sites. It examined the social

influence of new activities and actors introduced by tourism‐related

development, and highlighted the importance and sensitivity of constrained

spatial morphology in retaining the social quality of the traditional

community in the long run.

The research was developed with Prof. A. Tzonis and Prof. L. Lefaivre, who

helped me with expert precision and great guidance towards the best

possible outcome. The progress of this research has been benefited from a

number of people and institutes, without whom, this dissertation could not

have taken its current form, nor have the depths and strengths as it contains

now.

First and foremost, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my

promoters, Prof. A. Tzonis, Prof. L. Lefaivre and Prof. J. Rosemann for their

continuous support, patience and encouragement throughout the study.

Special thanks go to my committee members, Prof. M. Levin, Prof. V.

Lykoudis, Prof. W. Patijn and Prof. X. D. Li for their valuable comments to

improve the presentation of the dissertation. I am obliged to Prof. Zhiqiang

Wu, who inspired me on the social sensitivity of design and supported me in

various occasions. I would also like to thank Dr. Yong Shao, who offered me

‐ IV ‐

insights and valuable data about the conservation plan in Lijiang ancient

town. My understanding on living heritage conservation broadened by the

research on Living Heritage Sites Program and inspiring discussions with Mr.

M. Bouchenaki, Dr. G. Wijesuriya, Mr. J. King and other colleagues at

ICCROM. I am also pleased to thank ACCU, Nara Office, in particular Ms.

Hokezu and Mr. Yamashita, who provided me kind assistance in translation

and data collection in the investigation of Ogimachi village. I appreciate the

support from Mr. H. Stovel, Mr. J. Feng from UNESCO WHC and colleagues

from Chinese National Commission for UNESCO. I am also indebted to Prof. J.

Zhou and my colleagues, Ms. H. Li, Ms. X.X. Hu in UNESCO WHITR‐AP for

their continuous professional and moral backing. Special thanks also go to

Mr. Surtees for proof‐reading, Mr. F.D. Qian for cover design, staff in Faculty

of Architecture, TU Delft for helping in administrative matters, and seniors in

Design Knowledge System Research Centre, TU Delft for their inspiring

precedent research. Last, but not least, I would like to devote this research

to my parents and my fiancé for being there for me with great faith and

unwavering love, accompanying me through this adventurous yet beautiful

journey.

Ping KONG

Shanghai, 2008

‐ V ‐

Contents

ABSTRACT ........................................................................................ I

PREFACE AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT…………………………………………….……III

CONTENTS…………………………………………………….…………………………………….V

1 INTRODUCTION ..........................................................................1

1.1 Objectives ................................................................................... 1 1.2 Key issues ................................................................................... 2

1.2.1 Living heritage site ........................................................................... 2 1.2.2 Conservation .................................................................................... 4 1.2.3 Social quality .................................................................................... 5 1.2.4 Social capital..................................................................................... 6 1.2.5 Cultural diversity .............................................................................. 7

1.3 Brief research background ......................................................... 8 1.3.1 Evolvement of heritage conservation .............................................. 8 1.3.2 Social concerns in conservation ....................................................... 9

1.4 Problem statements ................................................................. 12 1.4.1 Lopsided value assessment of professionals over local populations

13 1.4.2 Absence of social considerations on the daily lives of indigenous

people 14 1.4.3 Lack of applicable guidelines to retain social quality in conservation

practices...................................................................................................... 15 1.5 Methodology ............................................................................ 16

1.5.1 Method of case study..................................................................... 16 1.5.2 Methods in case study ................................................................... 17

1.6 Procedure of the study............................................................. 19

2 CASE STUDY: DAYAN IN LIJIANG ANCIENT TOWN..............................22

2.1 Reasons to choose Lijiang ancient town .................................. 22 2.2 Physical and social features of Lijiang ancient town................ 25

2.2.1 Unique natural landscape, townscape and vernacular architecture

25

‐ VI ‐

2.2.2 Social development ........................................................................28 2.2.3 Conservation interventions ............................................................29

2.3 Brief introduction to Social survey ........................................... 30 2.3.1 General social‐economic status in Dayan town .............................30 2.3.2 Social survey in Dayan town...........................................................32

2.4 Social analysis ........................................................................... 33 2.4.1 The change of demography............................................................33 2.4.2 The change of social structure .......................................................37 2.4.3 The change of land‐use and environmental quality .......................39 2.4.4 The change of social interactions ...................................................46

2.5 Reviews on current management at Lijiang ancient town....... 49 2.6 Summary of social problems in Dayan town............................ 51

3 CRITICAL REVIEWS ON LIVING HERITAGE CONSERVATION ................... 54

3.1 Findings from the Living Heritage Sites Program ..................... 54 3.1.1 Main characteristics of living heritage sites ...................................55 3.1.2 Main problems in current living heritage conservation .................56 3.1.3 Living heritage approach ................................................................58

3.2 Responses to main problems in living heritage conservation.. 59 3.2.1 Arguments on authenticity.............................................................59 3.2.2 Interpretation on functions............................................................61

3.3 Main contributions of the living heritage approach................. 62 3.3.1 Integrated approach through direct community involvement ......62 3.3.2 Highlight of living components.......................................................63 3.3.3 Advantages in comparison with traditional methods ....................64

3.4 Problems regarding the living heritage approach.................... 67 3.5 Some complementary thinking about the Living Heritage Sites

Program................................................................................................ 69 3.6 Summary of social problems .................................................... 70

4 SOCIAL STUDIES IN LIVING HERITAGE CONSERVATION........................ 72

4.1 Growing social concerns on living heritage values................... 72 4.1.1 Extension of heritage values ..........................................................72 4.1.2 Social capital in living heritage conservation..................................73 4.1.3 Development of social concerns ....................................................74

4.2 Social quality in living heritage conservation ........................... 76

‐ VII ‐

4.2.1 Definition of social quality ............................................................. 77 4.2.2 Internal and external social quality................................................ 78 4.2.3 Framework of social quality ........................................................... 78

4.3 Studies on quality of life........................................................... 81 4.3.1 Indicators for QOL.......................................................................... 82 4.3.2 Meeting human needs in living heritage conservation.................. 82

4.4 Studies on quality of society..................................................... 88 4.4.1 Social cohesion and corresponding indicators............................... 88 4.4.2 Social empowerment and corresponding indicators ..................... 89 4.4.3 Social indicators ............................................................................. 90

5 HYPOTHETIC MODEL TOWARDS AN APPLICABLE DESIGN‐TOOL.............93

5.1 Social study of environment..................................................... 93 5.2 Linkage between social performance and spatial morphology96

5.2.1 Selective social indicators .............................................................. 96 5.2.2 MOP model in living heritage conservation................................... 97

5.3 Hypothetic model in response to social performance ........... 101 5.3.1 Evolutionary understanding on spatial morphology.................... 101 5.3.2 Analysis framework of operations ............................................... 102 5.3.3 Model to interpret social quality ................................................. 104

6 SOCIAL CONSERVATION OF OGIMACHI VILLAGE..............................109

6.1 Reason to choose Ogimachi village in Shirakawa‐go area ..... 109 6.2 Comparison with Dayan town................................................ 112 6.3 Distinguished features in Ogimachi village ............................ 116 6.4 Participation of local residents in the process of conservation

and tourism development.................................................................. 118 6.4.1 Local initiation for conservation of Ogimachi village ................... 119 6.4.2 Social associations........................................................................ 121 6.4.3 Participation in tourism development ......................................... 123

6.5 Conservation and social quality in Ogimachi village .............. 127 6.5.1 Contribution of local associations to social quality...................... 127 6.5.2 Responses to other social quality ................................................ 129 6.5.3 Contribution of spatial organizations to social quality................. 131

6.6 Test of the hypothetic model by comparing Dayan and

Ogimachi cases ................................................................................... 133

‐ VIII ‐

6.6.1 Social Performance.......................................................................133 6.6.2 Applied operations .......................................................................134 6.6.3 Morphology responding to social performance...........................135

6.7 Design guidelines for sustaining social quality in living heritage

conservation....................................................................................... 140

7 CONCLUSIONS AND LIMITATIONS ................................................ 146

7.1 Summary of research findings................................................ 146 7.2 Evaluations of this research ................................................... 150 7.3 Limitation and extensions ...................................................... 151

7.3.1 In‐depth method of local participation ........................................153 7.3.2 Importance of local guilds ............................................................155

8 REFERENCES .......................................................................... 157

9 ANNEX................................................................................. 167

Annex 1: Photographs of Dayan Town............................................... 167 Annex 2: Questionnaire Analysis of Dayan town in Lijiang Ancient Town

............................................................................................................ 174 Annex 3: Social Indicators developed by the Network Indicators of

Social Quality ...................................................................................... 181 Annex 4: Social indicators proposed by Choi and Sirakaya (2006,

p.1281) ............................................................................................... 189 Annex 5: Interview questions and response analysis in Ogimachi .... 191 Annex 6: Photographs of Ogimachi village......................................... 197 Annex 7: Summary of UNESCO‐ICOMOS Documents on Cultural

Heritage Conservation........................................................................ 203

10 ABOUT THE AUTHOR................................................................ 211

‐ IX ‐

Figures

Figure 2‐1: Urban sprawl of Lijiang .......................................................... 24 Figure 2‐2: (Left) Vernacular architecture attached with water lanes and

townscape; (Right) Satellite typology photo of Lijiang.................... 27 Figure 2‐3: (Left) Naxi minority girls dressed in traditional costumes;

(Right) Dongba Pictographs ............................................................. 29 Figure 2‐4: Race distribution in the survey .............................................. 34 Figure 2‐5: Age analysis in the survey ...................................................... 34 Figure 2‐6: Family structure analysis........................................................ 37 Figure 2‐7: Career analysis ....................................................................... 38 Figure 2‐8: Analysis of main family income.............................................. 38 Figure 2‐9: The occupation of farmland, the change of boundaries (after

the map of land‐use in 2002 and 2007, Conservation Planning, Tongji Urban Planning and Design Institute) ................................... 41

Figure 2‐10: Local residents’ reaction to tourism development.............. 42 Figure 2‐11: The traditional use of water system by indigenous residents

in Dayan town.................................................................................. 43 Figure 2‐12: Comparison of the distribution of tourism facilities near

Sifang plaza in Dayan town (above 2007, below 2002)................... 45 Figure 2‐13: Places for socializing with neighbors ................................... 47 Figure 2‐14: Lack of places for socializing and entertainment................. 47 Figure 2‐15: Services you want in the neighborhood (multi‐choice) ....... 48 Figure 4‐1: The relationships among conservation, tourism development

and contemporary life ..................................................................... 76 Figure 4‐2: Social quality at two levels: Individual interactions at the

community level and interactions of collective identities at the society level ..................................................................................... 77

Figure 4‐3: Framework to evaluate social quality .................................... 81 Figure 4‐4: Quality of Life‐interaction between human needs and

subjective well‐being ....................................................................... 84 Figure 5‐1: Conceptual scheme of integrating social and environmental

factors .............................................................................................. 95 Figure 5‐2: Framework for the interpretation of social indicators .......... 97

‐ X ‐

Figure 5‐3: Concept MOP model for high social quality living heritage conservation .................................................................................... 99

Figure 6‐1: Bird view of Ogimachi village (taken from Northern mountain)....................................................................................................... 110

Figure 6‐2: Map of Ogimachi Village ...................................................... 110 Figure 6‐3: Land‐use plan of Dayan and Ogimachi to the same scale.... 113 Figure 6‐4: Bird’s eye‐view of Dayan town and Ogimachi village .......... 115 Figure 6‐5: Gassho‐style Wada house, Nationally Important Cultural

Properties ...................................................................................... 117 Figure 6‐6: Section of Gassho‐style house ............................................. 117 Figure 6‐7: The number of living Gassho‐style houses in Ogimachi village

from 1924 to 1994 ......................................................................... 121 Figure 6‐8: Rethatching work by ‘yui’ system ........................................ 123 Figure 6‐9: Observation in the open‐air museum, fork‐arts centre....... 126 Figure 6‐10: Rope bridge to the village and main streets in the village. 126

‐ XI ‐

Tables

Table 1‐1: Procedure of the study............................................................ 20 Table 3‐1: Difference between conventional approach and living heritage

approach.......................................................................................... 67 Table 4‐1: Indicators on Quality of Life, interpreted based on human

needs ............................................................................................... 88 Table 4‐2: Main social indicators in living heritage conservation ............ 92 Table 5‐1: Logical inference of MOP model ........................................... 101 Table 5‐2: Framework to analyze functions of different spatial

configurations................................................................................ 103 Table 5‐3: Model to interpret social quality in relation to spatial

morphology ................................................................................... 107 Table 6‐1: Comparison of three historic villages in acreage and population

....................................................................................................... 112 Table 6‐2: Comparison of basic status between Dayan town and Ogimachi

village............................................................................................. 114 Table 6‐3: Comparison of three historic villages in the concentration of

historic structures.......................................................................... 119 Table 6‐4: The role of local residents in conservation and tourism

industry.......................................................................................... 126 Table 6‐5: Analysis of family structure, career composition and main

family income ................................................................................ 128 Table 6‐6: Change of population and households in Ogimachi village .. 130 Table 6‐7: Summary of descriptive MOP model in Dayan town and

Ogimachi village (Morphology 1‐8 refers to Table 5‐3)................. 139

Introduction

‐ 1 ‐

1 Introduction This chapter defines the scope of the research, introduces the

background to the research, and describes its methodology and

framework.

1.1 Objectives The dissertation aim to investigate:

1) To identify the negative impacts of conservation policies

implemented in living World Heritage sites, that have taken into

account only the physical aspects of objects, ignoring their effects

on the social quality of traditional living communities

2) To identify design and managerial attributes in the approach to

conservation that could control these negative impacts by taking

into consideration the way the living heritage sites are used by

indigenous inhabitants and tourists

3) To develop a design tool that constrains spatial morphology to

overcome the negative influences on the social quality of

traditional living communities in the process of conservation and

tourism development.

This research extends out of the growing recognition of social quality in

the process of conservation and tourism development of living heritage

sites. It builds upon a critical analysis of the current challenges of living

heritage conservation, particularly those associated with the loss of

social fabric and neighbourhood vitality, due to the influence of

globalization, urbanization and the overwhelming development of

tourism. The conventional top‐down and expert‐based method of

conservation emphasizes the importance of the physical conditions of

heritage sites and gives priority to the development of tourism as well as

Social Quality in the Conservation Process of Living Heritage Sites

‐ 2 ‐

tourism‐related industries. In particular, as the World Heritage sites

ratified by the UNESCO World Heritage Convention2, they receive large

amounts of publicity and as a result become major attractions for

significant numbers of tourists from all over the world. In spite of the

improvement of physical infrastructures and associated economic

benefits, this massive influx of tourists disrupts and, in most cases, in the

long run, destroys the social quality of daily life of the indigenous

population in living heritage sites. Mass tourism damages the ‘values’ of

the site as a desirable place to live and destroys the traditional

communities living there. This dissertation tries to explore in‐depth the

meanings and interpretations of social quality in traditional communities,

and develops a new knowledge‐based and applicable design‐tool for

maintaining social quality in the conservation of living heritage sites.

1.2 Key issues

1.2.1 Living heritage site Heritage literally means properties or practices inherited from the past.

In the field of conservation, the concept of heritage is undergoing a

profound change. Having at one time referred exclusively to the

monumental remains of culture, heritage conservation as a concept has

gradually come to include broader concepts such as the ‘intangible’ and

‘ethnographic’ heritage (UNESCO, section of culture heritage). The

2 UNESCO is short for United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. UNESCO World Heritage Convention is short for the Convention Concerning the Protection of World Cultural and Natural Heritage. It is one of the most widely recognized international conventions ratified by 184 State Parties as of July 2007. It aims to conserve selected sites with ‘Outstanding Universal Value’ based upon ten criteria identified as the common heritage of humanity. As of the end of 2007, a total of 851 sites have been listed as World Heritage sites. More information refers to http://whc.unesco.org

Introduction

‐ 3 ‐

concept of living heritage emerged in the 1990s 3 with increasing

concerns on ‘intangible values’ and the continuity of history, culture,

tradition and life styles. More inclusively, it refers to valuable assets in

use that are usually passed down through generations, such as lifestyle,

traditional music, dance and theatre, social practices, rituals and festivals,

traditional crafts and other cultural expressions. Some of these assets are

preserved as single pieces of heritage without context. However, the

essence of living heritage relies on the continuous involvement of these

assets in people’s daily life.

The term ’living heritage site‘ in this research is defined as a traditional

neighbourhood, community or specific district in the context of historic

settlement, where the ‘Outstanding universal values’4 are demonstrated

by both the physical characteristics and the indigenous inhabitants, who

carry on the living traditions, skills and other cultural practices. It is

different from single monuments, ensembles of historic buildings or pure

natural heritage sites, where fewer social activities are involved. This

paper takes living heritage sites as dynamic and historical places

containing rich intangible ‘values’ while sustaining various types of social

interaction and traditional life, such as historical towns or areas,

preserved districts or communities and the like. In this research, living

heritage sites are limited to those listed as UNESCO World Heritage sites,

which demonstrate significant contributions to cultural diversity and for

which the potential ‘values’ for cultural tourism have been widely

recognized. Great efforts have been made in terms of physical

3ICCROM (International Centre for the Study of the Preservation and Restoration of Cultural Property) lauched the ITUC (Integrated territorial and Urban Conservation) program, which included living cities and landscapes in 1995 (details in Chapter 3). English Heritage has tried to incorporate heritage conservation into integrated management, spatial planning, quality of life, and landscape since 1990s (Fairclough 1995). 4 “Outstanding universal value’ is a general standard to evaluate property on the “UNESCO World Heritage List”, which means cultural and/or natural significance for all humanity (UNESCO World Heritage Convention, 1972).


‐ 4 ‐

conservation, thanks to the commitments of state parties to the UNESCO

World Heritage Convention. The selected living heritage sites offer a

good basis to investigate social problems beyond physical conservation.

According to Criteria V5 of UNESCO World Heritage program, a living

heritage site refers. “to be an outstanding example of a traditional

human settlement, land‐use, or sea‐use which is representative of a

culture (or cultures), or human interaction with the environment

especially when it has become vulnerable under the impact of

irreversible change”. There have already been 107 such properties

inscribed as World Heritage sites as of 2007, but 17 of those, which used

to be human settlements have became ‘open museums’ for different

reasons. Living heritage contains priceless and irreplaceable ‘values’ and

contributes to cultural diversity and a sustainable living environment.

These sites are currently becoming increasingly vulnerable due to the

challenges of tourism development and simplistic physical conservation

strategies.

1.2.2 Conservation Conservation means the careful protection and preservation of natural

resources or physical quantities during transformations or reactions to

prevent exploitation, destruction, or neglect. It is much more than the

concept of ‘restoration’ to bring back the past. Conservation encourages

a balanced attitude to the relationship between the old and the new.

Also different from ‘preservation’, conservation implies sustainable use

instead of merely maintaining the present condition. In living heritage

sites, the way of life and social activities in traditional communities are

valuable assets, and the physical environments are endowed with

5 UNESCO World Heritage sites are selected based on Selection Criteria. Until the end of 2004, there were six criteria for cultural heritage and four criteria for natural heritage, and in 2005 it was modified with a set of then criteria together.

Introduction

‐ 5 ‐

dynamic functions. Therefore the corresponding conservation has to deal

with preservation as well as development.

As a living site, heritage conservation requires an interdisciplinary body

of knowledge, not only techniques for restoration of historical buildings

and monuments, but also cultural and social awareness of habits,

activities and other intangible ‘values’, which are vital to protect the

cultural diversity and integrity of the site. This research focuses on the

conservation of the social quality of living heritage, which is the most

vulnerable characteristic to a rapid tourism development. Thus, living

heritage conservation particularly needs to employ an evolutionary

perspective for conservation, taking into consideration the long‐term

development and needs of indigenous communities. However, in most

cases, the social quality falls into neglect in the traditional physical‐

oriented conservation, because of the difficulties to measure as well as

to manage the social performance. This research emphasizes the

importance of social quality in the sustainable conservation of living

heritage sites, and devotes itself to proper measures of social quality in

traditional communities.

1.2.3 Social quality Social quality is a comprehensive concept emerging to complement the

dominating economic performance in evaluating development. It

emphasizes the significance of participation and social interaction in the

self‐realization and sustainability of a society (details in Chapter 4). Social

quality is taken as an essential criterion to sustainable development,

which is defined in the “Brundtland Report” 6(1987), also known as “Our

Common Future” as “the development that meets the needs of the

present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet

6 The Brundtland Report was published in the World Commission on Environment and Development in 1987. It developed guiding principles for sustainable development based on critical concerns on global environmental problems.


‐ 6 ‐

their own needs”. Sustainable development is understood as a

“systematic, long‐term use of natural resources” and a “socially justice,

ethically acceptable, morally fair and economically sound” development

(Filho, 2000). Social quality indicates the interactions of people in

development and plays a vital role in the decision‐making and

implementation process.

Integrating the fragmental concerns of economics, politics, culture,

sociology and environment to a common goal of sustainability is the

main function of social sustainable development in the present global

transformation process (Becker et al, 1997, 1999). Using social quality as

an intermediate tool, this research aims to preserve the integrity and

continuity of living heritage sites through an in‐depth understanding of

the interrelationship between conservation and tourism development.

Economic viability and efficient maintenance are interactive factors in

the consideration of social quality. The research employs a case study to

explore social problems experienced and to understand the relationship

of social quality with the physical environment in the process of

conservation. It tries to develop a systematic and measurable framework

to preserve the unique social quality at living heritage sites.

1.2.4 Social capital It is the position of this dissertation that social capital could be a key

criterion in the evaluation of social quality at a living heritage site. Social

capital is defined as “social networks or norms” (Putnam, 2000:19) to

build up reciprocal interrelationships among individuals in a certain

district, in assistance to common goals and harmonious development. It

is an important form of capital with potential power, the same as

economic capital, environmental capital and cultural capital. Inspired by

Ignacy Sachs (Sachs, 1996, 2006), who argued that the crucial issue for

social sustainability is to sustain existing social structures, territories, and

identities, social capital is proposed in research to evaluate social quality

of living heritage sites. Social capital strengthens a stable social structure

and collective characteristics by respecting social norms and participating

Introduction

‐ 7 ‐

in social networks. It plays an important role in enhancing the sense of

belonging, and the territory of local communities and sustaining cultural

diversity at a global level. This research refines the definition of social

capital with an integrated perspective, including demographic changes,

socio‐economic activities, social interactions, and community activities.

In addition to management issues and participation, this research looks

at socio‐spatial structure, in order to understand the contribution of

spatial attributes to the shape of a community in a living heritage site.

Literature reviews of social studies are elaborated in Chapter 4.

1.2.5 Cultural diversity Cultural is defined as a “set of distinctive spiritual, material, intellectual

and emotional features of society or a social group”, and these include

“lifestyles, ways of living together, value systems, traditions and beliefs”

as well as art and literature (UNESCO Universal Declaration on Cultural

Diversity7, p.12). Cultural diversity is a core subject for debate on

collective identity, social cohesion and a knowledge‐based economy,

which is a fundamental human feature with respect for intellectual

dialogues, creation and innovation as biodiversity is for nature. The

UNESCO Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity is derived from a

wide acknowledgement of the threat from globalization on preserving

intangible “values”. The declaration emphasizes a proactive approach to

perceive cultural diversity as an asset to protect humanity. Cultural

diversity serves to complement sustainable development, together with

the thriving material and economic development.

7 The declaration was adopted by the 31st Session of the General Conference of UNESCO in Paris, 2nd November 2001. The definition is affirmed in the conclusion of the World Conference on Cultural Policies (MONDIACULT, Mexico City, 1982), World Commission on Culture and Development (Our Creative Diversity, 1995), and Intergovernmental Conference on Cultural Policies for Development (Stockholm, 1998)


‐ 8 ‐

Living heritage conservation in favor of ‘values’ associated with

indigenous people is one of the most important actions in achieving

cultural diversity8. Living heritage sites represent the identities and social

quality of indigenous communities, which personify the global vision of

cultural diversity and enhance social capitals through continuous

interactions between people and environment in specific districts. The

indigenous communities are fragile common treasures for humankind in

the context of globalization, and meanwhile they serve as support

systems to provide material and emotional aids to local populations

(Altman and Wandersman, 1987). This research focuses on how to

maintain social quality at a living heritage site in order to improve

cultural diversity in a more comprehensive method.

1.3 Brief research background

1.3.1 Evolvement of heritage conservation Since the middle of the last century, the domain of heritage conservation

has expanded from individual architecture to the surrounding

environment. In 1943, the French proposed the conception of “Les

Abords Des Monuments Historiques” which demonstrated that not only

the historical buildings, but also the surroundings within a radius of 500

meters of the buildings should be protected. In 1962, after the adoption

of the ‘Malraux Law’, preserved districts (Secteurs Sauvegardés) became

an official term in the field of conservation. In 1964, the Venice Charter9

(Article 1) included the urban and rural settings as the contents of

conservation, where the evidence of civilization was found or historical

8 The UNESCO action in favor of cultural diversity focuses mainly on two parts: to ensure harmonious coexistence and the willingness to living together peacefully and to defend diverse creativity and the multiplicity of cultural expressions (UNESCO online data: http://portal.unesco.org/culture/en) 9 Data source: UNESCO‐ICOMOS (International Council on Monuments and Sites) Documentation Centre.

Introduction

‐ 9 ‐

events had occurred. During the last decade, ICCROM (International

Centre for the Study of the Preservation and Restoration of Cultural

Property) has developed the ‘living heritage’ concept as a natural

outgrowth of the integrated approach to urban and territorial

conservation (details in chapter 3).

The expanding scope of conservation reflects a growing concern on the

integrated values of heritage sites, and in particular raises attention to

social issues to balance development and conservation. At the same time,

Conservation requires interdisciplinary studies to integrate historic,

cultural, environmental and social attributes into a common framework,

in order to preserve the overall quality of living heritage sites in the long

run. In particular, living heritage conservation, such as urban

conservation, represents a comprehensive set of themes involving

different perspectives of social life. In most cases, it stipulates

rehabilitation and redevelopment schemes, combining conservation with

urban development in the first place. The dilemma between

conservation and development is reflected by negative impacts from

mass tourism as well as urban sprawl. While most currently preserved

historical towns and urban living heritages have been efficiently and

effectively protected in the short term, and over time, many schemes

have turned out to be failures.

1.3.2 Social concerns in conservation The recognition of living ‘values’ in historic settlements mirrors the social

changes experienced since the industrial revolution, when material

wealth was accumulated and manufacturing techniques changed without

parallel, economic and social structure were transformed at an

unprecedented pace. Modernization was taken as being identical to

improvements in hygiene and mobility. People swarmed into big cities

for a ‘better life’, but little by little realized that metropolises do not

always satisfy their needs for the ‘better life’. ‘Urban Sprawls’, ‘Satellite

Cities’, ‘Garden Cities’, ‘Deterioration of Inner City’, ‘City Beautiful

Movement’, and ‘Revitalization of Urban Centres’ and many other terms,


‐ 10 ‐

created after the industrial revolution, reflect the cognitive changes of

the ideal living environment. A growing number of people however have

begun to appreciate the unique and familiar atmosphere of historic

sectors.

This is where the work of Jane Jacobs has offered insights and practical

tools. Based on her observations in Boston and New York of U.S.A, Jane

Jacobs (1961) criticized that too much emphasis on picturesque patterns

as well as landmark buildings led to simplified city images, isolated

functions of city life and serious economic and social problems. She also

pointed to the advantages of ‘traditional urbanity’ over ‘modern city

forms’ in social qualities: vitality, safety and diversity. She went beyond

the scope of planners and investigated cities from a micro‐scale, people‐

oriented, grass‐roots and bottom‐up approach.

Social concerns have been drawn in the field of architecture and urban

planning since the middle of last century, with the renaissance of

neighbourhood life. Precedent researchers and designers tried to

incorporate social desires, capacities, and the interests of local users in

the design process in order to create a vibrant living environment and

maintain self‐sustaining mechanisms in the long run, such as

Environment‐Behavior research (Zeisel, 1975, 1981) and Man‐

Environment study (Rapoport, 1976, 1983). A social study carried out by

Herbert J. Gans (1967) about the Levittown reinforced the key role of

residents’ aspirations in a community. Thus, in parallel to the profound

extension of heritage conservation domain, closer attention is given to

the sophisticated social characters of an indigenous community, such as

customs, social structure, territory and social interactions, which in turn

create unique physical characteristics of a site.

A living heritage site as a legacy from the past, still actively contributes to

the cultural diversity and harmony of urban life. It embodies the

architectural, cultural, social and aesthetic importance in the whole

process of urban development. The social concerns in living heritage sites

introduce deep insights in order to appreciate the integrity of its heritage

Introduction

‐ 11 ‐

and inspire the enthusiasm for conservation from local residents. The

Venice Charter (Article 5) noticed that ‘the conservation of monuments

was always facilitated by making use of them for some socially useful

purpose’, which indicates the importance of social functions in terms of

preserving ‘authentic values’. UNESCO World Heritage Convention (1972)

has accentuated the integrated program to endow heritage sites with a

function in the life of local communities (Article 5). Furthermore, the

UNESCO Budapest Declaration10 (2002) stated the pivotal efforts were to

‘ensure an appropriate and equitable balance between conservation,

sustainability and development…contributing to the social and economic

development and quality of life…communities’. Social concerns in the

process of conservation could provoke wide participation in the

maintaining and management system of a site. The importance of

preserving social attributes in living heritage is demonstrated by

ICCROM11 as follows:

‘Heritage sites need to be understood as living places, where efforts to

improve understanding and conservation of the sites must be linked to

the values, interests and capacities of the populations that live within and

around them, and who are the true long‐term custodians of these sites.

Meanwhile, these sites must be seen as the embodiment of significant

values, where effective site management requires that as much attention

be given to the conditions for retaining these values as to those for

preserving the material fabric that contains and supports the site’s

activities’ (ICCROM General Assembly 2005).

It is crucial to develop the full potential of heritage sites and improve the

capability of self‐sustaining mechanisms. With growing concerns on 10 The Budapest Declaration was adopted by the UNESCO World Heritage Committee at its 26th session in 2002. 11ICCROM is short for International Centre for the Study of the Preservation and Restoration of Cultural Property. It is an advisory organization for culture heritage conservation for UNESCO World Heritage Commitee.


‐ 12 ‐

sustainable development, the traditional attributes and social quality of

living heritage sites are appreciated in a broad sense. They foster identity

and diversity of various cultural groups, which play a fundamental role in

enhancing social capitals, and in turn favor economic growth. The

beneficial social functions of living heritage sites could ameliorate some

of the contributing causes to the unsustainability of metropolitan areas

across the world. Living heritage sites should be considered as valuable

resources and contribute to sustainable development in a dynamic way.

1.4 Problem statements Heritage conservation is a value driven process, from the initial

significance identification to the time‐bound management system. To

understand the significance of heritage sites is the core of conservation,

which determines what to preserve as well as the priorities in the

conservation policy. The value identification is based on a combination of

scientific and subjective value assessments driven by different actors and

exerts a direct influence on the strategy of conservation and

development. In the conservation operations and management, different

requirements from the actors, including tourists, tourism‐related

immigrants and indigenous inhabitants are manifested in relation to the

physical and social environment. The main problems can be drawn from

three perspectives:

• Lopsided value assessment of professionals over local

populations

• Absence of social considerations on the daily lives of indigenous

people

• Lack of applicable guidelines to retain social quality in

conservation practices

Introduction

‐ 13 ‐

1.4.1 Lopsided value assessment of professionals over local populations

The conventional top‐down, expert‐based method of conservation is

commonly applied in the process of living heritage conservation. Experts

from different disciplines, such as Arts History, Architecture, Urban

Planning, and Archaeology have decisive voices in the value assessment,

although they might not even have set foot on the site before. As an

assignment from state parties or authorities, the process of heritage

conservation is often limited to professional cycles. The ‘exclusionary

conservation’ and the top‐down approach of conservation often leave

the future of a living heritage site in architects/urban planners’ offices far

away from the actual sites and totally unattainable to the Indigenous

inhabitants, who are regarded as layman and irrelevant in the process of

conservation. The inhabitants however, are actually the long‐term

custodians of the site. The ‘values’ of these living communities are not

taken equally into consideration as the architectural, environmental and

aesthetic values in the process of decision making and implementation.

This lopsided value assessment of professionals over the voices of an

indigenous population disregards a very important part of the values

underlying the day‐to‐day life experiences at these living sites. For

instance, a street corner may not be important to an arts historian in

terms of aesthetic and historic values, but it may play a crucial role along

the spiritual path of a specific local group. Such tradition and sensitivity

of indigenous inhabitants reflect rich socio‐cultural assets and play an

important role in the continuity of traditional communities, which fall

into neglect from the top‐down process of conservation. Therefore, the

expert‐driven method easily leads to the loss of social support and public

enthusiasm in conservation. The research will investigate alternative

approaches to achieve a more holistic value assessment, for the purpose

of sustainable conservation at living heritage sites.


‐ 14 ‐

1.4.2 Absence of social considerations on the daily lives of indigenous people

A living heritage site represents an integrated image with both ‘tangible

and intangible values’. In spite of significant monuments, ancient remains,

traditional buildings and unique landscapes, intangible characteristics,

such as a unique way of life, traditional practices and knowledge capture

growing attention for conservation as well as tourism development in

living heritage sites. Physical conditions are usually given priority to

exploit the economic interests of tourism and to meet the requirements

of official periodic assessments12. The in‐depth social considerations in

relation to the quality of life of indigenous inhabitants in traditional

communities are absent. For instance, social activities, social structures

and sense of belonging do not gain equal attention to the physical

aspects in the process of value assessment as well as operations. Social

capitals in living heritage sites are essential resources for cultural

diversity and humanity. The absence of proper social considerations in

living heritage conservation leads to the decreasing diversity of life‐

experience and a fundamental failure of its sustainable viability.

Therefore, social considerations deserve more efforts for further

investigation.

Conservation of social quality at living heritage sites involves a deep

understanding of the local communities in terms of temporal and spatial

characteristics, and the involvement of local associations, which indicates

social demands from an evolutionary point of view. Social quality acts as

a hinge to ameliorate the apparent dilemma between conservation and

tourism development of living heritage sites. At the same time, social

12 Upon being inscribed as World Heritage sites, it is the obligation of the State Parties to report regularly to the World Heritage Committee on the state of conservation of their World Heritage properties (the UNESCO World Heritage Convention, 1972). The committee also designates ICOMOS (International Council on monuments and Sites) to carry out Periodic Report to assess the World Heritage sites in different regions.

Introduction

‐ 15 ‐

quality is extremely vulnerable to the influence of exotic cultural

intrusion and open‐market economic competition. As manifested in

many living heritage sites that social functionality dried up and eventually

the sites turned into ‘open museums’ or ‘new’ towns. Simultaneously,

there was an exodus of indigenous inhabitants, which resulted in the

destruction of traditional communities at the living sites. These effects

have been observed at sites such as Elmina in Ghana, Zabid and Sana’a in

Yemen, and Galle in Sri Lanka13.

1.4.3 Lack of applicable guidelines to retain social quality in conservation practices

The exclusionary top‐down approach of conservation absorbs huge

amounts of limited environmental and economic resources to preserve

the physical aspects of living heritage sites. However, few governments

can today afford the economic costs of imposed conservation with

fences and guards. At the same time, conservation with priority for

tourism development has demonstrated short‐term market gains at

enormous political and social costs. Effects such as negative public

relations and civil disorder lead to indifference or even hostile attitudes

from the local community. In order to "integrate the physical, economic

and social sciences to better understand the impacts of economic and

social behavior on the environment" (the goal of Agenda 2114), an

applicable guideline to interpret social quality in a measurable way is in

great need for living heritage conservation. This research analyzes the

role of social quality in the process of living heritage conservation, and

13 Cor Dijkgraaf in the paper of How World Heritage Sites Disappear: Four Cases, Four Threats presented case studies in Ghana, Sri Lanka and Yemen to demonstrate that more often than not conservation of heritage is not a priority of the local inhabitants if no economic benefits are forthcoming. 14 Agenda 21 is a comprehensive plan of action for the sake of sustainable development at different levels. It was adopted by more than 178 Governments at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) held in Rio de Janerio, Brazil, 3 to 14 June 1992.


‐ 16 ‐

explores its dynamic interactions with spatial morphology through field

case studies. New knowledge‐based guidelines in consistent with a

design‐tool is advanced in this work for practical application in the

process of living heritage conservation.

1.5 Methodology

1.5.1 Method of case study Given the complexity of social problems in living heritage conservation,

case study methods are employed as ‘an empirical inquiry to investigate

a contemporary phenomenon within its real‐life context’ (Yin 1994). It

demonstrates advantages in measuring the causal links of multiple

factors in certain circumstances. In particular, this research is built upon

interdisciplinary knowledge on spatial and social attributes in the process

of living heritage conservation. Precedents on interdisciplinary studies of

conservation shed light on the selection of the methodology in this

research. For instance, Dwyer and Edwards (2000) investigated

relationships between urban growth and heritage conservation via case

studies in Campbell town in the context of an ‘ecotourism paradigm’ set

by Ross and Wall (1999). Case study offers a suitable method to

understand multifaceted problems at living heritage sites, while it

demonstrates limitations for the generalization of research outcomes.

This research takes Dayan town in the centre of Lijiang ancient town as

an exploratory case study to understand the social problems in relation

to conservation approaches and specific spatial characteristics. Drawing

upon the outcomes of the exploratory case study and state‐of‐the‐arts

literatures on precedents of living heritage program and social quality

studies, this work generalizes the social problems in living heritage

conservation and selects key social indicators. Hereby, it develops a

Introduction

‐ 17 ‐

model hypothesis in the framework of MOP15 representing how the

application of spatial morphology and organization within the policy of

living heritage conservation, influences the social quality of indigenous

inhabitants in a living community.

This dissertation employs a test case study: Ogimachi village in the Chubu

region of Japan, as a comparably successful project to examine the

proposed model. The case explains how spatial morphology contributes

to social quality performance at a living site via constraining various

interventions and affirms the hypothetic model towards producing

design guidelines for living heritage conservation. Data are derived from

field studies through general observations, surveys and interviews at the

sites by the author. In addition, the comparable statuses of Dayan town

and Ogimachi village allow further arguments on the impacts of

conservation approaches and spatial morphologies on social quality in

the context of living heritage. The contrast between the two cases helps

to grasp deeper the numerous factors influenced by different actors and

activities from external and indigenous communities. As a pragmatic

outcome, the paper produces a knowledge‐based, applicable design‐tool

in form of design guidelines to maintain social quality for future

conservation and a follow‐up maintenance system.

1.5.2 Methods in case study The methods used to carry out case studies are inspired by the social

research of Jacobs (1961) and Gans (1967) in relation to specific

communities. On‐site surveys, interviews and comprehensive

observations were conducted in the field studies of Dayan town and

Ogimachi village. 15 MOP (Morphology, Operation, and Performance) refers to a framework for representing architectural knowledge, developed by Alexander Tzonis (Tzonis et al. 1987) and applied in several doctorate researches, such as Fang 1993, Jeng 1995, Bay 2001, Zarzar 2002, Vyzoviti 2005, in the Design Knowledge Systems Centre of TU Delft.


‐ 18 ‐

Jacobs emphasized the contributions of sidewalks to the security and

social contacts of community life through her living experiences and

observations in Greenwich Village neighborhood. She made very specific

and comprehensive observations of various activities occurring along

sidewalks, and the interactions among people, traffic and commercial

activities. On the basis of that, she proposed the necessity for clear

demarcation between private and public spaces as well as the

advantages of mixed usage of urban space to promote continuous use

and effective surveillance. Jacobs described the quality of micro urban

space from a social perspective and inspired alternatives to monumental

and scenic special design with focus on neighborhood activities. The

methodologies employed in her work to understand the relationship of

space and human behavior, especially on‐site observations, are widely

used in socio‐spatial research.

Herbert Gans (1967) carried out research on ‘origin of a new community,

the quality of suburban life and the effect of suburbia on the behavior of

residents’ (Gans 1967, p.xxx) in Levittown from Oct 1958 to Sep 1960.

Similar with Jacobs’ study in ‘the Death and Life of Great American Cities’,

he drew upon his living experiences as the very first resident of Levittown

and employed participant‐observations, analysis of mailed

questionnaires (952 sets of questionnaires out of 2100 were analyzed),

and on site interviews (45 households were interviewed twice and in the

Philadelphia sample, 55 people who lived in Levittown for at least two

years were interviewed randomly) to undertake the research questions.

From a sociologist’s point of view, Gans analyzed the quality of social life

via visits between individual neighbors, willingness of mutual assistance

patterns amongst neighbors, and the participation in voluntary

associations (Gans, 1967, p.51‐60). He claimed eight resources, which

had significant impacts on the social life of a community, including the

type of housing and settlement, the community layout and the

community facilities ‐ public and commercial (Gans, 1967, p.277).

Introduction

‐ 19 ‐

These previous social studies offer a practical methodology to deeply

understand the resources and impacts of community life. In addition, my

Masters Dissertation in NUS (Kong, 2005) also employed on‐site

observation and social surveys as the main method to explore the social

influences of gardening in semi‐open space of high‐rise dwellings in

Singapore. It analyzed the impacts of gardening on the residents’

behaviors in verandas and the relationship between neighbors in high‐

rise dwellings. This research builds upon the precedents and conducted

field studies through general observations, surveys and interviews in two

comparable UNESCO World living heritage sites: Dayan town and

Ogimachi village. It aims to understand the social quality of an indigenous

community in the process of conservation and tourism development.

Based on the analysis of emergent social problems in response to the

changes of spatial morphology in Dayan town, this research proposes a

hypothetic design model. Furthermore, comparative analysis conducted

through field study in Ogimachi village tests the model and concludes

with applicable design guidelines to retain high social quality in the

process of conservation and tourism development.

1.6 Procedure of the study Procedure of the study

Chapter Description of the procedure

Introduction 1

Definition of research scope and key words

Brief research background and problem statement

Introduction of methodology and research procedure

Case study: Dayan in Lijiang Ancient Town

2 Exploratory case study to elaborate social problems

Preliminary identification of the relationship between social problems and spatial morphology

Critical reviews of living heritage conservation

3

Analyze the Living Heritage Sites programs to understand social problems and conservation approaches in a broad sense

Describe needs for a more holistic social study and a knowledge‐based guideline for living heritage conservation


‐ 20 ‐

Social studies in living heritage conservation

4 Theoretical study on social quality

Select pertinent social indicators to represent social quality in a living heritage site

Hypothetic model towards an applicable design‐tool

5

Analyze the interrelationship between social quality and spatial organization via MOP model

Propose a model hypothesis to control the social quality in relation to constrained spatial morphology in the process of living heritage conservation

Social conservation of Ogimachi village

6

Evaluate the contributions of conservation policy and spatial morphology on retaining social quality of the living heritage sites

Test the model hypothesis

Propose a new knowledge‐based design guidelines towards retaining high social quality of living heritage sites in conservation and tourism development

Conclusions and Limitation

7

Summarize main findings

Evaluate scientific contributions

Describe the limitations and the general applicability

Extensions for future study

Table 11: Procedure of the study

The dissertation brings forward the question of social quality on the basis

of exploratory field study in Dayan town of Lijiang in Yunnan province of

China and state‐of‐the‐arts literature reviews. It elaborates the negative

impacts of tourism‐related interventions and top‐down conservation

approaches on the indigenous neighboring environment at Dayan

(Chapter 2). Social problems in this research are defined within the

context of indigenous living environment, when new actors and new

activities are brought in along with tourism‐related development

Meanwhile it reviews the precedent study of Living Heritage Sites

program by ICCROM (Chapter 3) and integrates the study carried out by

Introduction

‐ 21 ‐

the European Foundation on Social Quality 16 to select key social

indicators for evaluating social quality at living heritage sites (Chapter 4),

in the interest of cultural diversity and sustainable development. On the

basis of empirical case studies and holistic literatures, this research

advances a model hypothesis through the appropriate articulation of

spatial morphology, specific operations and social quality performance in

a living environment (Chapter 5). In order to test the hypothetic model, a

comparable field study in Ogimachi village in the Chubu region of Japan is

conducted to examine the positive impacts of bottom‐up and

community‐based conservation methods and constrained spatial

morphology on social quality of the living community as a successful

instance. It affirms in key elements with the hypothetic model for

achieving high social quality performance in relation to specific

operations and constrained spatial morphologies in the process of

conservation and tourism development (Chapter 6). As an applicable

result, this research proposes a design‐tool in form of design guidelines

to retain high social quality of indigenous communities. It also suggests

corresponding monitoring and maintenance systems for the sake of

social sustainability in the process of living heritage conservation. The

conclusion summarizes the main findings of the dissertation, evaluates

the scientific contributions and describes limitations for general

applications. Finally it suggests the directions for future research

(Chapter 7).

16 The European Foundation on Social Quality was established in June 1997, during the Dutch presidency of the European Union. It is based on the Amsterdam Declaration, which is supported by more than 1000 scientists and emphasizes the importance of social justice, equity and solidarity in the dominant economic development. After that, a large network was formed in relation to social study. Detailed online information: www.socialquality.org


‐ 22 ‐

2 Case Study: Dayan in Lijiang Ancient Town

As described in the introduction, this chapter aims to explore the social

problems experienced in conservation through a field study at Dayan

town, in the centre of Lijiang ancient town. The field study was

conducted during the compilation of conservation planning of Lijiang

ancient town from June to July 2002. The author participated in the field

study and carried out surveys under the supervision of Dr. Shao Yong (in

total, 99 questionnaires are valid out of 112 sets). This research drew

upon the data collected from on‐site surveys and observations and

analyzed from a social point of view in relation to spatial characteristics.

Social problems have emerged in the field of heritage conservation since

the ‘values’ of indigenous populations were recognized as part of the

heritage values. In the past decade, living heritage has evolved as a

comprehensive and challenging theme involving proactive engagement

of local residents in the process of conservation. It requires

interdisciplinary studies, such as social, cultural, economic and

environmental studies in a living context. Lijiang ancient town is the first

living site in China inscribed as an UNESCO World Heritage site for its

unique historic settlement and minority culture. This research reviews

the changes of social attributes in the process of conservation, the

factors related to the deterioration of social quality in terms of

conservation policy and the modifications made to spatial organization at

the living site. The case study provided an in‐depth record of the process

of living heritage conservation.

2.1 Reasons to choose Lijiang ancient town Lijiang ancient town is one of the best preserved historic settlements in

China in terms of physical attributes. It was inscribed as a World Heritage

site in December 1997, because of its unique townscape, natural

Case Study: Dayan in Lijiang Ancient Town

‐ 23 ‐

landscape, and ethnic cultures. It met criteria17 (ii), (iv) and (v) in the

evaluation by the UNESCO World Heritage Committee and embodied

‘outstanding universal value’. Lijiang ancient town is composed of three

parts, Dayan town, Baisha quarter (8 kilometres to the north of Dayan)

and Shuhe town (4 kilometres north‐west of Dayan). Lijiang ancient town

is scattered on an area of 3.8 square kilometers (including buffer zone at

the time of the UNESCO World Heritage inscription), with a population of

25,000. The Lijiang ancient town is well preserved in terms of the

physical environment in the core areas, i.e. Dayan town, such as

streetscapes, waterways, canals, bridges and dwellings, thanks to the

implementation of governmental commitments to the UNESCO World

Heritage Convention, as well as economic benefits brought from tourism

development. Moreover, as a historic settlement, its socio‐cultural

characteristics by virtue of the indigenous Naxi minority constitute a

significant part of the holistic values. Their traditions and ethnic social life

are valuable assets to the town. Thus the traditional living communities

embodies tangible and intangible characteristics, which offers a full‐scale

background to understand the social attributes of indigenous people in a

living community, and more importantly to explore the social problems

in a real‐life context. This research focuses on Dayan town, located in the

central of Lijiang ancient town, where the survey was conducted in 2002.

However, since more general information was recorded in the scale of

Lijiang ancient town and Dayan is a concentrated reflection of the overall

17 To be included on the World Heritage List, sites must be of outstanding universal value and meet at least one out of ten selection criteria. These criteria are explained in the ‘Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention’. Criteria ii: to exhibit an important interchange of human values, over a span of time or within a cultural area of the world, on developments in architecture or technology, monumental arts, town‐planning or landscape design; Criteria iv: to be an outstanding example of a type of building, architectural or technological ensemble or landscape which illustrates (a) significant stage(s) in human history; Criteria v: to be an outstanding example of a traditional human settlement, land‐use, or sea‐use which is representative of a culture (or cultures), or human interaction with the environment especially when it has become vulnerable under the impact of irreversible change.


‐ 24 ‐

situation of Lijiang, so the following section employs Lijiang ancient town

as a background to understand the general situation of Dayan town.

Figure 21: Urban sprawl of Lijiang18

Another important reason to choose Lijiang ancient town as the

exploratory case study rests on the fact that it has undergone through

critical economic and social transformation in the last decade, due to

substantial increases in tourism and corresponding commercial

development. The town has been sprawling out with the concurrent

exodus of indigenous inhabitants (Figure 2‐1). The town currently risks

losing the last cultural remnants to the Naxi minority. As criticized by

UNESCO World Heritage Centre in the working document for 31COM 7B:

‘the property is now surrounded by some commercial projects which are

intended to “enhance” the beauty of the old town but actually damage

the property…tourism development projects and rapid commercialization

at the property may have negative impact on the social structure, ethnic

Naxi culture and heritage values.’

18 1994 (left) vs. 2000 (right); Data Resource: Conservation Planning of Lijiang ancient town 2002, Tongji Urban Design & Planning Institute, Shanghai, China.


‐ 25 ‐

The transformation of Lijiang ancient town provides valuable information

in order to understand the social problems in the process of conservation.

It also helps to preliminarily identify the key social attributes and

corresponding spatial features in the process of living heritage

conservation. At the same time, the measures taken by the Lijiang local

authorities and preliminary results offer a good basis for further

arguments on management issues.

2.2 Physical and social features of Lijiang ancient town

2.2.1 Unique natural landscape, townscape and vernacular architecture

The Lijiang prefecture in southwest China has been inhabited since

Palaeolithic times and became a county during the Western Han Dynasty

(206 BC ‐ 220 AD). The ancient town of Lijiang is composed of three parts

as inscribed in UNESCO World Heritage list, respectively named as Baisha,

Shuhe, and Dayan from north to south. It is located in the southeast

corner of the Lijiang Naxi Autonomous County and was originally built

between the end of the Southern Song Dynasty (AD 1127 ‐ 1279) and the

beginning of the Yuan Dynasty (1279 ‐ 1368 AD)19 . It stands in the joint

part of Yungui and Qingzang tableland and lies at the foot of the Yulong

Snow‐capped mountain at an average altitude of 2400 meters. Lijiang

ancient town is screened by Yulong Snow‐capped mountain, which is 15

kilometers away, supports the southernmost marine glacier in the

temperate zone of the northern hemisphere. It serves as a water supply

for the town. Water, by way of rivers and canals forms a vital connection

with indigenous people’s daily life. The ancient town is surrounded by

farmland, which also functions as a natural boundary to separate it from

the other areas.

19 Information from website of Global Heritage Fund


‐ 26 ‐

Lijiang is an ancient town without city walls, crossed by numerous canals.

It is crisscrossed with ancient streets and lanes paved with colored stones.

The layout of Lijiang ancient town reflects a high respect of local

geographic context over 800 years. The town itself is appropriately

disposed with the riverhead (the Heilongtan water system), and the local

residences are located amongst its network of watercourses and specific

topography. Small streams run parallel with Sifang Market Street in the

centre of the Dayan town and many other lanes. Green trees shade the

houses and lanes. Residential houses feature in courtyards and atriums,

and they either stand next to a stream or are entered by crossing small

front bridges above the streams. In some cases, a stream runs right

beneath the houses. The 354 bridges scattered around the town enrich

the spatial features and contribute to this unique environment (See

Figure 2‐2).


‐ 27 ‐

Figure 22: (Left) Vernacular architecture attached with water lanes and townscape; (Right) Satellite typology photo of Lijiang20

The vernacular architecture in Dayan town embodies ethnical traditions,

syncretized with Han culture introduced around the 11th century. There is

no uniform style or specific architect for the design of local residences.

Most of the residences are two‐storey (7.5 meters high), with a few

three‐storey constructions. The vernacular architecture represents high

respect to the local material resources and topographic features of the

town. A typical house is built with stone foundations, timber frames,

walled with adobe and rammed earth. There are variant architectural

patterns according to the specific locations. Courtyards and atriums are

the most common architectural features in Dayan town, such as patterns

called ‘San fang Yi Zhao Bi’, consisting of a main structure, two side‐

buildings and a screen wall facing the main structure to form an enclosed

courtyard inside; and ‘Si He Wu Tian Jing’ consisting of a main structures

and three side‐buildings on each of the other directions to form a central

courtyard and four atria, one in each corner. The use of a native wood‐

stone‐rammed earth structure along with appropriate organization with

waterways and streetscapes demonstrate the true sprit of vernacular

architecture. The variants of streetscapes demonstrate unique spatial

characteristics in Dayan town, with a fine blend of traditional residences,

waterways, bridges and topographic features. There are three main types

of streets: commercial‐oriented streets with shops at the front and living

space at the back; residential‐oriented streets and a mixture of the two

types. Sifang plaza is the main open spaces in Dayan town with a

concentration of commercial activities. Based on observation, courtyards

and atria and open spaces along streets are the main places for social

activities of the indigenous inhabitants (visual information in Annex 1).

20 Data Resource: Conservation Planning of Lijiang ancient town 2002, Tongji Urban Design & Planning Institute, Shanghai, China.


‐ 28 ‐

2.2.2 Social development The population of Lijiang ancient town is made up of the Naxi, Bai, Lisu,

Pumi, Yi, Tibetan, Miao, Hui, Han and other ethnic groups. Naxi

Autonomous County is the seat of the administrative commission of

Lijiang Prefecture and more than two thirds of the population is

composed of Naxi people. The ethnic features of the Naxi people

contribute to the ‘Outstanding Universal Value’ of Lijiang ancient town in

both tangible and intangible perspectives: classical Naxi music is

described as the a "living musical fossil", the Dongba script (the

traditional Naxi characters) is the world's only living hieroglyphics, and

the Dongba religion, a primitive religion, is the common belief of most

Naxi people. Ethnic traditions, religion as well as life‐style reflect the

ideology of the Naxi people and have exerted a substantial influence on

their social activities, and environmental configurations, and vice versa.

The unique physical environment is a product of long‐term interactions

between nature and native residents resulting in harmonious living

patterns in Lijiang ancient town.

The Naxi minority is the dominant resource of culture in Lijiang ancient

town, which distinguishes Lijiang from other heritage sites. However,

since the early 18th century, Han culture (mainstream of Chinese culture)

has become increasingly influential in the Lijiang region, and has affected

various aspects of Naxi people’s daily life, including costumes, dialect and

gender status. Noteworthy, although Naxi dialect is the most commonly

used language in the ancient town, mandarin is becoming gradually

popular in daily communication, particularly since the boom of tourism

from 1996 onwards. Alongside the intrusion of outside culture and

business, many basic changes to social structure and communication

have gradually occurred and exposed the fragile nature of the indigenous

community’s social identity in the process of conservation.


‐ 29 ‐

Figure 23: (Left) Naxi minority girls dressed in traditional

costumes; (Right) Dongba Pictographs21

2.2.3 Conservation interventions Vernacular architecture and the townscape in Lijiang ancient town as

well as the natural surrounding landscape represent the fundamental

basis for tourism development (visual information in Annex 1), which are

well preserved in a top‐down and expert‐driven method of conservation.

A series of statutory instruments is promulgated at provincial and

national level. The facades, architectural forms, materials, basic layout of

the town and other unique physical characteristics are strictly protected

by local and national conservation authorities. However, permitted

modifications, subtle changes of spatial functions and organizations, as

well as poorly defined community boundaries have had significant

impacts on the quality of local life. Meanwhile, the indigenous

inhabitants have been passively involved in the process of conservation

without a decisive voice. Thus, driven by the needs of tourism and expert 21 The left picture is taken by QT Luong, available at www.terragalleria.com; The right picture is taken from the Naxi Pictographs Copybook, written by He, Limin, translated by Qinglian ZHAO and Yinghe CHEN, Yunnan ethic Publishing House.


‐ 30 ‐

evaluations, the physical environment is being preserved with the

priorities to tourism development and aesthetic integrity. Those specific

spatial characteristics for accommodating local desires in daily life are

falling into neglect. As a consequence, although a great deal of effort has

been devoted to the improvement of infrastructure and the appearance

of traditional houses, social problems are becoming severe in the process

of conservation, which is leading to the deterioration of overall ‘values’

at the site and a lack of sustainable development in the long run.

The subsequent section focuses on a study in Dayan town, in which the

survey was carried out in 2002 by a team including the author,

supervised by Dr. Shao Yong during the compilation of the conservation

plan for Lijiang ancient town. Questionnaires were distributed among the

local residents in the five main neighborhoods in Dayan town, which is

the central preserved area of Lijiang ancient town and had a high

concentration of indigenous Naxi inhabitants and vernacular dwellings.

The following analysis will stress main social problems of the traditional

community in the process of conservation and tourism development.

2.3 Brief introduction to Social survey

2.3.1 General social-economic status in Dayan town Dayan town is located in the centre of Lijiang ancient town with a core

protected area of 56.8 Ha. The total inhabited area of Dayan town is

143.6 Ha (2002). It has around 14,000 inhabitants with a flow population

of 2,500 and 88% of total inhabitants are indigenous Naxi minority

people22. It is used to be a key commercial and strategic site along the

‘Tea‐Horse Road’, an important road bridging the Chinese hinterland

with the Qinghai‐Tibet Plateau, even further into India. The Dayan town 22 Data from on‐site investigation during the compilation of the Conservation Planning of Lijiang ancient town 2002, carried out by Tongji Urban Planning and Design Institute. The investigation was carried out by a team of students from Tongji University, led by Dr. Yong Shao.


‐ 31 ‐

developed while catering to the large demand for lodging and trading

opportunities brought about by these passing merchants. These trade‐

oriented hotels still exist today at the Xinyi Street in Dayan Town. Sifang

market plaza was the main public space for various interactions between

local people and the merchants. The social‐economic development

manifests a harmonious fusion of Naxi ethnic groups with other cultural

groups in history, and indicates the openness of the Naxi minority. This

openness is also reflected in the townscape that Dayan town has no city

walls. The town is surrounded by an agricultural landscape, which serves

as a buffer zone23 and as a de facto boundary of the old town.

Since preparing the nomination to be a UNESCO World Heritage site in

1996, tourism development has been booming in Lijiang ancient town

with Dayan town as the main attraction. The number of tourists has

more than quadrupled since 1996 (0.7 million tourists and 0.16 billion

RMB tourism revenue by 1995) and reached up to 2.9 million visitors per

year in 2001. In 2001, while tourism revenue reached 1.866 billion RMB.

In 2005 revenues reached 3.37 billion RMB24 . Tourism and related

services have become the predominant industries for the town,

accounting for more than 60% GDP in Lijiang25. This overwhelming flood

of tourism has led to profound changes in the social attributes of Dayan

town. The following section analyzes the data obtained from on site

social survey and the continuous study of records about Dayan town. It

23 A buffer zone is defined by Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention (2005, paragraph 104) as ‘an area surrounding the nominated property which has complementary legal and/or customary restrictions placed on its use and development to give an added layer of protection to the property. This should include the immediate setting of the nominated property, important views and other areas or attributes that are functionally important as a support to the property and its protection’. 24 Data from Lijiang Year Book 1995, 2001. 2005 (governmental data resource). 25 The proportion of the first, second and third industry in Lijiang transformed from 12:34:54 in 1995 to 8:25:67 in 2005. Data source: www.xinhuanet.com (governmental news resource in China)


‐ 32 ‐

traces the changes of spatial characteristics in order to have a better

understanding of the social problems in relation to the physical

environment in the process of living heritage conservation.

2.3.2 Social survey in Dayan town In 2002, whilst the compiling of the conservation planning for Lijiang

ancient town, a general survey was undertaken. The survey concentrated

in the core protected area of Dayan town by a team in Tongji University

including the author26. 112 sets of questionnaires were distributed in the

five main blocks of Dayan town and finally 99 sets of valid responses

were collected and analyzed (Annex 2). The majority of respondents

(80%) had been living in the old town for more than 20 years and owned

their properties (90% was private property), which ensured the analysis

reflected the situation of indigenous inhabitants in the process of

conservation and development. The survey inspired the author to

undertake a critical review of living heritage conservation in China and a

continuous study on Dayan town via literature reviews and on‐site

observations. This research drew upon five subsections in the

questionnaire, namely demography, living environment and quality,

social interaction, attitude to the living heritage conservation, and the

impacts of tourism development for further analysis. The figures below

were compiled by the author, if the sources were not additionally

clarified. The data are derived from the questionnaires in Dayan town in

2002, The analysis from a social perspective in relation to spatial

organizations is innovative for this research.

The research underlined the changes of social attributes through

comparison of data drawn from the on‐site survey in 2002 with general

information before the onset of mass tourism in 1994. The demographic

26 The social survey was conducted by students in Tongji University supervised by Dr. Shaoyong. Questionnaires were distributed among the local residents in the five main neighborhoods in Dayan town, 2002.


‐ 33 ‐

analysis reflected the general distribution of race, gender, and age, which

constituted the social basis of the living community. Further analyses on

family structure, i.e. the basic unit of a society, and career composition

offered insights to understand the transformation of social structure

alongside with tourism development. The perception of local residents to

the conditions of social communication, living environment and facilities

gave direct references to the social problems created in the process of

conservation. Moreover, the responses provided clues for the

improvement of social environment and corresponding physical features

in the future interventions.

2.4 Social analysis

2.4.1 The change of demography The Naxi minority represented the majority of inhabitants from the

beginning of settlement at Dayan town. The survey in 2002 was

conducted in the residential blocks at the rear of main streets, and

indicated that 87% of respondents were from the Naxi minority group.

The results reflect the general ethnic constitution in Dayan town at that

time. The continuity of indigenous inhabitants reflects a strong

connection of the Naxi people with their living community. However

based upon the on site observations along the streets of Dayan town in

2007 that more than 80% of the shops were run by non‐Naxi people,

which is consistent with the data from Fan and Shao (2005) indicating

that only 390 out of 1647 tourism‐related enterprises in Dayan town

belonged to indigenous inhabitants (more than 75% of the shops were

run by immigrants). Native people played a rather passive role in the

recent tourism development, which demonstrates they have a rather

negative capability as long‐term custodians for preserving their own

traditions and living environment. The survey also showed that 4 out of 5

respondents were male, which also fits well with the Naxi tradition that

women work in the fields to support families, while men spend their lives

on arts and spiritual contemplation. As a matter of fact, matriarchy still

prevails around Lugu Lake, 280km away from Lijiang city.


‐ 34 ‐

Race Distribution in the Survey

87%

7%

5%

1%

Naxi

Han

Bai

Others

Figure 24: Race distribution in the survey

Age Analysis1%

1%

25%

34%

39%Below 2020-3030-4545-60above 60

Figure 25: Age analysis in the survey

However, in light of age analysis in the survey, almost three quarter of

the population was over 45 years old and around 40% of them were over

60 years old. Dayan town had become a significantly aged society27,

which has exposed it to the risk of losing continuity and vitality of its 27 According to international standards, an aged society is one where 10 percent of the population is over 60 years of age. Demographic data base of Lijiang ancient town 2002 shows that overall 26% of population is over 60 years old.


‐ 35 ‐

traditions in the long run. An aged society and its corresponding social

problems are a common phenomenon for living heritage sites. Young

people had abandoned their homes for many different reasons. On one

hand, tourism dominated industries tend to decrease the general living

standards for native residents although it creates financial advantages.

Recent statistics 28 showed that Dayan received 12,600 tourists per day

averagely in 2006 and in peak season, tourists could reach up to 25,000

per day. As shown in Figure 2‐10, too many tourists, too much noise and

environmental pollution account for 56% among the ‘most disturbing

facts’ in the survey. Mass tourism exerts a negative influence on the

security and privacy of local residents. Furthermore, environmental

problems and one dimensional development caused by a dominant

tourism industry destroy the diversity of living environment. On the

other hand, young people are driven away by the limited opportunities

for employment and higher education, and thus move to bigger cities in

order to pursue their ‘dreams’.

The change of demography also reflected and influx of in a large number

of immigrants, which is recognized as another serious challenge for

conserving and continuing the ‘authentic values’ of Dayan. As indicated

through the field survey, there were 13,960 permanent residents in

Dayan town and 8200 of them were living in the core protected area in

2002 with a floating population of 2500 excluding tourists. Data from

Laza Wozniak29 showed that the number of native families plunged from

4,000 to under 2,500 in the decade to 2000 in Dayan town. The exodus

was due to the fast transformation from an agricultural to a tourism‐lead

industry. Although in the survey, 61% of respondents regarded the old

28 Statistics from Lijiang Tourism Bureau 2006: Lijiang received 4.6 million tourists and tourism revenue reached up to 4.63 billion RMB in 2006. In peak season, such as during spring festival (February) 2007, Lijiang received 174,800 tourists in seven days, i.e. around 25,000 tourists per day. 29 Data source: Laza Wozniak, 2003 of Far Eastern Economic Review, www.feer.com


‐ 36 ‐

town as an ideal living place, in contrast to 13% that considered the

newly developed districts as an ideal living place (26% were indifferent),

the response to the question on ‘what if the tourism extended to your

neighborhood’, was very different: only half of respondents said they

would continue normal life in the neighborhood, and the rest said they

would either move away or join the tourism business (Annex 2, IV). This

confirms with the on‐site investigation that found many native families

were requested to or spontaneously moved to the new town by renting

or selling their properties in Dayan town to local authorities or tourism‐

related immigrants. Thus, the internal land‐use patterns and spatial

characteristics of the traditional settlement have been transformed

gradually in line with the demographic changes and tourism

development, which has exerted a significant influence on the quality of

the living community. The original social networks are at the risk of

breaking down from the intrusion of immigrants and tourism‐related

activities in community spaces (detailed analysis in 2.4.3). Moreover, the

changes impair the sense of security in a traditional community. As

claimed by respondents to the survey, there were growing incidents of

theft and robbery in the ancient town, due to increasing numbers of

tourists, immigrants and floating population.


‐ 37 ‐

2.4.2 The change of social structure

Family Structure

38%

51%

1%

0% 6%

0%

2%

2%

Nuclear Family (A couplewith children) Stem Family ( Grandparents,parents and children)United Family (Two or moreNuclear families)Family without children

Aged family

Living alone

Single family

Others

Figure 26: Family structure analysis

The Naxi were originally a nomadic minority and went through a long

period of half‐nomadic, half‐agricultural history. A nomadic culture has a

great impact on the development of the Naxi minority, in which harmony

and cooperation are the basic philosophies. Meanwhile, matriarchy and

patriarchy have coexisted for a long time, which makes the united family

as an advantageous family structure, for the sake of security and farming.

Based on statistics from the 1950s, 35‐50% of all families were united

families with an average of 7‐8 members. Nowadays, nuclear families and

stem families are predominant (in the survey, 89% respondents are from

nuclear or stem families, only 1% of them were from united families). At

one hand, it is probably due to the economic independence coming with

development; at the other hand, it may reflect fewer bonds between

family members. Family is the basic unit of a society. Thus the changes in

the family structure have a significant influence on the overall social

structure. It is noteworthy that an aged society, depopulation of young

people and changes in community life are connected to the

transformations of social structure to a certain extent. This requires ca


‐ 38 ‐

orresponding change to community facilities and spatial arrangement in

order to serve the emerging needs of more independent families.

Career Analysis

54%

18%

10%

7%

11% Retired

Individual business

Jobless

Teacher

Others (worker, student,doctor etc)

Figure 27: Career analysis

Main Family Income

4%

18%

9%

19%

1%

26%22%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

Working inother cities

Tourismbusinessow ner

Landlord Employed intourism market

Agriculture Retirementpension

Others

Figure 28: Analysis of main family income

Career composition is another important indicator on social structure. In

the survey, 54% of responders were retired, which is consistent with the

analysis of age. For people in employment, their careers were limited

mainly to either tourism‐related business or civil servants. Traditional

businesses such as bronze, silver vessel and leather crafts, cotton

spinning, brewing and so on are being marginalized, due to inferior


‐ 39 ‐

economical competence. Many traditional businesses are preserved for

the purpose of tourism only, without any real devotion. As carriers of

traditional skills and culture, the decline of thesetraditional business puts

these ‘intangible values’ at risk of losing viability, and leads to a decrease

on the diversity of lifestyle. As seen in Figure 2‐8, besides 26% of

respondents living on pensions, 46% of them were working for tourism

directly (18% owners of tourism‐related businesses) or indirectly (9%

landlords, and 19% local employees in the tourism market). Only 1% of

local residents were part‐time or full‐time farmers. It demonstrates the

significant impact of tourism on the living community. The high level of

dependence on tourism lowered the socio‐economic security of local

residents, while it unconsciously reinforces the priority of tourism

development rather than conserving their traditional quality of life.

Tourism and related businesses redistribute the social wealth and

magnify the gaps between rich and poor, which also arouse further social

problems.

2.4.3 The change of land-use and environmental quality

The change of demography exerts a significant impact on land‐use and

environmental quality in a living community, including spatial patterns

and functions. Dayan town has been experiencing a dramatic urban

sprawl since 1996 after being nominated as an UNESCO World Heritage

site. The exodus of indigenous inhabitants and a large number of

immigrants associated with the fast transformation from an agriculture‐

based to a tourism‐based economy led to substantial changes in land‐use.

Because of the limitation of natural boundaries, such as Lion Mountain in

the west and Jinhong Mountain in the north, the town has extended

mainly to southeast and replaced the farmland. Meanwhile, the

decreasing number of farmers as indicated in Figure 2‐8 is also a

reflection of the reduction of surrounding farmland, which serves as a

buffer zone of the core protected district. The definition of the buffer

zone for heritage conservation is always a central dispute between

UNESCO and local authorities, eagerly for tourism and economic


‐ 40 ‐

development. In the case of Dayan, the buffer zone is defined by UNESCO

to be 3.8 square kilometers (380 Ha), but by local authorities to be 172.6

Ha30. Along with the urban sprawling, traffic systems extended from the

ancient town in different directions, crossing farmland and connecting up

the new districts. Farmland alongside the traffic networks, which used to

be the natural and cognitive boundaries of the ancient town, has mostly

been replaced by commercial real estate and tourism‐based

infrastructure (Figure 2‐9). Boundaries play an essential role in the

integrated ‘values’ of living heritage sites. They centrally manifest the

relationship between indigenous inhabitants and their natural

environment. Meanwhile, boundaries usually compose one of the most

distinguishing features of a site. The merging of historic settlements with

modern districts without clear demarcation, not only brings about

negative impacts on the environmental quality of the site, but also leads

to the dissolving identity of the indigenous community, due to the

indeterminate nature of the territorial boundaries of the ancient town.

30 The buffer zone of 3.8 square kilometers is derived from UNESCO document at the time of its inscription in 1997; and the 172.6 Ha is derived from Lijiang “Historical and Cultural Importance City Master Plan” adopted in 1994. The difference is the main critiques of UNESCO World Heritage Committee concerning the growth of undesirable construction in the buffer zone defined in the inscription in 1997.


‐ 41 ‐

Figure 29: The occupation of farmland, the change of boundaries (after the map of landuse in 2002 and 2007, Conservation Planning,

Tongji Urban Planning and Design Institute)


‐ 42 ‐

Most disturbing fact caused by tourism

6%

40%

10%

26%

15%

0%

2%Too many tourist

Environmental pollution

Too much noise

No melon-cutting fromtourism benefitBeing forced to leave theold townBeing visited and takenphotos by visitorsOthers

Figure 210: Local residents’ reaction to tourism development

The change of land‐use leads to a change in environmental quality. As

shown in Figure 2‐10, environmental pollution was the biggest negative

factor experienced by local residents associated with the tourism

development (40%). Taking the problems of noise and massive tourists

into account, more than half of the concerns were related with the

quality of physical environment. The Naxi minority cherished very much

their harmony with nature, and they were very sensitive to the changes

of environmental quality in their daily life. Many indigenous residents,

who were interviewed on site, complained that the immigrants engaged

in tourism businesses, merely cared for monetary benefits and did not

respect the natural environment, especially their traditional way of using

water systems 31(see Figure 2‐11). Meanwhile, the litter from the large

31 According to the tradition of Dayan town, there is a ‘three wells’ water management system. Local people usually dig three wells from one mouth of a spring and name them according to the distance to the source. The first well is used for drinking, the second one for washing food and vegetables, and the third for washing clothes and other hygienic purposes. The tradition also regulates that before 8:00am and after 22:00pm, the water in the rivers should be only used for drinking purposes, while washing and drainage is forbidden. It helps to control the quality of water for different purposes and creates the primary water recycling system.


‐ 43 ‐

number of tourists and the pollution from increased traffic also

contributed to the deterioration of environmental quality in Dayan,

which tangibly affected various aspects of social interactions in the local

community. Analysis and on‐site investigation showed that a decrease in

farmland and pollution of water systems were the main concerns among

the indigenous inhabitants on environmental quality in relation to

tourism development. It reflects the different consciousness and

sensitivity of indigenous inhabitants from tourists as well as immigrants

to native resources, which influence their behaviors and relationship with

the environment. Therefore, it reveals the importance of maintaining

local population, who are the long‐term custodians of the integrated

‘values’ at the site, and manifests the close interaction between changes

in the environment and changes of demography at the site.

Figure 211: The traditional use of water system by indigenous residents in Dayan town

The change of land‐use also obviously reflects in the changes of spatial

functions in the indigenous community. As surveys and observations at

the site showed, although the visual appearane remains the same, spatial

patterns and functions have been dramatically changed around a

booming tourism industry. Many residences along the streets in Dayan

town turned into shop‐houses. As seen from Figure 2‐12, the main

streets radiating from Sifang plaza were full of souvenir shops,

restaurants, bars and many other types of tourism facilities. In particular,


‐ 44 ‐

a bars‐street has sprung up driven by the tourists’ demands for night life,

which has dramatically changed the living atmosphere of Dayan town.

More substantially, if comparing the distribution of tourism facilities

between 2002 and 2007 (Figure 2‐12), it indicates that the tourism

facilities have expanded into the side streets and living neighborhoods.

These commercial developments have been established without proper

considerations for the ancient cultural environment, have assimilated the

ancient living streets into other commercial districts as a whole and have

dissolved the identity of Dayan town as a World Heritage site.

Furthermore, those businesses penetrated into the courtyards and semi‐

public and semi‐private community spaces, which have violated the

privacy and security of local residents’ daily life. The Tourism‐related

facilities and shops replaced the local facilities and conveniences, and

consequently have increased the living expenses of indigenous residents.

As a result, many indigenous inhabitants abandoned their homes

voluntarily for the sake of a more convenient and comfortable living

environment. Additionally an overwhelming development of tourism has

driven the indigenous population out of the ancient town to maximize

the commercial benefits. As seen in Figure 2‐9 that, the fact of ‘being

forced to leave the old town’ is the third ‘most disturbing facts’ of

tourism development experienced by indigenous inhabitants. It refers to

various forces from local authorities or development agencies in the

name of conservation or development of certain areas. Indigenous

inhabitants have gradually lost control with their environment, since the

ancient town opens up to tourism in an open‐market economy

mechanism. The exodus of indigenous residents leads to the destruction

of social networks in the local community as well as of living quality in

the long run.


‐ 45 ‐

Figure 212: Comparison of the distribution of tourism facilities near Sifang plaza in Dayan town (above 2007, below 2002)32

32 Data source: Conservation plan of Lijiang ancient town 2002 and 2007, Led by Dr. Shao Yong, Tongji Urban Planning and Design Institute.


‐ 46 ‐

2.4.4 The change of social interactions In the survey, 73% of the respondents thought they had a good

relationship with their neighbors, but only 46% of them acknowledged

that they often met with their neighbors. This may be due to the

introduction of telecommunication and the proliferation of home

computers and internet, but seen from Figure 2‐13 and Figure 2‐14,

limited places for socialization of local residents also accounted for the

declining social interaction. 84% of the respondents thought there were

not enough places for socializing and entertainment in the ancient town.

Among them, 30% of the informants viewed that the problem of missing

social places was serious and restricted their social communication with

neighbors, especially the elder residents. Based on the analysis in Figure

2‐13, streets played a central role in social communication. 63% of social

activities happened along the streets, followed by open spaces in the

nearby blocks (38%) and courtyards (22%). However, as explained above,

the original plazas and streets, which used to be social places for local

residents have became tourism attractions.

More substantially, since the streetscape is strictly protected by laws, the

spatial change occurred in an introverted way. By comparison of the

tourism facility distribution in year 2002 and 2007 (Figure 2‐12),

evidences were clearly that the tourism‐related facilities, such as bars,

food grocery shops and family hostels have penetrated more into the

residential blocks. Some semi‐public places and private courtyards within

the residential blocks have been occupied by commercial activities,

driven by financial benefits. The change of spatial functions leads directly

to the fundamental change of spatial features and flow of people within

a living community. This severely interrupts social activities of indigenous

inhabitants. It is evident from the comparison in Figure 2‐12 that

commercial and tourism activities have encroached into the living places,

and the corresponding tourist flows have broken down ordinary social

contacts amongst the residents. In the long run, the loss of privacy and

sense of community has driven local people out of their home heritage

sites to look for a better social life. Therefore, how to preserve the


‐ 47 ‐

sensitive places in relation to the social quality of an indigenous

community is vital for retaining traditional social interactions and

community life of indigenous inhabitants.

Where do you usually socialize with neighbors (multi-choice)

22%

63%

38%

8%

In the courtyardsOn the streetsIn the nearby blooksOther places

Figure 213: Places for socializing with neighbors

Do you think there are short of places for socializing and entertainment

16%

54%

30%

Not at allYesVery much

Figure 214: Lack of places for socializing and entertainment


‐ 48 ‐

Services wanted (multi-choice)

24%28%

26%

21%

13%

18%

72%75%

40%

25%

10%

38%

Open markets

Shopping malls

Grain and oil supply stands

Barber shops

Grocers

Post off ices

Repair stalls

Entertainment centres

Community centres for old people

Middle school

Primary school

Hospital

Figure 215: Services you want in the neighborhood (multichoice)

While tourism facilities flourished, as shown in Figure 2‐15, many kinds of

neighborhood services for local residents disappeared in Dayan town.

Among them, everyday conveniences, such as repair stalls, barber shops,

grain and oil supply stands as well as grocers were wanted by indigenous

inhabitants. The on‐site interviews showed that three quarters of

respondents preferred shopping in open‐market (Annex 2, III). The open

spaces to accommodate these daily services were used as meeting points

among neighbors, which have been replaced by souvenir shops,

restaurants, and other services exclusively for the benefit of tourists and

growing tourism‐related industry. Seen in Figure 2‐15, the majority of

respondents indicated the lack of entertainment centers and repair stalls

in Dayan town; more than one third of them asked for more community

centers for old people and hospitals and clinics in the neighborhoods.

Open markets, shopping malls, grain and oil supply stands, barber shops

and middle schools were amongst the needs of local residents. It clearly

shows that the desires and convenience of the indigenous inhabitants

have not been given enough consideration in the process of conservation


‐ 49 ‐

and tourism development. At the same time, booming tourism has

boosted real estate development nearby and an increased retail prices in

the town. Indigenous inhabitants are losing their control over spaces for

traditional practices and social interactions, while facing economic

pressure from tourism development. In the long run, the destruction of

social interaction in the local community will lead to the discontinuity of

social networks amongst the indigenous inhabitants. It amplifies the

exodus of indigenous inhabitants through the undermining the sense of

communication and the willingness to carry on their way of life and

traditions in the living community.

2.5 Reviews on current management at Lijiang ancient town

In order to understand the above mentioned social changes in the

process of conservation and tourism development, it is essential to know

how the town is managed. Lijiang ancient town was registered on the

“World Heritage List” in 1997. Henceforth, attention to this conservation

has been drawn from the international organizations, national

government and local authorities, while tourism and related industries

exploded and became the central themes in development. As reviewed

by the People’s Daily33, from 1994 to 1999, tourism‐related facilities and

businesses swarmed into the ancient town as encouraged by local

authorities for the purposes of regional economic development. These

changes aroused social chaos and environmental disorders in a short

time period at the living town, and since the businessmen had a totally

different ideology and cognition of the living environment compared to

the local residents, it was hard for them to be integrated into the local

society. Water pollution and destruction of built environment brought

33 The national press, online resource: www.people.com.cn 23rd June 2003. The data showed that there were more than 1,000 shops crowded in the ancient town by year 2000. Most of them located in Dayan town and occupied the main public space and streets.


‐ 50 ‐

negative images for tourism and the related development.

Correspondingly, the Management Committee and Cultural Heritage

Protection Bureau were established in 2002 and 2005 respectively in

response to the deterioration of the physical environment. Millions of US

dollars have been invested to improve the infrastructures and facilities;

while a certain amount was appropriated for the restoration of historical

residences and the development of new sightseeing locations. However,

the social environment and local desires did not receive equal attention

from the government and local authorities, and meanwhile local

residents’ involvement in the process of conservation and tourism

development was very limited. Therefore, even through the physical

environment has been under control at an enormous cost, the mass

tourism and commercialized atmosphere in Dayan town has led to it’s

the degradation of overall ‘values’. As surveyed by Fan and Shao (2005),

artistic and cultural industries related to the previous unique social

identity and atmosphere of Lijiang ancient town are remarkably

decreasing.

Besides Dayan, the World Heritage properties of Lijiang ancient town also

includes Shuhe and Baisha, which are located to the north of Dayan,

around four and eight kilometers away. Based on the critiques and

experiences of conservation at Dayan, new conservation approaches

have been applied experimentally. Shuhe sold its conservation and

development rights to a company. Thus, all the local residents either

moved out of the village or have been employed as performers of

traditional folk arts or farmers to take care of the surrounding rice fields.

The whole of Shuhe turned into a well organized tourist attraction but

there was no basis to talk about social quality of local residents. It is an

extreme intervention of a living heritage site, and aroused bitter criticism

from the international society, since it turned a living site into an open

museum. Baisha, which is a bit further from Dayan town in comparison

to Shuhe, tried to engage local villagers in the initiative of conservation.

In order to protect their home environment and ownership rights, local

villagers set up Village Charters to constrain litter and other types of


‐ 51 ‐

pollution, and to maintain their social lives. Because of its vibrant living

atmosphere, Baisha is becoming more and more attractive for tourists

and other cultural activities. A wide and active participation of local

residents in the process of conservation and development contributed

not only to an efficient management system, but also to a high social

cohesion and a more desirable living environment.

2.6 Summary of social problems in Dayan town As explicitly explored via the on site social survey and observations at

Dayan town, the solely preservation of the physical environment could

not fulfill the requirements to retain ‘Outstanding Universal Values’ at

the living heritage site. A living site should represent comprehensive

‘values’ as a viable community. Foremost, Indigenous inhabitants and the

associated traditions, life‐styles and other cultural expressions are

essential part of the integrated ‘values’ of Dayan town. As stated by

Western et al. (1994) in consistent with their numerous case studies on

biodiversity conservation in relation to local people, a focus on livelihood

needs of indigenous inhabitants and community is a prerequisite to solve

the problems between conservation and development. In the case of

Dayan, social problems in the living community are becoming severe,

which are centrally reflected in the conflicts between local desires and

the outside demands from tourists as well as immigrants in relation to

the tourism industry. It is evident that an exodus of native Naxi people

with centuries‐old families, and a swarm of tourists and immigrants have

changed the nature of this historic settlement from a unique habitable

place to a tourism‐dominated, commercial centre. The main social

problems derived from the Dayan case study include:

1) Destruction of community social structure, in relation to the

exodus of indigenous inhabitants and mass influx of tourists and

immigrants in the rapid socio‐economic transformation. It is

reflected on the change of demography, family structure, career

composition and spatial functions.


‐ 52 ‐

2) Monotonous job opportunities and insecure employment status

for indigenous residents, in the passive engagement of a

dominant tourism industry, resulting in less labour market

security and life chance of the traditional community.

3) Loss of privacy in the living community, in relation to the change

of visible and invisible boundaries of the traditional community,

reflecting on the increasing crime rates

4) Decreasing diversity in daily life, related to the lack of everyday

conveniences and entertainment along with the change of land‐

use, leading to less satisfaction and life chance over the living

community

5) Decline of social associations, reflecting on the decreasing of

traditional business and activities, leading to less control on the

living environment

6) Reduction of social interactions, consistent with the lack of

social space, replaced by mass tourism‐oriented services and

facilities, leading to less cohesion of the indigenous community

7) Aged‐society phenomenon, when young generations moved out

for better education, employment opportunities, or better

quality of life, leading to the discontinuity of traditions, practices

and knowledge.

The social problems caused by mass tourism with the neglect of local

demands have aroused growing concerns in the process of conservation

and development. They have exerted negative influence on the quality of

life in a living heritage site. The reduction in availability and accessibility

to social services for local residents along with subtle changes of spatial

functions and patterns in the neighborhoods, and the indeterminate

nature of public, semi‐public and semi‐private spaces in the community


‐ 53 ‐

lead to the decline of sense of belonging and social intercommunication.

In the long term, these social problems decrease the security and

satisfaction of indigenous inhabitants and result in a vicious circle of

deterioration of living quality and depopulation. Indigenous inhabitants

are the carriers and representatives of living ‘values’, while acting as

long‐time custodians for the genuine values of a living heritage site. It is

of great importance to maintain the continuity of a social environment

and to cultivate a sense of belonging and communication in the local

residents for the sake of social sustainable development.

Through on‐site surveys and observations at Dayan town, this chapter

explores social problems with reflections on the changes of spatial

organizations in the process of conservation and tourism development. It

offers a better understanding on the social concerns in living heritage

conservation and indicates the negative influences of change of spatial

organizations on social life of indigenous people. Meanwhile, some

experimental interventions applied at different parts of Lijiang ancient

town inspire further thinking on proper approaches for living heritage

conservation. The next chapter will review in general the development of

living heritage conservation to understand what has been studied and

what remains as serious challenges in relation to the social problems of

living heritage conservation. The existing applied methods will be

compared and analyzed to understand the influences of conservation

policy on achieving long‐term balanced conservation and development in

these traditional living communities.


‐ 54 ‐

3 Critical Reviews on Living Heritage Conservation

Given the social problems identified in chapter two through the field case

study in Dayan town, this chapter investigates the social concerns and

challenges in living heritage conservation in a broad context, for the

purpose of a more holistic understanding on the current status of living

heritage conservation under the framework of the UNESCO World

Heritage program. Critical reviews on applied methods help to find out

what had been addressed and what remained to be solved in terms of

social problems in conservation. It helps to generalize social problems

and the influences of different conservation approaches, and leads to an

introspective quest for a more pragmatic design tool.

3.1 Findings from the Living Heritage Sites Program

UNESCO World Heritage program is derived from an international

safeguarding campaign to safeguard the Abu Simbel temples from the

construction of Aswan High Dam in Egypt, followed by safeguarding

campaigns in Venice (Italy) and Moenjodaro (Pakistan) etc. It was built

upon a series of international charters and conventions to set up an

intergovernmental cooperation system to conserve the sites or objects

with ‘Outstanding Universal Values’ for human kind through

communication and evaluation. The living heritage program was a

reflection of needs emerging from comprehensive and interdisciplinary

studies in the area of conservation. The Living Heritage Sites Program

(LHSP) is a widely recognized program organized by ICCROM

collaborating with SPAFA34 under the framework of the UNESCO World

34 SPAFA refers to SEAMEO Regional Centre for Archaeology and Fine Art, which is supported by the Southeast Asian Ministers of Education Organization. The Living Heritage Sites Program has been prepared by Herb Stovel (at that time, Unit Director of ICCROM) during the process of development of ICCROM Programme and Budget 2004‐2005. The paper includes earlier inputs by Nobuko Inaba. (Nov. 4, 2002). The

Critical Reviews on Living Heritage Conservation

‐ 55 ‐

Heritage program, focusing on the living dimensions of heritage

conservation in Asia. The program is based upon the fruits of the ITUC

(Integrated Territorial and Urban Conservation) program devoted to the

management of living cities and landscapes in the past two decades.

Thus, the program involves a wide participation and pilot studies in Asian

countries, such as Luang Prabang (Lao PDR), Ta Nei in Angkor (Cambodia),

Phrae (Thailand), and the Mekong River project (including five countries

in Southeast Asia). It well represented the real status and concerns in

living heritage conservation with the aim to build connections between

the local population and heritage sites via community involvement at

various stages. The program has clearly defined the main characteristics

of living heritage sites and reviewed the main problems in the process of

conservation. On basis of that, it proposed a living heritage approach as a

promising solution to these problems.

3.1.1 Main characteristics of living heritage sites According to the Operational Guidelines35 ratified by UNESCO, the living

heritage sites in the program and in this research are defined as ‘historic

towns’ which are still inhabited and which, by their very nature, have

developed and will continue to develop under the influence of socio‐

economic and cultural transformation, a situation that renders the

program involved participants from Cambodia, China (Hong Kong SAR), India, Japan, New Zealand, Thailand and Vietnam. 35 The Operational Guidelines is short for the Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention, ratified by UNESCO World Heritage Centre in 1972 and modified periodically. Online revised version: http://unesco.org/archive/opguide08‐en.pdf. It classifies the groups of buildings into three categories, except for living heritage sites, the other two types are: towns which are no longer inhabited but which provide unchanged archaeological evidence of the past; these generally satisfy the criterion of authenticity and their state of conservation can be relatively easily controlled; and new towns of the twentieth century which paradoxically have something in common with both the aforementioned categories: which their original urban organization is clearly recognizable and their authenticity is undeniable, their future is unclear because their development is largely uncontrollable.


‐ 56 ‐

assessment of their authenticity more difficult and any conservation

policy more problematical. The main characteristics of a living heritage

site rely on the fact that its' cultural and natural resources closely

interact with indigenous inhabitants’ daily life, which embodies assets of

great values in social performance and quests for an evolutionary

evaluation. Therefore, the preservation of living heritage sites

emphasized the importance of ‘authenticity’ and ‘function’ in a

‘continuous’ and ‘diverse’ environment. The term ‘living’ referred to

‘both the living aspects of heritage (continuity), and the heritage

components in a living environment’ (ICCROM LHSP first strategy

meeting in Bangkok, 2003).

3.1.2 Main problems in current living heritage conservation

Since the living heritage sites have two intrinsic faces in both

conservation and development – one to local residents and the other to

outsiders – the main problems lies in the interrelationship between them:

Value identification: A living heritage site represents both heritage

values inherited from historic, cultural and artistic development as a

common property, and contemporary economic and social values to local

residents. Its preservation is a continuous evolutionary process and thus

it is problematic to identify what the authentic values for the collective

identity of a living site are and what people value more through their

engagements?

Interventions: Based on the value orientations, physical elements

including constructions, paths, spaces, boundaries and so on, imply

different functions to different users. Which function deserves priority

and how to achieve an appropriate equilibrium still remain a dilemma in

the process of development and conservation.

At present, most applied living heritage conservation is characterized by

expert‐based value identification and top‐down interventions, like, for

instance Melaka city in Malaysia, Bhaktapur in Nepal, Vigan Heritage


‐ 57 ‐

village in Philippines etc. The process appeals for more concerns to be

placed on the continuity of living features and sustainable management.

Therefore, a community‐based approach was introduced and became an

efficient complement to the previous method of conservation. However,

the role of local residents in the process of conservation is quite limited

and passive in most cases. Local residents are respected as part of

heritage values, but they are not properly integrated in the operations of

conservation and tourism development.

These problems are closely related to the social quality of living heritage

sites, especially those listed as World Heritage sites, which have aroused

overwhelming attention in tourism development and led to biased

measures in the above two perspectives. The indigenous people are

often regarded as layman in the process of value identification. Strict

provisions of governmental regulations do not offer a dynamic way of

preserving the physical environment, while the internal social quality,

which plays the vital drive for creation and evolution of collective

identities (as explained in Chapter 4) fall into neglect. On one hand,

governmental authorities restrict modifications in favour of

environmental ‘authenticity’ and ‘integrity’, which impedes the

improvement of living quality in line with the needs and conveniences of

local residents; on the other hand, negative impacts from mass tourism

development disturb the basic social life in the community. This leads to

the deterioration of social quality and as a reciprocal consequence, local

residents become indifferent or even hostile to the conservation, and

some abandon their homes for a better life. For instance, it was reported

that some local residents refused to inscribe their properties on the

preservation list as they did not want their properties to be governed by

restrictive terms of renovation or constructions; some sold their

properties because they did not like a bustled environment.

Depopulation and changes of land‐use driven by short‐term economic

profits put living heritage sites at high risk of losing their vitality and

outstanding universal values. The linkage between indigenous

community and heritage becomes fragile in the conventional method of


‐ 58 ‐

top‐down conservation, which turns heritage sites into inanimate and

socially‐unviable projects.

3.1.3 Living heritage approach In light of the above‐mentioned problems, the LHSP program developed

a living heritage approach, identified as a community‐based, bottom‐up

method to preserve and manage heritage sites. It aims to promote the

public awareness of the living heritage concept and to integrate views

and interests from different stakeholders. The community‐based

approach reflects the cognitions and connections of native people to the

environment. It helps to identify important physical settings related to

traditional and ethnic features, such as places for traditional events and

festivals, religious affairs and landmarks with symbolic or tribal meanings.

In the course of living heritage conservation, some appropriate

interventions have been introduced to involve local communities in a

broader sense. Among them, stakeholder meetings, collections of folk

tales and culture mapping are the most commonly adopted methods to

understand various meanings of heritage resources at the sites and to

achieve consensus for further decision‐making. As stated in the program,

there are two premises to apply to the living heritage approach, including

(ICCROM LHSP, 2005):

heritage sites need to be understood as living places, where efforts

to improve the understanding and conservation of the sites must be

linked to the values, interests and capacities of the populations that

live within and around them, and who are the true long‐term

custodians of these sites;

these sites must be seen as the embodiment of significant values,

where effective site management requires that as much attention

be given to the conditions for retaining these values as to those for

preserving the material fabric that contains and supports the site’s

activities.


‐ 59 ‐

3.2 Responses to main problems in living heritage conservation

In response to the summery of main problems above, concerning value

identification and interventions, there are two concepts that need to be

clarified in the context of living heritage conservation, i.e. authenticity

and function. They are determinant factors in the process of

conservation and tourism development. An explicit discussion may well

help a better understanding on the social problems in living heritage

conservation and contributed to further discussion on corresponding

solutions.

3.2.1 Arguments on authenticity In terms of value identification, authenticity is a common criterion.

However, there are continuous arguments on the definition of

authenticity. In the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, authentic refers to

‘original, first hand (as opposed to copied), or real, actual, genuine (as

opposed to pretended)’. In the context of heritage conservation, Feilden

and Jokilehto (1998, p. 16‐17) understood ‘authenticity’ as an intrinsic

ascription to a heritage resource ‘that is materially original or genuine as

it was constructed and as it has aged and weathered in time’. They

underlined the difference between ‘authentic’ and ‘identical’, in the

perspective that ‘authentic’ is a genuine product of the time as an

evolving concept, but ‘identical’ is a pure form reproduction. The Nara

Document on Authenticity (1994) underlined credible or truthful

information sources for the assessment of authenticity. It also stressed

the importance of authenticity to culture and heritage diversity as

irreplaceable spiritual and intellectual resources for all humankind.

Accordingly, the judgment about heritage values should be based in the

respective cultural/social context instead of fixed criteria. Feilden and

Jokilehto (1998, p. 17) asserted that: ‘In the case of a heritage resource,

its historical authenticity should generally reflect the significant phases of

construction and utilization in different phases of its historical time line’.


‐ 60 ‐

However, these interpretations of authenticity focus on the physical

elements and neglect the social environment in a living community. As

explained in the field of existentialist philosophy, authenticity refers to

the degree to which one is true to one's own personality, spirit, or

character, despite any external forces, pressures and influences from the

materialized world. It is often "at the limits" of language, but could

simply be interpreted as ‘meaning’. It is crucial to identify the meanings

of living heritage sites with in‐depth engagement of local communities.

Mason et al. (2000) proposed that a value typology could help to identify

meanings of physical elements, including historical and artistic values,

social or civic values, spiritual or religious values, symbolic or identity

values, research values, natural values and economic values. The

common methods of collecting meanings include documentary evidence

(correspondence, reports, sketches, watercolours, ground photographs,

air photographs, ground photogrammetry, maps, plans, published

materials etc.) surveys, oral information and physical evidence. In a living

heritage site, more evidence and information from different perspectives

can be obtained through a community‐based approach to understand

better the meanings behind physical expressions. Therefore, proper

measures could be deduced not only to preserve the physical character,

but also to maintain the authentic quality. It is necessary to analyze and

access the values with professional knowledge from a holistic view.

Besides the meanings of physical elements, authenticity is closely related

to self‐fulfillment. In living heritage sites, authenticity is reflected by

collective behaviors and memories to represent the social identity

(explained in chapter 4). It emphasizes the continuity of traditions, life‐

styles and community lives in a dynamic way and contributes to the

cultural diversity. This research deals with living heritage sites in current

circumstances instead of historic arguments, which focuses the

intentions of the creation of various objects in the site. It requires

maintaining the functions beyond pure forms and retaining the

interactions between users and objects. The current conservation

methods on physical authenticity, as indicated in the ‘Operational


‐ 61 ‐

Guidelines’ like authenticity in design, in materials, in workmanship or in

settings, set limits to the further exploration of social meanings beyond

the physical morphology.

3.2.2 Interpretation on functions Functionality is valid only if it is explicitly affiliated with a particular

person or group. In living heritage sites, there are mainly three groups of

people, i.e. local residents, tourists and immigrants mainly associated

with tourism development. Each group has different requirements and

ideologies on the living environment, and vice versa. Physical

environment is endowed with different functions in relation to different

groups of users. In a living heritage environment, local residents are the

creators as well as carriers of authentic values at the site and thus,

functions to fulfill their social demands should be given priority in various

interventions. Although the requirements of tourists and other

immigrants usually relate to short‐sighted development, the

corresponding functions required should be integrated into the social

considerations of a living community. Proper interpretations of the

different functions of the physical environment encourage beneficial

interactions of different groups by integrating similar activities. The social

activities promote the social vitality and ‘continuity’ by developing

contextual strategies with priority for the social‐demands of the local

population.

Interventions should be developed in virtue of a holistic understanding of

the authenticity and functions of various factors in a living heritage site.

For instance, an open space demonstrates its significance as a historic

witness of certain historic events, currently functioning as a piazza for

gatherings of local residents. In the process of conservation, its

characteristics relate to historic events, such as a monumental statue,

and a piece of stele should be preserved. More importantly, the

elements which are attributed to its gathering function, such as a

landmark structure, spatial scale or relationship with other places should

be given priority for preservation. Mason et al. (2000) argued that ‘the


‐ 62 ‐

real usefulness of values concept for planning resides precisely in this

connection between the characteristics of sites and the process through

which different stakeholders express and act on those values’36. It allows

present communities to leave marks in the process of conservation, and

reinforce positive social dialogues through tracing the roots of the

common past experiences and sharing a vision for enhancing the quality

of life in the future. Activities of indigenous people in the corresponding

physical environment offer complementary clues to explore the insights

of meanings and functions of a living heritage.

3.3 Main contributions of the living heritage approach

3.3.1 Integrated approach through direct community involvement

Previous experiences in the discussion of historical towns have shown

the significance of combining community goals with conservation

processes. It is an essential way to stimulate the enthusiasm of

community involvement, and thus to ensures the continuity in heritage

sites. The Living Heritage program, which succeeds the fruits of the

pervious program of Integrated Territorial and Urban Conservation

(ITUC), highlights the involvement of local communities in the heritage

conservation and management process. It aims to establish close

connections between people and heritage and encourages a continuous

function of heritage sites. As stated by the director of the living heritage

program in ICCROM, ‘Conservation should not prevent pre‐existing uses

36Article ‘Heritage Values and Challenges of Conservation Planning’ page 21 by Mason, Randall and Erica Avrami. 2000. In the proceedings of Management Planning for Archaeological Sites, edited by Jeanne Marie Teutonico and Gaetano Palumbo in an international workshop organized by the Getty Conservation Institute and Loyola Marymount University 19‐22 May 2000, Corinth, Greece.


‐ 63 ‐

of heritage’ (Wijesuriya et al, 200637), with regard to the spiritual,

economic or social functions. It arouses a wider and deeper insight of

various values of heritage sites and emphasizes the necessity of an

integrated approach for heritage conservation.

In order to integrate views from different stakeholders, community

involvement in the living heritage program is adopted at various stages of

the conservation procedure. From the very beginning of identifying the

significance of a site, to the decision making process, the living heritage

approach aims to offer a platform and system to listen to the voice of the

public. By doing so, a comprehensive evaluation of the site can be

achieved and at the same time, the public enthusiasm for conservation

could be stimulated for the sake of long‐term custodians. Direct

community involvement in conservation is essential to understand

tangible and intangible, as well as cultural and social values of a heritage

site from different points of view. In other words, the living heritage

approach attaches a strong attention to the holistic picture of heritage

conservation and fosters public participation.

3.3.2 Highlight of living components The living heritage approach is proposed as an interactive and bottom‐up

method to reflect local voices from the grass‐roots. Moreover, it respects

sustainability and flexibility in a specific cultural context by underlining

the function of living components in sustainable conservation. The living

components include the ongoing traditions, life styles and activities,

which contribute tangibly and intangibly to the social and cultural

identity of a heritage site. They are not static and stable as objects in

museums, and therefore, represent a challenge for proper conservation

methods.

37 Wijesuriya, Gamini, Kazuhiko Nishi and Joe King. 2006. ICCROM Newsletter 32. p. 18


‐ 64 ‐

The living components in heritage sites require an evolving method of

conservation with a deep and holistic understanding of historic and

aesthetic values and current social demands for every single spot. They

inspire the interdisciplinary and interactive research as an effort to

preserve the heritage site as a whole. The sense of ‘continuity’ and

‘participation’ inherent in the living components throw light on the long‐

term maintenance. Furthermore, they contribute not only to the site, but

also to much broader areas for sustainable social development while

keeping the socio‐cultural diversity. As argued by Low (2001), social

sustainability refers to ‘maintaining and enhancing the diverse histories,

values, and relationships of contemporary populations’ and cultural

diversity is a critical indicator. The continuity of human groups in heritage

sites is an essential factor for cultural diversity. It helps to understand

‘the cultural dynamics of a place so that specific individuals and their

histories and values are sustained at or near the heritage site, across

generations, over time’ (Low 2001:51).

3.3.3 Advantages in comparison with traditional methods

Heritage places are given relevant significance in the way people

recognize them. The living heritage approach respects the local

communities and consults with them in the first instance. As compared

below (table 3‐1), conventional conservation depends on expertise

knowledge, legal, and institutional framework to secure recourses and

apply conservation management, which is initiated by the government or

authorities and implemented from top‐down. As an essential part of

conservation, an expert‐based approach is dominating in practices with a

focus on the historic, aesthetic and artistic values of a heritage site. The

values are identified and discussed in a circle of experts from different

backgrounds, such as architecture, history, arts, economics etc. These

experts are outsiders to the heritage site and their judgments are usually

made based on an academic point of view, with comparative case

analysis at a global level. On one hand, this approach offers a pragmatic

way of preservation through the clear identification of key features for


‐ 65 ‐

conservation, which also sets decisive indicators for the decision‐making

process; however, on the other hand, this approach results in a lack of

deep insights into the life at a living heritage site, in respect that the

experts are often short of long‐term life experience at the site. Therefore,

the values identified by the experts seem less relevant to the local

population. The corresponding applied management is also based on

governmental interventions and restricts adequate use of living

resources.

The living heritage approach, distinguished by a community‐based

method, emerged from the requirement of a renaissance of living

heritage sites, through reviving social functions at sites. It encourages a

wide involvement from local communities at the stage of value

identification in order to have a comprehensive understanding of the site.

The approach encourages enthusiasm for conservation from the local

population by respecting their values and incorporating dialogue, such as

consensus building, voting, and other governing procedures, in order to

reflect the needs of local people. During the value identification period,

different opinions of local communities are collected and documented,

which includes not only tangible features but also intangible values, such

as legends, languages, religions, festivals and so on. These intangible

settings go beyond values in the eyes of experts and enrich the meanings

of the physical environment. Furthermore, they offer rich connections

between tangible and intangible characteristics to represent the

authenticity and integrity of a living heritage site. However, the

community‐based approach is declared to contain a mass of data without

decisive indicators for decision‐making, while its performance has been

well below expectations (Kellert et al. 2000; Barrett et al. 2001). As

argued by Songorwa (1999) and Murphree (2002), the community‐based

conservation devolved the authority and responsibility, which led to

improper implementation in practices. Furthermore, the current living

approach is limited to the stage of identification and the decision‐making

process. The implementation of conservation and tourism development


‐ 66 ‐

are still dominated by governmental interventions, which leads to the

discontinuity in applications.

Conventional approach Living heritage approach

1 Top‐down Bottom‐up

2 Linear Inter‐active

3 Dependence on legal frameworks for protection

Dependence on community awareness leading to political commitment for protection

4 Dependence on state provision of resources for conservation

Necessary resources may need to be raised by the community, or supplied by the community in kind.

5 Significance based on expert values (therefore, often limited to art‐historical perceptions)

Significance also includes community values and associations;

Community participates in definition of values.

6

Arguments for conservation usually limited to contribution of cultural understanding to meaningful development of society

Arguments for conservation usually more concerned with quality of life (always a goal issue), integrating concern for social and economic impacts

7

Conservation and management decision‐making carried out in professional frameworks, hence much concern for the professional “body of doctrine”, and included principles (concerned primarily with intervention);

Significant consideration given to limiting use to ensure heritage protection (e.g., Australian “conservation plan”)

Conservation and management decision‐making includes local voices and local concerns;

Conservation principles used will have more to do with preventive approaches, risk management, sustainability;

More often, appropriate equilibrium sought between use and heritage protection.

8

Usually involves efforts to implement defined policy or strategy adopted in one sector at national level, the heritage sector

Is “integrated” in nature, bringing together views and interests of all stakeholders

9 Sustainability achieved when consumption of recognized

Sustainability achieved when decisions are moved closest to


‐ 67 ‐

significant scientific cultural/natural resources is limited.

those affected by decisions (Agenda 21)

Table 31: Difference between conventional approach and living heritage approach38

There are continuous arguments between the above two approaches.

The statement of Ludwig (2001) denied the expert‐based conventional

approach for conservation by indicating that the objective, disinterested

experts’ notions do not work in a diverse, mutually contradictory

situation. The expert‐based approach depends on centralized institutes

and command‐and‐control resource management, leading to a linear

mechanism and the lack of resilience in a system. However, the living

heritage approach does not solve all the problems and it indicates

difficulties in practical application.

3.4 Problems regarding the living heritage approach

First, so far, the living heritage approach with focus on community

involvement has been centred on understanding and defining the

significance of sites, instead of being incorporated in an applied system.

For instance, stakeholder meetings, cultural mapping and interviews are

effective ways of involving local residents and communities, in order to

understand the tangible and intangible values of heritage sites more

profoundly. As argued by Saouma‐Forero, in 200139, heritage and values

are synonymous and one cannot conserve or preserve what local

38 Resource: The first strategy meeting of living heritage sites program in SPAFA Headquarters, Bangkok. 17‐19 September 2003, prepared by Kumiko Shimotsuma, Herb Stovel, and Simon Warrack ICCROM. 39 Quoted by Dawson Munjer in “Anchoring African Cultural and Natural Heritage: The Significance of Local Community Awareness in the Context of Capacity Building” in World Heritage Papers 13, “Linking Universal and Local Values: Managing a Sustainable Future for World Heritage” – A conference organized by the Netherlands National Commission for UNESCO, in collaboration with the Netherlands Ministry of Education, Culture and Science, 22‐24 May 2003.


‐ 68 ‐

communities do not acknowledge. Understanding and defining values

from multi‐faceted perspectives are crucial at the first stage of

conservation. But from the understanding of the historical, aesthetic,

social, economic and cultural meaning of heritage sites to the

implementation of proper actions for conservation, there is a big gap for

further investigation. Most discussions regarding living heritage stop at

the first stage of identification, although the whole idea of the living

heritage approach aims to involve local communities in the full process of

conservation. At the moment, no clear clue for a systematic

implementation has been established in living heritage conservation.

Secondly, the method and level of community engagement needs to be

more applicable and objective in relation to their daily life experience

and tourism development. Based upon the pilot case studies of the living

heritage program in Phrae (Thailand), consultation of indigenous

inhabitants on conservation issues cannot always be productive, because

of less relevance to individual interests and lack of proper leadership. The

discrete community involvement easily leads to discussions without clear

objectives or disoriented activities, which implies that professional

involvement is necessary. Nevertheless, professionals appointed by

authorities usually have limited information in terms of life‐experienced

recognition of tangible and intangible interests of the living community

Sole decision made by professionals might be influenced by their

personal favors or biases in conservation. There are many concrete cases

to make us believe that misleading professional guidance could damage

the cultural diversity. Therefore, the question of how to balance the

community engagement and professional interventions in living heritage

conservation requires further investigation. More attention needs to be

devoted in developing an applicable design‐tool controlling physical

characteristics to retain social ‘values’ of the indigenous living

community in practice The living heritage approach promotes public

awareness of the living heritage concept and encourages local

participation for long‐term management. However, it offers more


‐ 69 ‐

comprehensive but less selective information with limited resources in

an applicable method to focus on key issues.

3.5 Some complementary thinking about the Living Heritage Sites Program

The Living Heritage Sites Program initiated by ICCROM together with the

Integrated Territorial and Urban Conservation (ITUC) program in the past

two decades has conducted a broad range of investigation at many living

heritage sites in Asia. The program shed light on the importance of

‘living’ components and active involvement of local residents at the sites.

As discussed above, the living heritage approach offers an alternative

method of conservation, a community‐based, bottom‐up approach,

which provides a very good basis to build connections between heritage

and the local population and thus is liable to achieve sustainable

management and efficient maintenance. The fundamental ethic of the

living heritage approach is to maintain the continuity of the place and

involve local residents in the process of conservation. It places more

attention to the interests and demands of local communities and throws

light on the social quality in living heritage conservation. As Fairclough

(2001) argued conservation is no longer an ‘outside’ activity as it used to

be in the past. Being part of a sustainable development, the historic

environment is socially embedded and thus, a dynamic and a living set of

systems with room for change (Fairclough, Lambrick, and McNab, 1999)

is needed for conservation. Fairclough stated that sustainability of a

historic environment meant ‘controlling change and choosing directions

that capitalize most effectively on the inheritance from the past’

(Fairclough, 2001, p.24).

But so far, living heritage approach is still in the knowledge‐based

building process, especially in the sense of implementation. Some explicit

regulations have been established to control the physical environment.

For instance, UK law has set that 10 percent of a heritage site is proposed

to be permanently preserved, arresting change as a core of continuity

(United Kingdom’s first Ancient Monuments Act, 1882). However, few


‐ 70 ‐

legal frameworks or methods have been developed in relation to the

conservation of social ‘values’ of a local community. Living heritage

conservation fails if the physical forms remains but the social attributes

with corresponding activities, diverse life‐styles as well as unique living

atmosphere are disappearing. As commented by Wijesuriya

(unpublished), social functions, community connections and continuity

were three main cultural factors for the identity of living heritage sites,

which also led to their destiny. Mason et al. (2000) criticized that

conservation always fails because the assessment of values and other

contextual issues have not got corresponding professional tools and

analysis methods for implementation.

3.6 Summary of social problems As discussed above on the Living Heritage Sites Program and its living

heritage approach, the importance of living ‘values’ and involvement of

local residents in the process of conservation has been widely addressed.

In the program, many investigations and pilot case studies in the last two

decades have demonstrated that in general the social ‘values’ with

relation to local residents’ daily experiences were key factors in

preserving the authenticity and integrity of living heritage sites.

Especially, the explicit arguments about the living heritage approach

have been proposed based on general social problems and their negative

impacts on the sustainable conservation of living heritage sites. However,

there is no panacea in living heritage conservation. The existing living

heritage approaches indicate potential to appreciate social values and

ameliorate certain social problems, but in general certain social problems

in living heritage sites remains:

1. The fast transformation of life‐style, influenced by the mass tourism

development, in relation to the change of dominant industries and

job opportunities, and the corresponding changes to transportation

systems, services and spatial functions;


‐ 71 ‐

2. The breakdown of neighborhoods, in relation to a overwhelming

number of tourist and immigrant and their related services as well

as businesses encroaching in the territory of traditional

neighborhoods. The loss of neighborhood territories leads to less

security and privacy of the living community and the exodus of

indigenous inhabitants;

3. The decrease of social interactions and social networks, in relation

to the reduction of social places and social services for indigenous

inhabitants, resulting in the less social cohesion and collaborative

empowerment on the control of their living environment;

4. The discontinuity of traditions and traditional knowledge, in

relation to the financial inferiority of traditional business compared

with the tourism industry, overwhelming exotic cultural and

communication technology, leading to a decrease in the life chance

diversity and an aged‐society phenomenon;

5. The loss of social identity in relation to the fast socio‐economic

transformation and destruction of social networks, including the

destruction of social associations and a change of traditional land‐

use.

In order to develop an applicable guideline to preserve social quality at a

living heritage site, it is necessary to understand precisely the definition

of social quality and select key social indicators in relation to social

problems summarized above. The next chapter reviews the concept and

composition of social quality in the stream of sociology development. On

the basis of that, it proposes pertinent indicators in response to the

social problems in the process of living heritage conservation and tourism

development.


‐ 72 ‐

4 Social Studies in Living Heritage Conservation

Based on the in‐depth analysis of the Living Heritage Sites Program,

chapter 3 investigated social problems and related conservation

approaches in a general context. It emphasized the importance of

indigenous inhabitants and communities in terms of maintaining social

‘values’ of living heritage sites. This chapter defines social quality in

precise and selects key social indicators in the context of living heritage

conservation, through a state‐of‐the‐arts literature review and a

comprehensive social study on heritage conservation. It offers a

knowledge base to develop an applicable guideline for living heritage

conservation.

4.1 Growing social concerns on living heritage values

4.1.1 Extension of heritage values The most commonly adopted view of conservation is proposed by Sir

Bernard Fielden: “The object of conservation is to prolong the life of

cultural property and, if possible, to clarify the historic and artistic

messages therein without loss of authenticity”. Other definitions

emerged from it put emphasis on the importance of defining values, in

particular historic and aesthetic values of a heritage site. Thus, cultural,

historic and artistic values have attracted most concerns in heritage

conservation in the last decades. Accordingly, the physical conditions,

which contain these values, became the focus for conservation. More

attention was therefore given to the monumental functions, historic

importance and artistic pleasure of the sites. Meanwhile, less attention

on the linkage between heritage sites and indigenous residents was

perceived.

A broader effort in heritage conservation has been developed since

urban conservation appeared in 1964, when ICOMOS (the International

Social Studies in Living Heritage Conservation

‐ 73 ‐

Council on Monuments and Sites) and the Venice Charter was created at

the 2nd International Congress of Architects and Technicians of Historic

Monuments. The concept and content of conservation have been

extended dramatically through the ratification of a series of international

documents, such as UNESCO’s Convention for Protection of the World

Cultural and Natural Heritage (1972) and its Operational Guidelines,

Recommendations concerning the Safeguarding and Contemporary Role

of Historic Areas (UNESCO 1976, Nairobi), and Charter for the

Conservation of Historic Towns and Urban Areas (ICOMOS, 1987) etc.

Applied conservation of the living environment sheds light on the

comprehensive values of heritage sites and plays an important role in the

process of city revitalization. Economists taking the values of a heritage

site as a scarce commodity, the recent boom in cultural tourism confirms

with its socio‐economic merits. The preserved cities and districts

demonstrate special attractions to both citizens and tourists through

vivid socio‐cultural and natural expressions. The living values, such as

traditions, life‐styles and community atmosphere are becoming an

important part of the overall merits of a living heritage site. However,

conflicts arise in the process of conservation and tourism development,

some of which are becoming alarming with focus on these living values. It

inspires growing attention on the improvement of social quality for the

interest of maximizing heritage values and maintaining a more

harmonious and continuous living environment. Much attention is

required.

4.1.2 Social capital in living heritage conservation Social capital was first proposed by Lyda Judson Hanifan (1916 p130) to

describe ‘those tangible substances that count for most in the daily lives

of people’. The work of Putnam (1993, 2000) brought the notion of

‘social capital’ up to the front of recent research. He defined social

capital as connections among individuals, i.e. social networks and norms

of reciprocity and trustworthiness. He believed that social networks of

reciprocal relations enhance ‘civic virtue’. There is much evidence


‐ 74 ‐

showing that social capital contributes to lower crime rates, better health,

higher educational achievement and more tolerance and trust in a

community (Jacobs, 1961; Bourdieu, 1983; Coleman, 1988; Putnam, 1993,

2000; Beem, 1999; Field, 2003). Furthermore, the World Bank claimed

that social cohesion, produced from social capital is essential for

economic prosperity in a sustainable way. Social capital helps to bring

institutions, relationships, and norms that shape the quality and quantity

of a society's social interactions together (The World Bank, 1999). The

wide recognition of social capital encourages a growing concern on social

studies in various domains, in particular living heritage conservation.

Taking the spirit of Robert Costanza and Brendan Fisher et al40, social

capital is a significant resource for the development of a society. It refers

to networks and social norms to facilitate cooperative action (Putnam

1995), and it is social‐policy oriented with emphasis on community

shared values and norms. As stated by Smith (2007), social capital helps

citizens to resolve collective problems more easily by empowering

institutional mechanisms to ensure compliance with collectively desirable

behavior; it also advances the community more smoothly when residents

are trusting and trustworthy; and allows a better sharing of information.

Therefore, social capital reinforces the living values as mentioned above

in the process of living heritage conservation.

4.1.3 Development of social concerns With the support of technological development, the spectrum of human

activities has been expanding without precedent. This arouses growing

attention on social studies in a wide range of research. The recent socio‐

40 In the conference of University of Vermont, researchers representing multiple social and natural science and humanities disciplines, Robert Costanza and Brendan Fisher et al. proposed four capitals to offer opportunities in order to satisfy human needs, i.e. social capital, human capital, built capital and natural capital. (detailed explanation refers to the article: Quality of life: An approach integrating opportunities, human needs, and subjective well‐being, in Ecological Economics 61(2007), p.271.


‐ 75 ‐

cultural, socio‐economic and socio‐ecological studies reflect the close

interrelationship of social studies with other domains. Heritage

conservation is one of the most significant discussions in the socio‐

cultural movement. It is based on the interdisciplinary knowledge of

natural and social science, and has exerted great influence on the quality

of life (QOL) as well as the built environment. As widely recognized,

conservation of heritage sites contributes to the cultural diversity and

traditional continuity at the global level. However, ‘it lagged behind in its

involvement in the larger debate on the quality of life and environment’

(Frank Matero41). The discussion on conservation of Lijiang ancient town

and other living heritage sites has demonstrated the serious social

problems in line with dominating tourism and economic drivers, which

has led to the abandonment of living values in the long run.

In particular, living heritage characterized with active involvement of

local residents, demonstrates unprecedented ties of heritage resources

with contemporary social life. Not only because the unique values are

born with the characteristics of the local life, but because its commodity

merits also fundamentally rely on the living images. However, due to the

sluggish force of substance‐oriented conservation and the overlook of

social desires of local people, depopulation and transformation of land‐

use become the most critical challenges for sustainable conservation,

which leads to the irreversible destruction of overall values at a living

heritage site. Thus, it is a prerequisite to integrate concerns on QOL and

social quality in the process of conservation.

41 Published in the preface for the 4th Annual US/ICOMOS International Symposium proceedings, p.vii.


‐ 76 ‐

Physical Environment/values

Natural environment

Built environment

Living elements/values

Traditions, life styles

Cultural expressions

Tourists

Conservation Local residents

Strong interactions

Normal interactions

Weak interactions

Figure 41: The relationships among conservation, tourism development and contemporary life

4.2 Social quality in living heritage conservation In order to have a better understanding of the social problems faced in

the conservation of living heritage sites, a comprehensive study on social

quality is necessary. The in‐depth debate on social quality began with the

recognition of an imbalanced development of economic and social policy

in Europe. The social problems related to inadequate social services and

participation, and dominance of economic and monetary policy arouses

growing concerns from a wide range of social scientists, economists and

politicians. The ‘Amsterdam Declaration on Social Quality’ (1997) and

continuous studies carried out by the European Foundation on Social

Quality (EFSQ) have shown consensus on the important measures of

social quality in four perspectives: socio‐economic security, social

cohesion, social inclusion and social empowerment. The following

chapter will interpret the measures of social quality in the context of

living heritage conservation and propose a practical framework of social

indicators for future conservation policy.


‐ 77 ‐

4.2.1 Definition of social quality Social quality is defined as ‘the extent to which citizens are able to

participate in the social and economic life of their communities

under conditions which enhance their well being and individual

potential’ (Beck et al., 1997, p. 3). It is also interpreted as ‘the extent to

which the quality of social relations promotes both participation

and personal development’ (Walker et al., 2003, p. 6). Given the

complexity of social systems, it is widely accepted that the essence of

social quality is realized via interactions at a cross‐scale approach

(Habermas, 1968; Lockwood, 1999; Levin, 1999; Walker et al., 2003).

Philips and Berman (2003) further addressed social quality at two levels:

social quality at the community/group level, represented by self‐

realizations of community members; and social quality at the society

level, manifested through relationship between communities with

collective identities and the nation state (see Figure 4‐2). They are also

defined in this research as introverted and extroverted social quality.

Figure 42: Social quality at two levels: Individual interactions at the community level and interactions of collective identities at the

society level


‐ 78 ‐

4.2.2 Internal and external social quality Living heritage sites, as special communities or groups with ‘Outstanding

Universal Values’ (UNESCO criteria for World Heritage sites, 1972),

represent unique collective identities and contribute to the cultural

diversity and traditional continuity of the world. These unique collective

identities with corresponding physical features and heritage values are

analyzed and recognized at the global level, and therefore have become

prime objectives in the process of conservation. For instance, in Lijiang

ancient town, the unique townscape, architecture, and natural features

are priorities in conservation, and so are the Gassho‐style houses and

farming landscape in Ogimachi village (see Chapter 5). They are

appreciated and shared as common treasures of human beings, and thus

open accessibility is the main concern in realizing their social quality at

the society level (Ostrom 1990). With increasing tourism development,

the external social quality of a living heritage site in relation to promoting

regional economic security and enhancing community identities has been

attached with great importance in the process of conservation. On the

contrary, the internal social quality, demonstrated by the interactions of

local residents and heritage resources, is falling into neglect in

conservation. It is vital for both self‐realization of local residents and the

formation of collective identities to realize extroverted social quality.

Therefore, this paper will focus on the characteristics linked with internal

social quality in a context of living heritage conservation. It reflects a

deep interrelationship between heritage resources and local population

in a dynamic way and plays an essential role in the sustainable

development.

4.2.3 Framework of social quality Based on the collaborative explorations in 14 European countries under

the framework of the European Foundation on Social Quality and the

involvement of over one hundred scientists and policy makers, four

conditional factors are proposed to evaluate social quality (Beck, 1997;

Maesen et al. 2000; Walker et al. 2003), i.e. socio‐economic security,


‐ 79 ‐

social inclusion, social cohesion and social empowerment (see Figure 4‐3).

Philips and Berman (2003) further interpreted them in the context of

ethno community. And in 2005, the Network Indicators of Social Quality

published its final report, in which 95 social indicators were listed (see

Annex 2) to measure social quality via elaborating the above four

conditional factors with 18 domains and 49 sub‐domains (Maesen and

Walker 2006). The big number of indicators is European‐standard

oriented and they require refinement and reduction for policy making in

the future. However, they offer good reference to interpret social quality

in the context of a living heritage site.

This research adopts four dimensions of social quality mentioned above

to create policy‐oriented social indicators in the conservation process of

living heritage sites. They can be described as follows:

• Socio‐economic security is the threshold of material

requirements in a community. It is directly related to the

substantial environment of people’s daily existence, such as

housing, employment, health care, social services and so on to

prevent from material deprivation.

• Social cohesion refers to the processes and infrastructures used

to support social networks, which strengthen solidarity and

identity in a community. It is related to both social capital (World

Bank, 1998) and social integration (Klitgaarde and Fedderke,

1995). In a living heritage site, the traditions and cultural and

spiritual bonds play a significant role in underpinning solidarity.

However, social cohesion should be addressed alongside the

evolution of social structures. It is necessary to create and

support new networks and infrastructures to fit with

contemporary social‐economic conditions, and this is vital for

both social development and individual self‐realization.

Moreover, social cohesion promotes the foundation of social

networks.


‐ 80 ‐

• Social inclusion focuses on the belonging and membership of

community residents to the above networks. In a living heritage

site, the social inclusion of indigenous residents is particularly

important for the continuity of their intangible heritage. As

stated by Delanty (1998), a community with only weak

community inclusion will not have the resources to be

meaningfully included in society in its own right.

• Empowerment is defined as the capacity of participation in social,

economic, political and cultural processes. Empowerment

enables residents to control their own lives and to make choices

equally. The empowerment could come from normative

structures and associational networks (Woolcock, 1998:172) and

the positive sense of stakeholder.

As summarized above, the framework of social quality actually

represents two dimensions: the individual‐based realization, including

socio‐economic security and social inclusion, which has been discussed in

the research on quality of life; the formation of collective identities,

including the recognition of social cohesion and empowerment, which is

related to the quality of society (Walker and Maesen, 2003). The quality

of society is determined by the interaction of individuals within social

systems, and quality of life is represented by the living conditions of local

residents, which is also the basis to achieve good social quality. In a living

heritage site, local residents represent, carry and maintain the genuine

values of the site, meanwhile they are social beings with desires to be

met along with development. The improvement of social quality allows

conservation and development to exist in long term harmony. The

following reviews previous study on quality of society and QOL, and their

corresponding indicators, in order to select meaningful social indicators

to develop a social‐oriented design‐tool for living heritage conservation.


‐ 81 ‐

Figure 43: Framework to evaluate social quality42

4.3 Studies on quality of life Quality of life (QOL) is an important concept in social science dealing with

individual self‐realization and it is measured by the extent to which

human needs are met. The improvement of long‐term QOL is taken as

the primary social policy for sustainable development (Layard, 2005). In

contrast with internal social quality, which relies on interactions in a

living heritage site, QOL refers to the overall assessment of human

experience as individuals. It has been developed as a sound methodology

to measure diverse areas in the living world. QOL approaches, as 42 after Walker et al. (2003, p.29)


‐ 82 ‐

developed recently for example by ZUMA of the University of Mannheim

(Berger‐Schmitt, 2001) and the European Foundation on the

Improvement of Working and Living Conditions in Dublin (Fahey et al.,

2002), represent a large series of indicators and domains, which tried to

cover all aspects of life. It offers a well‐defined basis to develop social

indicators in living heritage conservation.

4.3.1 Indicators for QOL The concept of QOL was widely adopted by US in the middle of 1940s to

describe a good material life using indicators like the ownership of

houses, cars and so on. Walker and Maesen (2003) stated that in the

early research of QOL, the US and UK took the lead and focused on

satisfaction, happiness and well‐being and health as well as health‐

related issues respectively. The later research of the World Health

Organization (WHO) expanded the indicators of QOL with physical,

emotional and social well‐being. Recent research encompassed both

objective and subjective dimensions, and thus the primary issues in QOL

are narrowed down to their measurements. As proposed by Robert

Costanza and Brendan Fisher et al (2007), there are two basic approaches

to measuring QOL: one is ‘quantifiable social or economic indicators

which reflect the extent to which human needs are met’, and the other is

termed as ‘subjective well‐being (SWB)’ which is based on individual

sensations, such as identity, security, happiness, and fulfillment.

However, the distinction between objective indicators and SWB is an

illusory (Robert Costanza and Brendan Fisher et al, 2007), because the

SWB is highly dependant on the extent, to which objective indicators of

human needs are satisfied (see Figure 4‐4).

4.3.2 Meeting human needs in living heritage conservation

Based on literature reviews of “Hierarchy of needs” by Maslow (1943),

the “Matrix of Human Needs” by Max‐Neef (1991), “Need Hierarchy

Measure of Life Satisfaction” by Sirgy et al. (1995), “Quality of Life


‐ 83 ‐

Inventory” by Frisch (1998), the basic hierarchy of human needs could be

interpreted at ten different categories. These range from primary

subsistence, reproduction, security, to the needs for communication,

leisure, participation, identity, spirituality and creativity up to the highest

level of needs for self‐fulfillment. Alderfer's Hierarchy of Motivational

Needs (1972) and revised version of Maslow’s theory by Mathes (1981);

Huitt (2004) proposed to divide human needs into three groups

according to their requirements to the living environment, i.e. the

achievements of substance, reproduction and security which are

dependant on the provisions of material environment; communication,

participation, leisure and identity are related to both material and social

environment; and the sense of spirituality, creativity and self‐fulfillment

belongs to SWB and contributes to the growth of human nature. This

paper attempts to interpret various human needs in a living heritage

context, and based on that proposes a comprehensive series of social

indicators for QOL (see Figure 4‐4).


‐ 84 ‐

Figure 44: Quality of Lifeinteraction between human needs and subjective wellbeing43

To meet these substantial needs, the physical environment plays a vital

role in providing clean air, water and sufficient food, shelter and other

ecological capitals. It requires a livable environment without severe

pollution but with accessibility to substantial services in a living heritage

site. Reproduction reflects the desires for continuity from both tangible

and intangible points of view. In a living heritage site, it includes the

maintenance of stable population, environment, family structures, and

unique traditional expressions. Security is composed of basic

achievements of social and economic needs. In line with the socio‐

security domains proposed by Keizer et al. (2003), financial resources,

housing and environment, health and care, work and education

opportunities contribute to the sense of security in a broad sense. In

43 Robert Costanza and Brendan Fisher et al, 2007 p.269 in the Journal of Ecological Economics, 61.


‐ 85 ‐

particular at a living heritage site, Feilden and Jokilehto (1998) proposed

four pillars of financial revenue from heritage resources and conservation

process, i.e. tourism, commerce, use and amenities. It is the status of

being ‘in use’ and having amenities for local residents that distinguishes a

living heritage site from archaeological sites and monuments. The various

heritage recourses at a living site are still actively involved in the people’s

daily circumstance and constitute a livable place. Tourism and

commercial resources offer better finance and employment

opportunities, which are essential to local development and economic

security. Besides, sufficient doctors and access to qualified hospitals and

schools contribute to the social security of local residents. The above‐

mentioned needs – substance, reproduction and security – are basic

requirements for a livable environment. On the basis of these, higher

level of needs, such as communication, leisure, participation and identity

could be developed. Their fulfillment relies on the interactions among

local residents and the extent to which residents have access to

resources and services. It requires proper places and events to

accommodate leisure or communication activities and the willingness to

share and participate as a member in local associations. At a living

heritage site, the unique spatial characters and traditions developed in

long‐term interactions between the environment and local residents

demonstrate special advantages in fulfilling the aforementioned needs.

These features should be further enhanced instead of being degraded

with contemporary tourism development. The preservation of the spatial

qualities and the continuity of traditions, neighborhoods and religions

are of importance in fulfilling the higher level of human needs. Likewise,

the sense of identity, self‐fulfillment and other types of subjective well

being are derived from proper conservation of the physical environment

and the promotion of social inclusion. On basis of proper interpretations

of required resources in a living heritage context, indicators of QOL are

developed to qualify and quantify the requirements for various human

needs.


‐ 86 ‐

In the process of living heritage conservation, tourism development has

exerted great influence in QOL at various perspectives. It is important to

include both the positive and negative aspects of tourism in the process

of conservation. Choi and Sirakaya (2006) proposed some indicators

through their survey in the interest of sustainable community tourism.

They employed the Delphi method44, which is a well‐known qualitative

and structured technique for predicting future events by reaching

consensus (Poulsen, 1920, Woudenberg, 1991, Ramirez and Hoehner et

al., 2006) and concluded that ‘satisfaction and attitude of hosts and

guests’ and ‘community health and safety’ are the most important social

dimensions for sustainable tourism. Corresponding issues were claimed

in their research, among which the most agreeable social concerns are

(based on ‘soundness’ in Annex 4) ‘host community satisfaction/attitude

toward tourism development’, ‘stress in visitors/host relationship’,

‘Resident/non‐resident ownership of homes’, ‘degradation/erosion of

natural and cultural resource’, ‘litter/pollution (air, water, etc.)’, ‘overcrowding’, ‘congestion’ and ‘loss of traditional lifestyle and

knowledge via modernization’ etc (see Table 4‐1). These factors should

be integrated in a comprehensive framework for conservation policy‐

making.

Human Needs Required Resources Indicators

Subsistence Food, water, shelter, and other vital ecological capitals

Sufficient and equal access to necessary resources and services

Reproduction

Stable native population, continuity of family structure and traditions

Number of native people Proportion of female and male, young and old population Average number of people per family

44 The Delphi process allows investigators to engage experts in a systematic method of consensus development. Dependent on the specific purpose, it enrolls experts from different backgrounds, narrows and refines the scope of agreed‐upon information to reach consensus. The Delphi method was widely employed in defining indicators.


‐ 87 ‐

Security

Financial resources, house and environment, health and care, work and education opportunities, safety from violence and criminals

Average GDP Percentage of unemployment Percentage of houses ownership Crime rates Public surveillance Number of doctors/clinic per person Number of kindergarten/school per proper‐aged child

Privacy Clear division of boundaries and territories

Boundaries of households Territories of neighborhoods Sense of privacy

Communication

Sociable places, cultural/traditional bonds, neighborhood relationship

Number of community centres and places for local use Quality of community places (access, noise, pollution, comfortableness etc.) Relationship with neighbors Sense of trust

Participation Social networks, local associations

Number of local associations Percentage of involvement of local residents in decision‐making process Range of duties and rights of membership Feeling of inclusion

Leisure

Appealing places, relaxed environment, limited noise, pollutions, activity

Quality of public/semi‐public places (access, noise, pollution, comfortableness etc.) Number of leisure choices Feeling of an easy and relaxed of environment

Identity Unique nature, culture or traditions

Number of remaing traditional/cultural practices Quality of traditional places, important cultural places and monuments Continuity of Land‐use Sense of identity

Spirituality Sense of spirituality

Creativity Sense of creativity


‐ 88 ‐

Self‐Fulfillment Sense of self‐fulfillment

Table 41: Indicators on Quality of Life, interpreted based on human needs

4.4 Studies on quality of society As explained above, QOL reflects the quality of individual living

conditions, which is the basis for social quality. However, improvement

of QOL alone cannot fully fulfill the sustainable conservation in a living

heritage site, since the values of living heritage are mainly reflected by

collective identities formed by the interactions of individuals, instead of

the individuals themselves. Quality of society indicates the quality of a

group, a community or a society, embracing social solidarity, collective

social welfare and egalitarian aspirations (Phillips, 2003). A high level of

quality of society contributes to the fulfillment of human needs

experienced by individuals, such as the needs for participation and

identity. Walker et al. (2003) claimed that social cohesion and

empowerment are two important dimensions constituting quality of

society.

4.4.1 Social cohesion and corresponding indicators Social cohesion is a long‐established concept in sociology, inherited from

the notion of ‘Gemeinschaft’ and ‘Gesellschaft’ by Tönnes. Berger‐

Schmitt (2002:406) set out a high agreeable definition of social cohesion

in which included ‘the strength of social relations, networks and

associations; a sense of belonging to the same community and ties

that bind with shared values, a common identity and trust among

members; equal opportunities; the extent of disparities, social

cleavages and social exclusion in a society’.

Social cohesion is closely related to the concept of social identity, which

is derived from a perceived membership of social groups (Hogg &

Vaughan, 2002). Tajfel and Turner (1986) discussed three central

indicators in social identity, i.e. categorization, identification and

comparison. Categorization refers to the fact that people can be divided


‐ 89 ‐

into different groups, based on certain characteristics. However, various

categorizations are not paralleled; instead, they are interwoven and

sometimes overlaid, which depends on the criteria for categorization. In

living heritage sites, indigenous inhabitants, tourists and immigrants are

the basic categorizations in demographic analysis, in order to understand

their use of facilities and behavioral influences with respect to the

environment. Identification includes personal and social identity,

functioning at the same time as two sides of sense of identity. In the

research of social quality of Indigenous community, social identity is

taken as the focal criterion instead of personal identity. Social

interactions play a key role in identification of a living heritage site. As

argued by Jane Jacobs (1961), the social interactions not only fulfill

people’s instant needs, but also help people to understand new

phenomena, to create knowledge and to accustom with new

environments. Comparison is a mechanism to distinguish one group

through comparing with others. They are performing as a dynamic

process to reinforce social cohesion, which helps to maintain a stable

social environment as well as natural surroundings. Moreover, social

cohesion functions like a ‘social glue’ to enhance economic growth and

political stability.

4.4.2 Social empowerment and corresponding indicators

Empowerment emphasizes equality, openness and supportiveness of

institutions to enable people to participate in the decision‐making.

Institutions are humanly devised constrains to structure human

interactions. As Berkes (2003) stated in a broad sense, they are

composed of formal constrains, such as rules, laws, regulations and

constitutions; informal constraints, such as norms of behavior,

conventions and self‐imposed codes of conduct; and their enforcement

features. In a living heritage site, as defined by Lockwood (1999) as


‐ 90 ‐

meso‐social and micro‐social45 level, the political democracy and right of

citizenship at macro‐social level are out of this research scope. This paper

focuses on the local associations and memberships in relation to be part

of the conservation decision‐making process and to share risks and

benefits. Their manifestations include voluntary associations, mutual

help systems, public surveillance, and wide range of duties and rights in

membership to local population. Therefore, it assumes that the high level

of social cohesion and empowerment lead to a high quality of society at a

living heritage site, which plays an important part in achieving

sustainable development and conservation.

4.4.3 Social indicators Indicators need to be easy to manage, representative and responsive to

changes. Schomaker (1997) implied the features of indicator as SMART:

Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant and Time‐bound. They are

expressed as a relative and nested concept, including different levels of

abstract groups, such as data, parameters, criteria and quality (Turnhout

et al. 2007). Since the early 20th century, William Ogburn has developed

statistical measurements to monitor social trends and changes. The real

social indicator movement dates back to 1960s and aimed to incorporate

the issues of QOL and quality of society into the political decision‐making.

In the last decade, the original function of social indicators as a

monitoring tool was toned down and the focus shifted to the promotion

of general enlightenment, as stated by Joachim Vogel (1997). Meanwhile,

they played an important role as a complement of the dominant

economic indicators, such as GDP in the evaluation system of social

quality. Recently, under the influence of globalization and a new shift of

45 In the book ‘Capitalism and Social Cohesion’ (edited by Gough and Olofsson, 1999), Lockwood distinguished social integration at three levels: macro‐, meso‐ and micro‐ social level. Macro‐ refers to the national institutes with relation to citizenship, meso‐ and micro‐ emphasizes the networks in a region, a community or a neighborhood, with relation to membership.


‐ 91 ‐

political systems, there is a need for the reconstruction of social

indicators to evaluate the overall social quality in the fast pace of

development.

As discussed above about the social quality, there have been a large

number of indicators developed to represent social quality. This research

selects the key social indicators to measure social quality in response to

the social problems identified in previous chapters. They offer a selective

basis to develop an efficient model in order to evaluate and control social

quality in the context of living heritage conservation. Socio‐economic

security is the basic dimension in social quality, and in living heritage

conservation with mass tourism development, the corresponding

problems are represented by a fast transformation of life‐styles. Local

residents face the challenges in competing with immigrants oriented in

tourism development. At the same time, their security is tampered in the

process of rapid adjustment of social services and social networks, driven

by mass tourism and related industries. Accordingly, the public

surveillance, as an efficient security mechanism actualized by frequent

presence of neighbors (Jacobs, 1961), is damaged. The Privacy of local

residents is threatened in both the household and neighborhood

environment, caused by the loss of visible and invisible boundaries when

a large number of tourists gather in a limited setting. Most substantial

problems are the decline of social interactions in the process of living

heritage conservation, which influence the sense of Communication and

Social Identity. Besides, the identity of a living heritage site is closely

related to their traditions, traditional knowledge and the characteristics

of land‐use, which are developed in the long‐term interactions between

local residents and the natural environment. As the living heritage

approach indicated (discussed in chapter 3), participation is essential in

solving certain social problems in living heritage conservation. The

strength of social associations and memberships represent an organized

participation of local residents in the process of living heritage

conservation. The selected social indicators are listed below (Table 4‐2),


‐ 92 ‐

which offer an observable, manageable method to develop an efficient

design‐tool to maintain social quality in a living heritage site.

Social quality Social indicators

Socio‐economic

security

• Crime rate

• Job diversity • Service diversity and accessibility • Public surveillance

Privacy

• Boundary of household and in‐between

space

• Boundary of neighborhoods and

communities

Communication

• Relationship with neighbors • Social interactions • Social mobility

Participation

• Memberships

• Social associations • Collective empowerment on environmental

control

Social Identity

• Social networks and relations • Continuity of traditional practice and

knowledge

• Continuity of land‐use

Table 42: Main social indicators in living heritage conservation

The following chapter proposes a model hypothesis, built upon the

analysis of exploratory case study in Lijiang ancient town, generalized

problems by literature study on existed living heritage programs and

approaches, and social quality study in the context of living heritage

conservation. The hypothetic model draws upon the MOP framework

and generalizes the necessary conditions of spatial morphology to foster

high social performance in the process of living heritage conservation. It

will function as an applicable design‐tool in consistent with conservation

guidelines to retain social quality in traditional communities.

Hypothetic Model towards an Applicable Designtool

‐ 93 ‐

5 Hypothetic Model towards an Applicable Design-tool

Based on the outcomes of the field study in Dayan town (chapter 2),

general problems in existing living heritage projects and approaches

(chapter 3), and selective social indicators in response to the key social

quality in living heritage conservation (chapter 4), this chapter proposes a

model hypothesis aiming to ameliorate the social problems by defining

the social importance of different spatial morphologies within the MOP

framework. It tries to develop an applicable design‐tool for the purpose

of maintaining social quality in the process of living heritage conservation

and tourism development.

5.1 Social study of environment There has been a vast body of socio‐environmental study (Barker, 1951;

Jacobs, 1961; Gans, 1968; Chermayeff and Alexander, 1963; Chermayeff

and Tzonis, 1971; Alexander et al. 1977, Zeisel, 1975; Rapoport, 1976,

1983) By way of field observations, Roger Barker (1951) proposed the

concept of ‘ecological psychology’ to understand the influence of social

settings on behaviors and to identify behavior settings. Later in the

middle 1950s, Hall (1969) defined ‘proxemics’ to describe the

subconscious microspace in human interactions, which is culturally

determined. Jane Jacobs (1961) and Jan Gehl (1987) drew social

attention into the design of street‐life and public space. Gans (1968)

proposed the priority of social planning on the basis of critiques to

‘physical determinism’ in urban planning. He believed that the social and

economic environment is more important than the physical environment.

On this basis, he proposed the concept of a ‘user‐oriented’ approach to

satisfy the needs of local communities. It was supported by Alexander

Tzonis and Liane Lefaivre (1978) and Christopher Alexander (1977). Choi

and Sirakaya (2006) claimed that, socio‐cultural sustainability should

draw upon social capitals with respect to social identity, community

cultural assets, and social cohesiveness in order to allow the indigenous

inhabitants to control their own environment.


‐ 94 ‐

As stated before, conservation of living heritage sites should neither be

static preservation, nor mere restoration of physical features. It should

take serious consideration of the social needs of the indigenous

population, because the nature of a living heritage site defines itself as

more valuable than the accumulation of historic objects or antiques in

the repertoire, as it is a unique and desirable place to live, which

contributes to culture diversity. The ‘values’ of the site are reflected by

both the physical features and its close interaction with indigenous

inhabitants in an evolutionary process. Thus, it is important to conserve

living heritage sites in an integrated approach with social and

environmental studies. Rapoport (1983) stated in a case study in Sudan

that superficial imitation of purely physical form and geometry (round

and conical roofs) without deep appreciation of spatial arrangement

implies less satisfaction for indigenous people. Similarly he highlighted

the failure of Fathy’s village due to the destructive image of traditional

form and material by violating people’s desire for modernity.

The subtle interrelationship between traditional forms and evolving

socio‐environmental requirements need to be understood in a dynamic

context with respect to local desires. As studied by Grimm et al. (2000),

based on the US Long‐Term Ecological Research (LTER)46, and by Yli‐

Pelkonen and Niemela (2005) derived from a Finnish case study, ‘land

use’ is identified as the key to link social and environmental processes.

The changes of ‘land use’ over time are driven by the demands of

conservation and development. They are constrained by environmental

context and influences ecological patterns and processes. Meanwhile the

driving forces and changes of ‘land‐use’ play in a chain reaction with

social activities and attitudes to forward further changes (as seen in

Figure 5‐1). ‘Land‐use’ is analyzed by spatial patterns and spatial

46 LTER is US government supported program to study ‘human‐dominated ecosystems’. It took Central Arizona‐Phoenix and Baltimore as case studies to implement the conceptual framework of urban ecology.


‐ 95 ‐

functions. Spatial pattern refers to morphology, related to the physical

characteristics and organizations of artifacts. Spatial function denotes the

usage and target audience of a place, which reflects the potential

activities and interactions occurring in the spatial patterns. Thus, ‘Land‐

use’ implies physical morphology and potential operation of living

heritage sites. It is a very sensitive issue in response to time and social

norms, while it accommodates and constrains social activities.

Figure 51: Conceptual scheme of integrating social and environmental factors47

The following section focuses on the spatial patterns and functions of

land‐use in response to social quality in the process of conservation and

development of living heritage sites. In order to understand the

relationship between social requirements of indigenous inhabitants and

physical environment, the research employs the MOP model, i.e.

47 Adapted after Grimm et al. 2000, and Yli‐Pelkonen et al. 2004.


‐ 96 ‐

‘Morphology, Operation, Performance’ developed at Design Knowledge

Systems of TU Delft by Alexander Tzonis (Tzonis et al. 1987) to generalize

a hypothetical model. The model has been applied in several doctorate

researches, such as Fang 1993, Jeng 1995, Bay 2001, Zarzar 2002,

Vyzoviti 2005. It defines relationships between environmental artefacts

and social quality indicators at living heritage sites with the aim to

develop a hypothetic model towards an applicable design tool in the

process of living heritage conservation.

5.2 Linkage between social performance and spatial morphology

5.2.1 Selective social indicators As seen in Dayan town and many other living heritage conservations in

the Living Heritage Sites Program, social problems have widely emerged

in the conservation process in combination with tourism development.

The decline of social quality of a local community results in the exodus of

indigenous inhabitants and the loss of living identity at the sites in the

long run. In order to articulate social quality in traditional communities,

the research selected pertinent social indicators in response to the

existing social problems based on state‐of‐the‐arts reviews (Figure 5‐2).

They offer a measurable basis to evaluate social quality. Moreover, they

illustrate the closely relationship with spatial features, and lead to a

design tool in conservation practices.

The selected social indicators help to understand the social transition of

traditional communities in the process of conservation and tourism

development. Some of the indicators denote certain requirements on the

physical characteristics of living environment. For instance, the

accessibility of daily services indicate the distance and allocation of these

services in relation to local residences; public surveillance requires

connected space with limited access to local neighbourhoods;

boundaries denote clear spatial demarcation; social communication and

association need corresponding places to accommodate certain activities,


‐ 97 ‐

etc. These social indicators interpret social quality in a measurable

method and give clues to designers or planners to understand the

relationship between physical characteristics and the social requirements

of indigenous inhabitants, which leads to design guidelines for social

sustainability in living communities.

Figure 52: Framework for the interpretation of social indicators

5.2.2 MOP model in living heritage conservation Morphology, Operation and Performance is a model used to represent

architectural knowledge in a given context. In the MOP model, reality is

abstracted into ‘Morphology’ referring to the physical configuration of an

artefact; ‘Operation’ meaning the events and interactions occurring

within the artefact; and ‘Performance’ referring to how the events or

interactions occurring in the artefact affect people. In the context of

living heritage sites, the MOP framework represents as (1) Morphology:

the spatial organization of the built tissue of the given case, (2) Operation:

the patterns of activities, uses and processes that take place within this


‐ 98 ‐

tissue as constrained by its Morphology, and (3) Performance: the

beneficial or detrimental output ‐ in this case social quality ‐ as

constrained by its Morphology and Operation. In the context of living

heritage conservation, MOP could be interpreted in a conceptual model

as Figure 5‐3.

It is important to identify the logical relationship between morphology,

operation and performance before further analysis. Different from

environmental‐determinism, the environmental configurations and

spatial morphologies preserved or changed for different purposes, do not

sufficiently lead to certain operations in the process of conservation and

development, such as ritual ceremony or social interactions of local

residents. However they offer necessary conditions to accommodate the

potential activities. Likewise, it is not a causal relationship between

operations and performances. The fulfilment of the antecedent helps or

encourages the realization of the consequent, but it is not sufficient to

guarantee the achievement of the consequent. The antecedent provides

necessary, instead of sufficient conditions for the realization of the

consequent.


‐ 99 ‐

Figure 53: Concept MOP model for high social quality living heritage conservation

‘Performance’ in this research is defined as social performance, i.e. social

quality of a traditional community. It is interpreted with social indicators

as stated above and represents social norms among indigenous

inhabitants. ‘Operation’ refers to various activities occurring in the

process of conservation as well as tourism development. In particular,

tourism development introduces new actors and activities, interacting

with those from indigenous neighbourhoods. ‘Operation’ is closely

related to ‘values’ and interventions at a living heritage site. Value

identification defines potential functions in relation to physical

environment of the living site. Interventions are driven by the benefits of

different actors to reinforce, degrade or change the corresponding

‘values’ and functions of the living heritage site. Traditional rituals and

festivals are the unique ‘operations’ of the traditional community, which


‐ 100 ‐

links to the establishment of social norms among indigenous inhabitants

and plays an essential role in social cohesion. However, this research is

more interested in the informal ‘operations’ of local residents, which

represent the social quality from an evolutionary point of view and

contribute to the sustainable development of the living site.

‘Morphology’ in the living heritage conservation denotes spatial patterns

and functions. Single construction, path and open space are used as basic

categories to analyze spatial morphology. They and their combinations

offer necessary spatial conditions to accommodate different target users

and their respective activities, which are represented in various spatial

functions and exert great influence on the social quality performance of a

living community.

As summarized in Figure 5‐3, the following research tries to develop a

design tool in the form of guidelines through the MOP model. The

relationship among Morphology, Operation and Performance can be

interpreted in the ‘if –then’ form, as argued by Sophia Vyzoviti (2005) in

either descriptive or prescriptive models. The descriptive model is based

on environmental observations as conducted in Dayan case through field

study. If certain spatial morphology is given, then corresponding

activities occur, and then certain social quality will be achieved

consequently, as studied through questionnaires in Dayan case. The

other way around, in order to produce reliable design guidelines with

aims to retain social quality, this research employs the prescriptive model

as follow:


‐ 101 ‐

Logical inference MOP model Descriptions

If want to achieve ‘Performance’ Social norms – social

quality

Then it is necessary to

have

‘Operation’ Activities or

interactions

Then it is necessary to

have/forbid

‘Morphology’ Spatial functions and

patterns

Table 51: Logical inference of MOP model

5.3 Hypothetic model in response to social performance

5.3.1 Evolutionary understanding on spatial morphology

As stated above, spatial morphology denotes physical characteristics and

spatial organizations of the site. In order to understand the morphology

of the space in the transition of a traditional living community, it is

essential to study their evolving functions. Spatial functions serve as the

intrinsic driver of physical characteristics and organizations of different

places, which accommodate various activities. The traditional functions

of different environmental configurations leave idiographic marks during

their long‐term interactions with the socio‐cultural environment.

Nevertheless, their contemporary functions indicate the emerging

desires of local population along with the socio‐economic transformation,

such as tourism‐related functions. As stated by Feilden and Jokilehto

(1998) that functions are relative social attributions of the qualities of

objects, which are deeply rooted in social setting and change over time.

The spatial functions in a living heritage site have undergone various

kinds of modifications aligned with different historic periods. ‘Such

accumulated changes have themselves become part of its historical

character and material substance’, which endures ‘the artistic or


‐ 102 ‐

aesthetic conception of the builders, and of historical testimonies and

associated cultural values, both past and present’ (Feilden and Jokilehto,

1998:14). It confirms with the conservation concept of Camillo Boito (in

the Italian Charter of Restoration, 1893), who has foreseen the necessity

of indispensable modern interventions and respected the

superimposition of multiple layers.

5.3.2 Analysis framework of operations As defined in the MOP model, operation refers to various activities and

usages occurring in different space. This research proposed a framework

to analyze the operations of spatial configurations according to target

users in the process of conservation and tourism development (see Table

1‐1). It helps to understand the mutual influences of local residents and

tourists, and further identifies the requirements for promoting social

interactions among the local residents. The framework suggests

classifying spatial configurations into single constructions, paths, and

open spaces, which constrain activities in certain morphology, i.e. point,

linear and patch types of space. The three types of spatial configurations

are analyzed in two categories, for local residents and for tourists. Each

spatial configuration consists of various functions and potential activities.

The concept of ‘paths’ is borrowed from Kevin Lynch (1960), which ’are

the channels along which the observer customarily, occasionally, or

potentially moves. They may be streets, walkways, transit lines,

canals, railroads‘. Single construction constrains activities within a limited and static place. Whereas, open space refers to plotted space

defined by constructions or pathways, which allows more dynamic

interactions and flows, such as plazas in different shapes and scales, as

well as extended places along pathways. Since this research is devoted to

the social quality of a living community, thus, this research mainly

concerns the exterior environment, where various activities of

indigenous inhabitants and tourists interact and influence each other.

Discussions on interior environment of single constructions are


‐ 103 ‐

eliminated, which has been widely addressed in studies on interior

renovation of heritage buildings.

For Local residents ‐ community‐based identification

For Tourists ‐ Expert‐based identification

Single constructions

Residents

Religious buildings

Community centres

Facilities: grocery shops, clinics, restaurants, laundry shops, schools, hardware stores, post offices, etc.

Traditional residents/houses

Historic monuments

Constructions with specific aesthetic or archaeological values

Facilities: information centre, post offices, restaurants, souvenir shops, hospitals etc.

Paths

Main roads linking with other towns for the purposes of working and regional services, such as hospitals, schools, etc.

Streets/walkways linking with work or daily necessary services, such as shopping for food, laundry, reparation, etc.

Walkways/canals for sports, entertainment, communications, etc.

Main roads linking with public transportation terminals and other towns

Streets/walkways/canals linking between tourism attractions

Walkways/canals for exploration, entertainment, and relaxation, etc.

Open spaces

Community plaza/park

Enlarged places along streets, river bank

Private/community parking lots

Natural surroundings

Plaza/parks/enlarged places with distinguished aesthetic, historic, archaeological or artistic values

Public parking lots

Natural surroundings

Table 52: Framework to analyze functions of different spatial configurations


‐ 104 ‐

Table 5‐2 indicates the potential operations, i.e. various activities and

usages in relation to different spatial configurations. The overlapped

usages are demonstrated in each type of spatial configuration, which

implies that interactions between indigenous inhabitants and tourists

occur widely in traditional living communities in the process of

conservation and development. The interactions are inevitable under the

circumstances that tourism development is an important economic

support for living heritage sites. However, some of the interactions may

not be desirable for indigenous inhabitants and in the long run, some

may lead to severe social problems of traditional living communities,

which results in the loss of ‘Universal Outstanding Values’ and the failure

of living heritage conservation. Thus, a model to understand the

relationship between spatial morphology and social quality in the living

community is essential to its sustainable development.

5.3.3 Model to interpret social quality Drawing from the evidences in Dayan case study as well as other living

heritage conservation programs in chapter 2 and 3, and referring to key

social indicators, abstracted through existing literatures on social quality

studies in chapter 4, a model is proposed below with aims to generalize

the spatial morphology in relation to their contributions to social quality

of indigenous inhabitants in living heritage sites. It brings in the

descriptive inference of a MOP model, which offers a framework to

analyze diverse operations and potential social capitals of different

spatial morphology in a living environment from an evolutionary point of

view (Table 5‐3).

Based upon the analysis of basic spatial operations, spatial morphology in

the model is drawn from the different combinations of the three types of

physical configurations for different target users. This dissertation is

interested in the interactions between indigenous inhabitants and

tourists in a living community, thus spatial morphologies of pure tourist

attractions are eliminated in this discussion. Accessibility is introduced as

a key factor related to potential operations through constraining


‐ 105 ‐

activities of different actors, in particular the interactions between local

residents and tourists in living heritage sites. This model indicates the

heterogeneity of spatial morphology in response to various operations,

and helps to understand the contributions of spatial morphologies to the

social quality of indigenous inhabitants at living heritage sites. At the

same time, the model suggests constraints of various interventions in

order to retain the social quality in the process of conservation and


Legends

Tolerance: 1 stands for the lowest level of tolerance for functional changes

1, 2, ..., 9

SL: single construction for local use

ST: single construction for tourism use

PL: path for local use PT: path for tourism use

OL: open space for local use (private to semi‐private space)

OT: open space for tourism use (semi‐public to public space)

Accepted Tolerance to

function changes

Morphology description

IllustrationsAccessibilit

y Contributions to social quality

1 SL and its visible or invisible territory

Limited to the owners

Security and boundary of household


‐ 106 ‐

2 SLs, its access‐PL and semi‐private space in‐between

Limited to residents in the neighborhood

public surveillance,

meeting neighbors

3

SLs with its access‐PL and OL (courtyards) defined by SLs or PLs

Limited to residents in the neighborhood

public surveillance, social communications,

boundary of neighborhoods

neighborhood accessible service

4

neighborhoods and OL shared by different neighborhoods, connected with PLs

Limited to residents in the blocks

Public surveillance, boundary of blocks,

social activities, community accessible services

5 STs mixed with SLs connected by PT

Open to limited number of tourists

Broaden social interactions, Loss of privacy

6 STs mixed in SLs connected by PLs, with OL‐OTs

Open to limited number of tourists

Broaden social interactions, loss of privacy and security

7 STs with access‐PTs and OTs

Open to the public

Service accessibility,

Public gathering


‐ 107 ‐

8 Living community with access PT

Open to the public

Service Accessibility

Territory Identity

Table 53: Model to interpret social quality in relation to spatial morphology

The above model indicates how tolerant different spatial morphologies

are to functional changes in terms of maintaining social quality at a living

heritage site. The places with target users of indigenous inhabitants

exclusively, such as residential buildings, neighborhood paths and semi‐

public open spaces in neighborhoods and blocks (spatial morphology 1 to

4) play an important role in terms of enhancing social privacy, security

and communications in a living community. With respect to social quality,

these places with less tolerance for non‐local uses should be given

priority in conservation. Corresponding changes of spatial functions and

accessibility should be limited. For instance, facilities in traditional

neighbourhood territories should be limited to the use of local residents.

The tolerance to changes needs to be studied in the specific context. In

addition, the spatial quality in terms of noise level, visual intrusion, and

overcrowding should be managed by careful organization of tourist paths

and corresponding facilities to avoid as much as possible the disturbance

to the daily life of local residents. If priority is given to tourism and

tourism‐related development in these spatial morphologies, it will

decrease their potential as sociable places for local interactions, which

may lead to the degradation of overall social quality.

The interactions between local residents and tourists are inevitable.

Besides the spatial constraints, social activities are bonded within a

certain temporal frame. For instance, some places are used for

traditional festivals once a year but other places are used for daily

communication; some paths are taken as morning exercise by local

residents; some street corners are gathering places for afternoon

chitchat. It is essential to understand the functions and related schedules

of activities in a living environment, in order to balance local


‐ 108 ‐

requirements for social life and needs from tourism development. Most

current conservation programs merely focus on isolated environmental

configurations: historic constructions, scenic paths or plazas. Residential

buildings and blocks are taken as background tissues in the process of

conservation and tourism development. Little attention is given to the

social functions of these places in relation to indigenous inhabitants.

Based on the general observations and literature on social studies, spatial

morphology 1‐4, especially 3 and 4 are essential for retaining social

quality of indigenous inhabitants in the traditional community.

In addition, a good mix of expert‐based and community‐based

approaches for value identification helps to define physical settings from

both spatial and temporal dimensions and offers a critical basis for

implying proper interventions to maximize positive interactions and

minimize disturbances. Traditional activities and customs, such as

festivals and daily rituals, should be included in the running schedule of

facilities and businesses on sites. Meanwhile, according to different

functions for different target users, the spatial patterns require certain

environmental parameters to maximize their social performances. The

standard of environmental requirements is outside the scope of this

research. The research suggests that more case studies could be

undertaken with on‐site measurements and subjective surveys in relation

to ASHRAE Standard (1992).

Social Conservation of Ogimachi Village

‐ 109 ‐

6 Social Conservation of Ogimachi Village A field study at Ogimachi village48 is employed in this chapter to test the

above hypothetic model. It examines the positive impacts of bottom‐up

and community‐driven conservation methods and constrained spatial

morphology on social quality of the living community as a successful

instance. This chapter affirms with the model in key spatial

characteristics contributing to the social quality in comparison with

Lijiang ancient town. The embodiment of social indicators is highlighted

and suggestions are put forward as to the current conservation policies

and planning for better social quality in the process of living heritage

conservation.

6.1 Reason to choose Ogimachi village in Shirakawa-go area

‘The historic villages of Shriakawa‐go and Gokayama ‐ Traditional houses

in Gassho Style’ were inscribed as a World Heritage site in December

1995. The Shirakawa‐go and Gokayama areas are surrounded by the

steep mountains of the Chubu region in the central of Japan, with

average height of 1500 meters. They are confined to narrow valleys

connected by the Sho River. Their geographic location made them quite

isolated to the outside world with limited access until the 1950s.

Therefore, they are referred as ‘the last unexplored area’ remaining in

Japan and have developed unique culture and social lifestyles, derived

from the religion, Jodo Shinshu.

48 The figures and tables in this chapter are drawn from data obtained in field surveys and observations. Those not otherwise indicated belong to the author.


‐ 110 ‐

Figure 61: Bird view of Ogimachi village (taken from Northern mountain)

Figure 62: Map of Ogimachi Village49

49 Source: Saito and Inaba, 1996, Appendix‐3b‐1


‐ 111 ‐

The World Heritage site is composed of three historic villages, i.e.

Ogimachi, Ainokura and Suganuma villages, which are physically

separated but hold similar features as living historic settlements, a

harmonious blend of Gassho‐style houses and farming landscape. Among

them, Ogimachi village is the largest in terms of population and acreage,

consisting of 148 households, with a population of 608, and an inhabited

area of 45.6 ha50. It has been chosen because it shares similarities with

Lijiang ancient town in four main aspects: they are both listed as UNESCO

World Heritage sites in 1997 and 1995 respectively; they are located in

comparably isolated environments with defined communities; they have

been populated by indigenous people with unique traditional cultures;

and they have developed a tourism‐based economy in relation to

traditional living environment.

Differing from Lijiang, the preservation of Ogimachi village was initiated

spontaneously by the indigenous residents and remains still in the

control of local community so far. ‘Kumi’ as a special mutual help

organization in Ogimachi village plays a significant role in carrying on

folk‐arts and preservation activities, which offers a deep insight on the

impact of the community‐based approach in conservation policy. The

balance between the stable development of traditional social life and a

booming tourism industry makes Ogimachi village very interesting for

this research to test the hypothetic model proposed in chapter 5, as a

successful case in maintaining high social quality in relation to specific

spatial organizations.

50 Data resource: Dec, 2003


‐ 112 ‐

Inhabited Area (Ha)

Population (1994)

Households (1994)

Households (1870s)

Ogimachi 45.6 634 152 99 Ainokura 18.0 90 27 47 Suganuma 4.4 40 8 13

Table 61: Comparison of three historic villages in acreage and population51

6.2 Comparison with Dayan town Dayan town and Ogimachi village are both inscribed as UNESCO World

Heritage sites by the virtue of traditional human settlements with

outstanding architectural ensembles and landscape, representing

harmonious human interaction with the environment. They are located

in comparably remote districts within a scenic environment, screened by

mountain ranges and crossed by waterways. Their core protected areas

are comparable in geographic scale. However Dayan town has been

experiencing dramatic urban sprawl compared with Ogimachi village

because of the fact that Ogimachi village is strictly limited by its natural

boundaries (Hakusan mountain range and Sho river), while Dayan town

has big expansion potential especially to the southeast. As required for

protection as World Heritage sites, the concept of a buffer zone has been

applied in both Dayan town and Ogimachi village. However, the

definition of buffer zone for Dayan town differs between the local

authorities i.e. 172.6 Ha and the UNESCO World Heritage inscription i.e.

3.8 Square kilometers (380 Ha). This is probably due to the desire for

development and different approaches of value assessments. Dayan

town is well limited to the northwest by mountains; therefore the urban

sprawl spreads mainly towards the southeast directions and as a matter

of fact, the new town has merged with the old Dayan town without

clearly demarcation. On the other hand, Ogimachi village is well limited

51 Data adopted from Saito and Inaba (1996). Conservation plan in attachment 5‐1 (Saito and Inaba, 1996).


‐ 113 ‐

by natural boundaries and maintain a consistent buffer zone. The new

constructions on the other side of the river or mountains limits their

impacts on the heritage site (see Figure 6‐3).

Figure 63: Landuse plan of Dayan and Ogimachi to the same scale


‐ 114 ‐

Dayan town in Lijiang

ancient town (2002)

Ogimachi village in

Shirakawa‐go (1996)

Core protected area 56.8 Ha 45.6 Ha

Occupied Land area 143.6 Ha (2002) 45.6 Ha (2003)

Population 8250 (data in 2002) in the core protected area

608 (data in 2003)

Inscribed as UNESCO World Heritage site

Inscribed in 1997,

fitting criteria ii, iv and v52

Inscribed in 1995,

fitting criteria iv and v

Number of tourists 3 million per year (2001)

1.5 million per year (2006)

Indigenous inhabitants Naxi Minority people Local descendants

Dominating religion Dongba Religion Jodo Shinshu Religion

Dominating economy Tourism Tourism

Table 62: Comparison of basic status between Dayan town and Ogimachi village

Being historic settlements, Dayan town and Ogimachi village are both

populated with indigenous inhabitants, who share a single religion over a

long history. They are both evolved with one dominant culture,

represented by unique traditions, life‐styles and ideology in response to

52 To be included on the World Heritage List, sites must be of outstanding universal value and meet at least one out of ten selection criteria. These criteria are explained in the ‘Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention’. Criteria ii: to exhibit an important interchange of human values, over a span of time or within a cultural area of the world, on developments in architecture or technology, monumental arts, town‐planning or landscape design; Criteria iv: to be an outstanding example of a type of building, architectural or technological ensemble or landscape which illustrates (a) significant stage(s) in human history; Criteria v: to be an outstanding example of a traditional human settlement, land‐use, or sea‐use which is representative of a culture (or cultures), or human interaction with the environment especially when it has become vulnerable under the impact of irreversible change.


‐ 115 ‐

their living environments. Their exclusive community life and traditions

are valuable assets and endow the living heritage sites with special

charms. Since being inscribed as World Heritage sites, they have become

remarkable tourist attractions. As a consequence, tourism as well as

tourism‐related industries turned to be dominant economy of the sites.

The overwhelming number of tourists in contrast to that of indigenous

inhabitants brought enormous economic benefits as well as negative

impacts. It has led to the indigenous communities going through fast

economic and social transformations. The similar cultural and economic

features of Dayan town and Ogimiachi village offer a comparable basis

for further investigation. In terms of average population density, Dayan

town (156 persons/ha) is much higher than that of Ogimachi village (13

persons/ha). This is also reflected in the density of residences and spatial

organizations (Figure 6‐3). In particular, different conservation

approaches were applied to the two sites, immigrants swarmed into the

Dayan town along with the booming tourism development; while in

Ogimachi village, the population was kept stable through controlling the

ownership of properties during the transformation and development.

Overview of Dayan town Overview of Ogimachi village

Figure 64: Bird’s eyeview of Dayan town and Ogimachi village


‐ 116 ‐

6.3 Distinguished features in Ogimachi village Ogimachi village is designated to be a World Heritage site, according to

criteria iv: ‘an outstanding example of a type of building or architectural

ensemble’; and criteria v: ‘an outstanding example of a traditional

human settlement’ (UNESCO WHC, 1995). It demonstrates both tangible

and intangible outstanding values, such as unique Gassho‐style houses,

farming landscape, scenic environment and living folk‐arts as well as

vibrant traditional social lifestyles, which are vulnerable and irreversible

‘values’, contributing to the cultural diversity at a global scale.

The ensemble of traditional Gassho‐style houses is the most

distinguished character in Ogimachi village. There are 114 Gassho‐style

houses (109 designated as historic Buildings), including 59 living

residences, 46 accessory buildings and 9 religious buildings. Gassho

houses are wooden thatched‐roof farmhouses, different from common

Japanese farmhouses. The Gassho‐style of house‐building is created

based on the specific climatic conditions and industrial requirements in

this district. It is one of the most advanced methods of wooden house

construction in Japan. The Gassho‐style house is composed of two

independent parts: a truss‐like body frame, made by professional

carpenters; and a steep‐sloped roof structure, made by local residents

working together under a traditional cooperative system ‘yui’, which also

organizes mutual labor exchange for roof rethatching. The roof slope

reaches over 60 degrees to contend with heavy winter snowfall.

Meanwhile, the steep roof offers a larger volume of interior space

suitable for the sericulture industry, which has been the supporting

industry for Ogimachi village since the 17th century throughout the whole

Edo period. Constructed by local residents in the ‘yui’ system with local

materials, problems of economic and labor shortage could be overcome

in this remote area. Besides this, the adoption of two independent

frames with foliage‐made joints creates a very flexible structure to

protect them from earthquake (more architectonic information referring

to Saito and Inaba, 1996).


‐ 117 ‐

Figure 65: Gasshostyle Wada house, Nationally Important

Cultural Properties

Figure 66: Section of Gasshostyle house53

The farming landscape attached to Gassho‐style houses and the network

of canals going across the village form an indispensable part of the

natural environment of Ogimachi village. They are set in a harmonious

relationship with local topographic features and a surrounding scenic

forest. Meanwhile, they indicate the agricultural history of Ogimachi

village through 10 centuries and imply a cooperative lifestyle as well as a

close relationship between local residents and nature. From the aesthetic,

historic and social points of view, the farming landscape as well as scenic

surroundings enhance the overall value of Ogimachi village and create a

unique settlement. So far, this farmland is still in use. Some of the land is

cultivated with wild vegetables, instead of rice field as before. This is

because the farmland is not very productive when planted with rice,

while the plantation of wild vegetables and organic plants bring in better

incomes the households.

53 Source: Saito and Inaba, 1996 page 74, quoting from the report on the conservation work on the former Nohara House, Kawasaki City, 1968.


‐ 118 ‐

6.4 Participation of local residents in the process of conservation and tourism development

In Japan, nationally important properties are under the protection of the

‘Law for the Protection of Cultural Properties’ (1950). For cultural sites,

the ‘Cultural Promotion Master Plan’, and ‘Basic Principles regarding the

promotion of Culture & the Arts’ are formulated to integrate tangible

and intangible heritage. They have put special attention on community

participation in managing, monitoring and patrolling of a heritage site.

The preservation of historical buildings and structures is the obligation of

owners, who must submit official notification and obtain approval for any

alteration to the existing state. In general, new constructions and

remodeling are prohibited; any harmful actions to the historic values of

Gassho‐style buildings will be prosecuted; any exceptional new

construction must conform to the historic environment. According to the

conservation policy, financial subsidies are available from local

government in the interest of necessary construction, restoration,

modification and improvement works for a harmonious historical image.

Ogimachi village has existed since the 11th century (Saito and Inaba, 1996)

and has retained its geographical location and boundaries since then,

except for the construction of a central roadway at the end of 19th

century. The conservation of Shirakawa‐go and Gokayama areas started

from the value recognition of Gassho‐style houses, of which the number

decreased dramatically after World War II due to rapid economic growth

and social changes in Japan and demolishment due to dam construction.

Comparing the data in the 1890s and in 1994 (Saito 1996), the number of

Gassho‐style houses in Japan dropped from 1800 to 144. Gassho‐style

houses have completely disappeared in 60 out of 93 villages in

Shirakawa‐go and Gokayama areas, and of these 17 villages of those have

been abandoned entirely. Ogimachi village is the only one in Shirakawa‐

go area that retains its Gassho‐style houses, where before there used to

be 23 villages.


‐ 119 ‐

Given the serious rate of demolition of Gassho‐style houses, Japanese

national government designated two houses in Ogimachi (in 1956 and

1971), two houses in Ainokura (1958) and one house in Suganuma (1958)

as Important Cultural Properties. Afterwards, in 1970, the whole villages

of Ainokura and Suganuma and their immediate surroundings gained the

status of Historic Sites, because of the concentration of historic

structures (shown in Table 6‐3). The Ogimachi village was not on the

governmental agenda of conservation, except for single historic buildings.

Area of properties

(Ha)

Number/ratio (number/ha) of historic structures

Number/ratio (number/ha) of Gassho houses

Oldest construction of Gassho houses

Ogimachi 45.6 124/2.72 60/1.32 Latter half of 18th C

Ainokura 18.0 72/4.00 20/1.11 17th C Suganuma 4.4 30/6.82 9/2.05 Early 19th C

Table 63: Comparison of three historic villages in the concentration of historic structures54

6.4.1 Local initiation for conservation of Ogimachi village

However, from the 1960s to 1970s, with the fast transformation of

economic and social conditions, forest, farmland and Gassho‐style

houses became hot targets for outside investments. People in the

traditional villages began to sell their properties and moved out to bigger

cities. The local residents of Ogimachi village recognized the crisis of

losing their homes and living environment, and thus initiated actions to

preserve the village in both its physical environment and cultural bonds.

Based on interviews, all local responses reflected a positive cognition of

the crisis at that time and showed high degree of pride and appreciation

for heritage values in their home village. On one hand, the consensus

54 Data adopted from Saito (1996).


‐ 120 ‐

cognition reflects a high level of cultural identity such that conservation

is given priority to economic profits; on the other hand, the sense of

pride and responsibility encourages participation to conservation actions

in the living community. In 1971, local people organized the ‘Association

for the Protection of the Natural Environment of Shirakawa‐go Ogimachi

Village’, and established the ‘Charter of Village Residents’, which

demonstrated three principles: ‘Do not sell, Do not rent and Do not

demolish’ in preserving Gassho‐style houses. The spontaneously

established village charter offered a very effective way to stop the

demolition of common Gassho‐style houses (see Figure 6‐7). Meanwhile,

they initiated protective actions in Ogimachi village, including both

historic structures and natural environment, such as fields, canals, forests,

etc. After the revision of the ‘Law for Protection of Cultural Properties’ in

1975, to include intangible folk‐cultural properties, traditional

conservation techniques, and preservation districts for groups of historic

buildings, Ogimachi village became a nationally ‘Important Preservation

District for groups of Historic Buildings’ in 1976. The importance of

Ogimachi is stated by Saito and Inaba (1996) that ‘subsequently, in spite

of the fact that in most other villages the Gassho‐style houses were

nearing the point of extinction, with the population and the number of

households noticeably on the decline, Ogimachi village remained

stable during this period without any significant change’ (p57).


‐ 121 ‐

Figure 67: The number of living Gasshostyle houses in Ogimachi village from 1924 to 199455

6.4.2 Social associations The participation of local residents in the conservation of Ogimachi

village relies on its unique social system composed of various cooperative

social associations, and an extended family system. They helped the

village to survive severe living conditions in the past. The extended family

structure was led by the first son and his wife, and included members

from multi‐generations and siblings’ families. The number of family

members in one Gassho‐style house was normally 10 to 30, but the

extended family structure was only present in this area where the living

conditions were most severe (similar historic background with Lijiang). At

present, the extended families have disappeared completely, but the

55 Data source: the survey report of a Mr. Wada on Ogimachi out of interest in understanding home culture. Mr. Wada is the first grandson of Wada family, who owns the Wada House, listed as National Important Cultural Property. The living Gassho‐style house refers to those functioning as residences, excluding those abandoned and those used for storage, business and other purposes.


‐ 122 ‐

special mutual‐support system is still functioning and plays an important

role in the process of conservation from initiation to daily supervision.

Without doubt, the creation and maintenance of the unique social

system are bonded with Jodo Shinshu – the local religion.

Ogimachi village is located in a remote area with limited natural and

labour resources in the past. In order to survive from these severe

conditions, local people initiated special cooperative associations called

‘Kumi’ to organize neighborhood households for seasonal or daily tasks in

an efficient and economic method. Therefore, local residents developed

close relationships by sharing their workload, offering mutual help and

participating in religious and traditional ceremonies and festivals. This

social system derived from previous economic and technological

conditions is maintained and still active at present. Examples of this

social system are the above‐mentioned ‘yui’, as a traditional labor

custom to work together for house construction and roof rethatching,

‘kumi’ in organizing traditional festivals and folk‐arts, and ‘koryaku’ to

perform roles in religious functions and participate in the ‘spring

ceremony’ as well as marriages and funerals. Nowadays, local residents

are still involved in different social associations to share responsibilities

for common benefits, such as grass‐cutting along the mountain roadways,

clearing the canal and calling out fire alarm warnings etc.


‐ 123 ‐

Figure 68: Rethatching work by ‘yui’ system56

6.4.3 Participation in tourism development Being a World Heritage site, Ogimachi village welcomes 1.4 ‐1.5 million

visitors per year (2007) within a district of 45.6 ha. According to the local

administration, prior to being listed as a World Heritage site, about

500,000 tourists visited the area. The local residents coped with the

pressure from mass tourism by organizing and participating with tourism

development as well as conservation within a high level autonomous

system from the very beginning. Since 1971 when the local residents set

up the ‘Charter of Village Residents’, two objectives have been clearly

stated: protecting the natural and cultural environment of the homes

and promoting a tourism‐based industry to revitalize the regional

economy. Local residents recognized that conservation and tourism

56 Source: Saito and Inaba, (1996 page 40). For big Gassho‐style house, the roof rethatching has to be done every 30‐40 years. It requires around 200 people working together for two days. Every year, there are 2 to 3 houses to be rethatched.


‐ 124 ‐

development of their village are highly interrelated with each other.

Therefore, they developed various associations to organize and supervise

different tourism‐related businesses and make decisions together by

representatives at the ‘Association for the Protection of the Natural

Environment of Shirakawa‐go Ogimachi Village’.

The main problems caused by mass tourism in Ogimachi village include

litters, risk of fire, traffic and parking, leading to a deterioration of the

physical environment, and disturbance of residents’ privacy, abandoning

farmland and commercial industries, resulting in the degradation of

social quality. The village shares common problems with Lijiang ancient

town in relation to booming tourism and self‐development. However,

Ogimachi village achieved a certain balance between tourists’

requirements and social quality through higher levels of autonomous

engagement of local residents, who play an essential role and take

different actions in line with the governmental legal framework (see

table 6‐4). For instance, in response to problem of littering, dustbins

were not installed in the area of the Gassho‐style settlement, requiring

tourists to take away rubbish to specific points. This action does not

sacrifice the residential atmosphere for tourists’ conveniences (strict

regulations and fines are set for littering). In fact, the insistence on an

individual living sphere fortifies attractions for tourism development in a

long run, because it differentiates living heritage from open‐air museums.

According to on‐site observations, tourists much preferred living Gassho‐

style residences to uninhabited tourist facilities, including open‐air

museums and folk‐arts centers57. However, some problems, such as the

loss of privacy, pollutions from the highway construction and operation,

and the abandonment of farmland, are still waiting to be solved.

Although ‘private property’ signs are clearly visible in front of Gassho‐

57 There is an open museum near the main entrance of Ogimachi village composed of a group of abandoned houses, which are managed by local communities and serve as an open‐air exhibition of Gassho‐style houses and traditional folk arts at present.


‐ 125 ‐

style houses and farmland, curiosity often drives tourists to across the

line.

Tourism development Conservation Concerns Resource

Activities Negative Impacts Legislations Local

Actions

The biggest Gassho-style houses

Walk-in visits

Loss of privacy More maintenance

Listed as nationally Important Cultural Properties

Open to the public and charge entrance fees

Gassho-style settlement

Walking tours and sightseeing

Litter, Fire, privacy, other disturbances

Strict protection of land-use and facades

‘Do not sell, do not rent, do not destruction’ ‘Hinoban-Mawari’58

Common Gassho-style houses

Minshuku (family-run traditional hostel)

Loss of privacy Risk of destruction

Limitation to changes on façade and structure

‘Yui’ labor exchange for rethatching

Hakusan National Park

Walking tours and sightseeing

Litter, Fire

Strict protection of land use and trees

‘Hinoban-Mawari’

Products from farmland and forests

Restaurant, organic products, souvenirs

Litter, Functional changes,

Hygiene standards

Associations of village commerce and industry society

Local handcraft

Souvenir Shops

Functional changes Abandonment of farmland

Protect intangible heritage

Association of village commerce and industrial society

58 ‘Hinoban‐Mawari’ is a shifting fire monitoring association, performed by neighborhood villagers to carry out fire‐inspection duties four times a day. Two people from a neighborhood work together to check over the village by beating wooden clappers.


‐ 126 ‐

Traditional events Performances

Sudden increase of tourists

Protect intangible heritage

‘koryaku’, organizing traditional festivals and religious ceremonies

Table 64: The role of local residents in conservation and tourism industry

Figure 69: Observation in the openair museum, forkarts centre

Figure 610: Rope bridge to the village and main streets in the village


‐ 127 ‐

6.5 Conservation and social quality in Ogimachi village

As designated as ‘Important Preservation Districts for Cultural Properties’,

traditional residences, historic structures and the surrounding landscape

are regarded as one valuable entity for preservation (Article 142 of the

Law for Protection of Cultural Properties, enacted in August, 1950 and

revised in July 1975, hereinafter referred as ‘the Law’). The applied Law

sets very strict regulations with regards to changes and modifications of

the façade, form, and land‐use as well as other tangible components

attached to the settlement in order to present its complete and

harmonious values, such as trees, fences, gardens, yards, routes, walls

and stairs. Meanwhile subsidies are available for restoration and repairs

of the mentioned elements and corresponding punishment for any

violations. The national law implemented by the Board of Education laid

down a firm basis for the preservation of physical environment.

Social quality was investigated from social surveys and on‐site

observations. The social surveys were conducted by the author from

November 17 to 18, 2007 in Ogimachi village. Five people were

interviewed, based on the framework of the attached questions (see

Annex 5). Most questions were open‐ended and each interview took

around one hour with in‐depth communication, in order to collect as

much information as possible on their opinions. The social quality was

analyzed according to the social indicators proposed in chapter 4.

6.5.1 Contribution of local associations to social quality

In the conservation of Ogimachi village, local associations play an

essential role in preserving the physical environment as explained in

Table 6‐4, and their contributions to maintaining social quality are

saliently reflected in the surveys. In ‘Association for the Protection of the

Natural Environment of Shirakawa‐go Ogimachi Village’, there are 25

representatives, 4 to 5 are from the national government, local


‐ 128 ‐

authorities and companies, the rest are local residents. They represent

residents living in different neighborhoods, the women’s association, the

young men’s association, association of Gassho‐style houses’ owners, the

association of local products and souvenir shops, and the association of

Minshuku59.

No. Age Family

structure Career Main family income

1 39 Husband, wife and a child, 3 members

Officers at the Local Preservation Committee

Salary from the committee

2 42

Wife, husband, children and grandparents, 7 members all together

Housewife,

Husband works for the Village commerce and industrial society

Running Minshuku, Salary from local association, cultivating vegetables

3 46

Parents and a brother, 4 members all together

Buddhist monk, looking after religious Gassho‐style houses

Tourism, entrance fees and government sponsorship

4 66 Wife and husband, 2 members

Farmer, looking after the Gassho‐style houses

Retired with pension, cultivating wild vegetables, tourism entrance fees

5 29

Parents and siblings, 5 members all together

Working at the Onsen (hot spring) hotel and restaurant

Salary related to tourism industry

Table 65: Analysis of family structure, career composition and main family income

59 Information source: NESO, a local newsletter published by the ‘Association for the Protection of the Natural Environment of Shirakawa‐go Ogimachi Village’ monthly. It discusses the renovation projects, development issues and conservation interventions. The members of the association are elected every year by local residents and some are recommended by the national and local agencies.


‐ 129 ‐

The various associations improve the sense of participation and control

of their home environment. As indicated in Table 6‐5, the local

associations offered diverse job opportunities and responsibilities for

residents, who could participate in the conservation as well as tourism

development in an active way and achieve high economic security

(Governmental Statistics 2006 showed that GDP of Shirakawa‐go ranked

No. 3 in Gifu Prefecture). At the same time, the activities of local

associations, such as ‘Hinoban‐Mawari’ (see Table 6‐4) provide public

surveillance for social security and opportunities for social interactions.

In the survey, four out of five responses indicated that they

communicated with neighbors most often in activities organized by local

associations (open‐ended question No.7); two responses mentioned

public services, such as restaurant, Onsen (hot spring), school and

religious places.

6.5.2 Responses to other social quality The concerns on the social quality of Ogimachi village derived from the

initiation of local interventions in the process of conservation. The

respondents in the survey were selected from different age and career

groups in order to represent the general situation in Ogimachi village.

Their responses reflected a high level of identity by indicating the

importance of the cooperative system (open‐ended question No.3) and

sense of responsibility in conservation. At the same time, the responses

showed that the attraction of a traditional life‐style, warm neighborly

relationship and the unique culture (question No.2, open‐ended question

No.8 and No.9) of Ogimachi village compared to modern cities. The

village maintains rich traditional ceremonies and festivals, such as the

Doburoku festival to appreciate harvest‐time and peaceful life,

Harugoma dance for celebrating spring etc., which endow the living

community with special charms. Furthermore, these traditional events

inspire socialization and communication among residents. All responses

reflected a very close relationship with neighbors; even immigrants felt


‐ 130 ‐

integrated in the living environment (question No.6). In general, they

expressed a high level of satisfaction with living in Ogimachi village

(question No.4). However, the respondents also complained about the

disturbances to privacy along with the tourism development (question

No.2) and restrictions on extending living spaces in line with conservation

regulations; at the same time, they indicated requirements for the

improvement of interior space in traditional houses, such as day‐lighting

and insulation system (some residents renovated the original accessory

buildings as a main living space and ran the traditional Gassho‐style

houses as hostels). Based on open‐ended question No.5, local residents

preferred to have a hospital, school and drug stores in the village,

although they could easily share them with neighboring towns thanks to

a convenient transportation system. The on‐site observation showed that

most local residents owned cars and private parking lots allowing them

to easily reach necessary services and facilities. As a consequence,

Ogimachi village maintained a stable social environment, including

demographic composition and social networks, as well as consistent

land‐use. It achieved certain level of balance between the process of

conservation and flourishing tourism development.

Population (2003)

Population (1994)

Households (2003)

Households (1994)

Households (1870s)

Ogimachi 608 634 148 152 99

Table 66: Change of population and households in Ogimachi village

In the conservation of Ogimachi village, priority is given to the indigenous

inhabitants. Visitors are strictly requested to follow six ethical codes of

behavior during their stay in Ogimachi village: do not litter or bring trash

into the village; take extra caution to prevent fire; protect the natural

environment; respect the privacy of residents; use public restrooms and

lavatories; and finally desist from camping (brochure of ‘Shirakawa‐go

Walking Guide’, 2003). It advanced community‐based conservation by

giving priority to the rights of local residents and to the social quality of

the living environment. It went beyond the simple involvement of local


‐ 131 ‐

residents, such as soliciting for opinions, cooperation and promoting

public awareness by institutionalizing the local participation in the

process of conservation. This in turn inspired the enthusiasm, sense of

responsibility and pride in conservation and thus, reinforced the bonds

between local resident and the living environment.

6.5.3 Contribution of spatial organizations to social quality

Besides the wide and active engagements of local associations in the

process of conservation and tourism development, the specific spatial

organization and the allocation of tourism facilities contributed to the

high level of social quality in Ogimachi village. Based on on‐site

observations, the main spatial characteristics are summarized as below:

1. Natural boundaries of the living community (refer to photo 1 in Annex

6). Ogimachi village was segmented from the outside world by the

Hakusan Mountains Range and the Sho River, which clearly defined the

living community and endowed it with a unique territory identity. At the

same time, they help to minimize disturbance from tourists by limiting

the access routes60

2. Control of arrival points by concentrated parking lots separated from

the living territory (refer to photo 2 in Annex 6). All outside vehicles

were restricted to certain areas outside the living community. A large

paid car park connected with the Information Centre and Heritage

museums outside Deai Bridge; another small paid car park was situated

along the main road. A large free car park and bus stop were located a bit

further from the living site and one paid bus stop was situated near the

observation point in the mountain. This helped to control the flow of

60 There are two ways of entering in the village: from north through the 6‐meter wide main road; from west through the rope bridge called Deai Bridge.


‐ 132 ‐

traffic and corresponding pollution, and additionally offered a

comparatively quiet and safe environment for local residents.

3. Concentration of tourism facilities (refer to photo 3 in Annex 6). The

Information Centre, Jin Homura Museum, Heritage Museum, Gassho‐

style House Structure Museum, Gassho‐style House Living Museum and

locally produced vegetable market etc. were gathered near the main

entrance of Deai Bridge, separated away from the living territory. Most

souvenir shops, local products shops and tourist‐oriented restaurants

were located along the main road. This minimized the disturbance

related to tourists on the daily life of local residents by confining their

activities.

4. Differentiating pavement and routes width according to various

functions (refer to photo 2, 4 in Annex 6). The main road was 6‐meters

wide (completed in 1890), and the side motor road was 2‐4 meters for

private access to residences. The pedestrian routes were paved with

scree, and routes between the rice fields were left as mud tracks. This

maintained the original appearance and, more importantly, indicated the

territories of local residents in order to prevent them from intrusion and

unwelcome visits.

5. No special lighting or dustbins in the living community (refer to photo

4 in Annex 6). There were few street lamps even along the main road

compared to most other tourist sites. There were only lighting boxes in

front of the Onsens (public baths with hot springs) and clinics. After 6

o’clock in the winter, visitors were given flashlights to make their way

around. There were no dustbins in the living community for the tourists’

convenience. This required respect from tourists for the living

environment and thus created an authentic atmosphere and experience

for visitors.

6. Allocation of semi‐private space and local facilities (refer to photo 3,

4 in Annex 6). Amongst the residential areas were the usual allocations of

cemeteries, play yards, gardens and so on to serve as an extension of


‐ 133 ‐

family life. Meanwhile, rice fields, often used for cultivating wild

vegetables at present also functioned as semi‐private territories for local

residents. They reinforced the living atmosphere in the community.

Locally used facilities, such as a hardware store, grocery shops and car

and bicycle repair stores were located within walking distance. Besides

this, there was a special community centre for socializing and meetings

for local residents.

6.6 Test of the hypothetic model by comparing Dayan and Ogimachi cases

6.6.1 Social Performance Based on the general surveys and on the spot observations, indigenous

residents in Ogimachi village expressed a higher level of satisfaction with

their living conditions and stronger sense of responsibility as well as

identity associated with their living community, compared with people in

Dayan town. The observation and survey data in Ogimachi village

reflected a comparably higher diversity of working as well as living

conditions. Local inhabitants demonstrated a higher level of participation

by virtue of active engagement in both conservation and development

through taking part in various local associations. The close social

networks in Ogimachi village allowed indigenous inhabitants to control

their living environment via confining the allocations of tourist‐facilities

and land‐use. At the same time, they could enjoy convenient daily

services, such as repair stores, hardware stores, mini markets, and

community centres and so on in the heritage sites. In addition, social

interactions and public surveillance in Ogimachi village were enhanced

through providing sufficient meeting places and active engagement in

social associations in the site. On the other hand, data in Dayan town

showed a more tourism‐dominated career composition, because of

passive involvement of local populations in the process of conservation

and development. The lack of daily services for indigenous inhabitants

was evident in the analysis, which counted as an important factor to

drive people away from the ancient town for better living conditions. The


‐ 134 ‐

social interactions and public surveillance were badly disturbed, in that

tourists and tourist‐related facilities replaced the social places of

indigenous inhabitants at the living site.

In general, based on the in situ observations and social surveys, the

Ogimachi village portrayed a viable community with high social

performance, associated with vibrant social interactions among local

inhabitants and the continuity of traditional practices for the last three

decades. While the Dayan town left an impression of less cohesion and

social vigor among indigenous inhabitants. It demonstrated an

overwhelming commercialized atmosphere instead of a peaceful

traditional community, whose liveability and social quality have been

seriously tampered with in the past decade.

6.6.2 Applied operations The operations according to social performance in the process of living

heritage conservation mainly refer to the social interactions and

participation among local residents. Tzonis (2006) stated that

contemporary socio‐economic case studies and historical research have

indicated that social interactions could stimulate new knowledge and

creativity, and in turn, new knowledge and creativity helped sustaining a

social‐cultural quality and community in the process of transformation.

Different from static preservation of natural and built environment,

these living heritage sites are still functioning in daily life experience, and

thus require a dynamic conservation with consideration of their

continuous contributions to the quality of local life. As the above case

studies showed, local residents in Ogimachi village had more social

interactions with neighbours compared to those of Dayan town. Local

residents demonstrated more opportunity and frequency to

communicate with each other in Ogimachi village, because of different

activities organized by local associations and adequate places to meet.

The wide participation of indigenous inhabitants reinforced collective

control over the living environment and improved cohesion and social

identity of the Ogimachi village. However, local residents in Dayan


‐ 135 ‐

indicated a lack of places for socializing and entertainment, which limited

social interactions amongst indigenous inhabitants. Meanwhile, the

inhabitants played a passive role in the process of conservation and

tourism development, in virtue of depending on rather than participating

in tourism industry.

In addition, the flows of inhabitants and tourists have great influence on

the security and privacy of a traditional community. The flows of these

different groups are closely related to the allocation of circulation paths

and service facilities. The study in Ogimachi village showed fewer

overlapping flows between indigenous inhabitants and tourists,

compared to Dayan town. In particular, the flows inside neighbourhoods

and at night time were better controlled in Ogimachi village. There are

good reasons to believe that the improvement of social interactions,

participation and flows of people in both spatial and temporal scale could

contribute to the social performance of traditional communities.

6.6.3 Morphology responding to social performance Dayan town and Ogimachi village are both located in scenic

environments with rivers and mountains. The case studies demonstrated

a close relationships between physical morphology and social

performance in the process of living heritage conservation, which was

centrally reflected in the change of land‐use, including the spatial

operation and morphology. Although most distinguished natural and

built characters were well preserved with fundamental ‘historic and

aesthetic values’ as the main tourist attractions, such as topographic and

landscape features, townscape, vernacular architecture, and historic

monuments etc., the subtle changes of marginal land‐use, accessibility of

different places, and spatial morphology in relation to certain territories

exerted significant impacts on the social activities of local residents.

As observed in Dayan town, the replacement of surrounding farmland by

mock traditional constructions led to ambiguity of the community

identity. The surrounding farms functioned as a buffer zone to demarcate


‐ 136 ‐

the ancient town from the newly developed districts, whose replacement

indicated that indigenous inhabitants were losing control over their living

environment. On the other hand, the salient natural boundaries of

Ogimachi village limited its extension and reinforced the living identity of

the local community. In terms of spatial morphology in the living

community, Dayan town has reflected evident changes of spatial

functions and patterns. With the commercial businesses and tourist

services booming and invading residential blocks from street ways, the

characteristics of semi‐private space and the flows of people in

neighbourhoods have been greatly affected (transform from morphology

2‐4 to morphology 5‐8), which has affected the social interactions and

living atmosphere in the historic settlement. Moreover, overcrowded

semi‐public and open spaces have exerted negative impacts on the social

activities and traditional practices of local inhabitants in Dayan town. On

the other side, certain segregation measures between tourist circulation

and local life by way of concentrating tourist facilities and

compartmentalizing functional territories in Ogimachi village have helped

to maintain social interactions and traditional life of the local residents.

In Ogimachi village, the neighbourhoods and residential blocks do not

present themselves in an enclosed form, and thus private and semi‐

private open spaces are not totally defined by buildings as the courtyards

in Dayan town (morphology 3‐4). Instead, various pedestrian paths and

the proper allocation of facilities define the space in‐between

households as private and semi‐private territory, in order to retain social

interactions among indigenous inhabitants (morphology 1‐3). The spatial

demarcation and organization created a secure and homely environment

in Ogimachi village. Based on in situ observations and social surveys,

Table 6‐7 compares the spatial morphology, operation and

corresponding social performance in Dayan town and Ogimachi village to

validate the hypothetic model above.


‐ 137 ‐

Morphology Operation Performance

Morphology 2‐4 are replaced by

various combinations of morphology 5‐8

Tourist‐related services replace daily services in neighbourhoods

and the community

Increasing daily expense, decreasing

diversity of daily services

Dayan

Retain morphology 2‐4

Retain repair shops, groceries, etc. for local‐use in neighbourhoods

Convenient access to diverse daily

services

Ogimachi

Morphology 1 without clear boundary and

more unconstrained morphology 5‐8

Overcrowded population and free flows of

people

High crime rate Dayan

Retain morphology 1‐3 in

neighbourhoods

Controlled flows of people in

neighbourhoods Low crime rate

Ogimachi

More morphology 5‐8 in

neighbourhoods, lack of community

centres

Discourage local activities, free flows of people and decrease intimate

relationships in neighbourhoods

Weak public surveillance

Dayan

Strengthen morphology 2‐3 in neighbourhoods and community

centres

Encourage local activities,

constrain flows, and promote intimate

relationships in neighbourhoods

Strong public surveillance

Ogimachi

Morphology 1 without clear

boundary, more morphology 5‐6 in

More disturbing activities and

actors

Ambiguous boundaries result in less privacy of households and

Dayan


‐ 138 ‐

neighbourhoods neighbourhoods

Constrained

morphology 1‐3 in neighbourhoods

Fewer disturbing activities and

actors

Clear boundaries result in retained

privacy of households and neighbourhoods

Ogimachi

Lack of constrained

morphology 2‐4 and

community/entertainment services in community

More undesired encounters

between local residents and

tourists

Fewer social interactions

Dayan

Retain morphology 2‐3 in

neighbourhoods and offer community centres

Fewer undesired encounters

between local residents and

tourists

More social interactions

Ogimachi

Lack of community centres and proper

places to accommodate local associated activities, like morphology 3‐4

Discourage initiatives from local inhabitants

Fewer social associations with less collective

empowerment on environmental control, passive participation

Dayan

Community centres and semi‐public places to support local associated

activities, like morphology 3

Encourage initiatives from local inhabitants

More social associations with more collective

empowerment on environmental control, active participation

Ogimachi

Lack of constrained

morphology 3‐4, lack of community

centres

Discourage social interactions and social associations

Weak social networks

Dayan


‐ 139 ‐

Retain morphology 2‐3 and sufficient

community centres

Encourage social interactions and active social associations

Strong social networks

Ogimachi

Proper open spaces for

collective activities changed from

morphology 3‐4 to 7‐8

Open to tourists and free flows of

poeple

Less frequent traditional practices

Dayan

Retain constrained morphology 3 for collective activities

Controlled environment and restricted flows of

people

More frequent traditional practices

Ogimachi

Morphology 2‐4 change to 5‐8

Change of spatial‐functions and

patterns

Discontinuity of land‐use

Dayan

Retain constrained morphology 1‐3

Maintain spatial functions and

patterns

Continuity of land‐use

Ogimachi

Table 67: Summary of descriptive MOP model in Dayan town and Ogimachi village (Morphology 18 refers to Table 53)

The model (Table 5‐3) generalizes spatial morphology in a conceptual

framework with relation to its functional territory and potential social

contributions to a living heritage site. However, given each living heritage

site is unique, in particular those listed as World Heritage sites, the eight

spatial morphologies might not necessarily be present at one site, and

the forms and organizations might not be precisely the same. For

instance, morphology 3 and 4 represent private and semi‐private space,

which are defined by single constructions and paths for local use. These

may not necessarily to be in an enclosed form as the illustration shows,

and instead may have one or two open sides. The essential concept of

the model reflects the extent, to which the spatial morphology is

constrained: spatial morphology 1‐4 indicates constrained organization


‐ 140 ‐

with restricted access and function, in order to retain certain social

quality; spatial morphology 5‐8 indicates fewer constraints to allow the

interventions of tourist‐related facilities and functions, while bring free

flows of people into the space. The model highlights the importance of

constrained morphology in terms of retaining social quality of indigenous

communities in the process of conservation and development.

As analyzed above, the constrained spatial morphology in Ogimachi

village contributed to the high performance of social quality in the

traditional community. It affirms with the proposed model hypothesis

(Table 5‐3) in that the constrained space in the territory of the traditional

neighbourhoods and residential blocks are very sensitive in response to

social performance. These places should be given prior considerations to

their social functions for indigenous inhabitants, as new actors and

activities are introduced by tourism development. On the basis of that, a

set of new knowledge‐based design guidelines for living heritage

conservation will be developed below with the aim of achieving high

social quality of an indigenous community. The guidelines should be

applied with careful considerations of specific contexts and conservation

policies.

6.7 Design guidelines for sustaining social quality in living heritage conservation

Conservation and tourism development of a living heritage site are very

much intertwined. For the reasons presented in the previous chapters

and, to quote remarks of Mr. Uneo in the expert meeting on the

conservation of Ogimachi village (1996), concerns for the quality of living

of indigenous inhabitants should be given priority in conservation and

development. In this research, social quality is proposed to be taken as a

complement to economic development in terms of evaluating the living

quality of an indigenous community. Further on, the research has

developed an evident‐based model in the framework of MOP, to explain

the interrelationships between performance of social quality, operation

of interacting actors: indigenous people and tourists, and spatial


‐ 141 ‐

morphology of the living heritage sites. Subsequently, drawing from the

above model, a prescriptive model was developed suggesting what kind

of morphology characteristics a living heritage site ought to have in order

to retain high social quality for its indigenous inhabitants.

As an applicable result, this research developed a set of knowledge‐

based guidelines for designers and decision makers to put into practice

as a design tool to steer social quality in future conservation programs.

The guidelines are derived from the prescriptive MOP model as described

in 5.2.2, and expressed in terms of ‘If‐then’ design rules: “If conditions >>

Then consequences”, where the condition and consequence pairs link

the statements on normative conditions with those on normative actions.

Designers or decision makers bring about normative conditions, and

execute corresponding normative actions to produce these conditions.

Design guidelines can be in the form of single ‘If‐Then’ pair or

overlapping interlinked chains.

In order to encourage the innovation and creativity of decision‐makers

and designers in their practice, it is preferable that the design guidelines

structure “Then’ in proscriptive recommendations, stating ‘what one

should not to do’ rather than obligatory directives, stating ‘what one

should do’. Prescriptive guidelines restrict designers and decision makers

in terms of what people should do, frustrating initiatives in

implementation; Proscriptive guidelines only prohibit certain things that

can lead to detrimental results, giving people the freedom to apply,

invent and explore in the context. It has been observed in general that

the form of ‘what one should not do’ encourages the bottom‐up

approach of implementation; on the other hand, the regulations in the

form of ‘what one should do’ facilitate top‐down approach to

implementation. The following examples of basic design guidelines

combine the two approaches, supplying both proscriptions and

prescriptions.


‐ 142 ‐

※※※

If, required performance: strengthen the security and privacy of

residential neighborhoods and blocks

Then, recommended operation: spatial functions and corresponding

activities are restricted to indigenous inhabitants, for the provision of

daily conveniences and to enhance frequent contacts and familiarity

among neighbors

If, required operation: spatial functions and corresponding activities are

restricted to indigenous inhabitants, for the provision of daily

conveniences and to enhance frequent contacts and familiarity among

neighbors

Then, recommended morphology:

Prescription:

Create clear demarcations between different territories in the

hierarchy of: private residence, neighborhood and residential

block

Control flows of people in residential neighborhoods and blocks

via confining entrances and exits

Differentiate paths for local circulation and tourist circulation via

width, pavement and form etc.

Differentiate paths for pedestrians and vehicles via width,

pavement and form etc.

Proscription:

Do not allocate tourism‐oriented facilities and businesses in the

residential districts

※※※


‐ 143 ‐

If, required performance: encourage communication and participation in

the traditional community

Then, recommended operation: promote social interactions among

indigenous inhabitants and activities of social associations

If, required operation: promote social interactions among indigenous

inhabitants and activities of social associations


Prescription:

Retain semi‐private and semi‐public open spaces in association

with local circulations

Concentrate local car parking lots in different residential blocks

Create community centers for aged groups of local population

and local associations

Allocate daily facilities and services with convenient access in the

residential blocks

Proscription:

Do not connect semi‐private space in residential neighborhoods

with tourist circulations

※※※

If, required performance: promote social identity of the traditional

community

Then, recommended operation: promote social networks and continue

tradition practices and land‐use features


‐ 144 ‐

If, required operation: promote social networks and continue tradition

practices and land‐use features


Prescription:

Create buffer zones to identify the boundaries of traditional

community

Limit entrances and exits to the living heritage sites

Concentrate tourist facilities and services in connection with

main roads

Concentrate car parking lots for tourists near main entrances

Reserve open spaces for local festivals and traditional events

Proscription:

Do not add new trans‐boundary roads in the traditional

community

Do not connect places for daily ritual and cemeteries with tourist

circulations

※※※

The guidelines above have been derived from the on site observations

and social surveys in two case studies: Dayan town and Ogimachi village,

which somewhat limit their general application. Meanwhile this indicates

the direction for future research to generalize the guidelines on a much

broader scale. As implied in table 6‐7, the semi‐private and semi‐public

space (morphology 2‐4) in residential neighborhoods and blocks play an

essential role in maintaining social interactions of indigenous inhabitants,

and thus contribute to the social quality of a living community. However,

these places are very fragile environments and highly sensitive to the


‐ 145 ‐

process of tourism development. The new actors and activities

introduced by tourism‐related businesses may easily disrupt these places

and change the spatial operations gradually (changing to morphology 5‐

8). The proposed guidelines aim to build up a resistant spatial

morphology to control the corresponding operations and strengthen the

ties between local inhabitants and places. This enables the community to

have collective control over their living environment and retains the

intrinsic nature of the living heritage site in the long run. In addition, as

explained above, the specific morphology of semi‐private and semi‐

public places varies in each living heritage site. To identify these socially

sensitive places, a bottom‐up, community‐based approach is suggested

in the process of conservation and tourism development.


‐ 146 ‐

7 Conclusions and limitations This chapter summarizes the main findings of this research, derived from

field studies and interdisciplinary state‐of‐the–arts literature reviews. It

evaluates the findings in relation to the initial claims stated in the

introduction, points out the limitations of these findings and suggests

further directions of research to overcome these limitations. Lastly, it

puts forward research proposals extending from the research and

discusses possible applications of the scientific findings.

7.1 Summary of research findings As pointed out in the introduction, the aims of this research were:

1) To identify the negative impacts of conservation policies

implemented in living World Heritage sites, that have taken into

account only the physical aspects of objects, ignoring their effects

on the social quality of traditional living communities

2) To identify design and managerial attributes in the approach to

conservation that could control these negative impacts by taking

into consideration the way the living heritage sites are used by

indigenous inhabitants and tourists

3) To develop a design tool that constrains spatial morphology to

overcome the negative influences on the social quality of

traditional living communities in the process of conservation and


This research commenced with the social problems in precedent living

heritage conservation along with tourism development in the framework

of the UNESCO World Heritage program. The conventional top‐down,

expert‐driven conservation approach merely focused on the physical

aspects of heritage sites without paying proper attention to the social life

of an indigenous community. In order to gain a better understanding of

the numerous factors involved when new tourist‐related activities and

Conclusions and limitations

‐ 147 ‐

actors were introduced to traditional living communities as World

Heritage sites, the research employed a comparative case‐study method

through on site social surveys and investigations.

The research employed Dayan town as an exploratory case (Chapter 2). A

field study of the town was carried out to identity the way heritage

conservation and tourism development, as was applied, influenced

everyday life and social quality of the indigenous community, by studying

the patterns of land‐use and social interactions embedded in the specific

spatial morphology of the living site. To understand the social problems

of an indigenous community and the limitations of the current

conservation policy, the Dayan case studied interactions between new

actors and activities and those of the traditional community in different

land‐use patterns. The field study showed that the conservation of Dayan

town focused on the physical environment of the living heritage site in a

top‐down and expert‐driven approach. The site left spatial morphology

unconstrained to external interventions, which consequently led to a less

desirable environment to live in, the exodus of indigenous inhabitants

and a loss of vigor of the living community.

Drawing from recent studies on the community‐based approach of Living

Heritage Sites Program, covering a number of case studies in Asia in

Chapter 3, this dissertation evaluated recent living heritage conservation

and the experimental living heritage approach. It generalized the key

social problems and the impacts of applied conservation approaches in

current living heritage sites. On that basis, critical reviews on social

quality studies carried out by the European Foundation on Social Quality

through the joint efforts of sociologists and economists in Chapter 4

enabled a prudent selection of social indicators in response to the social

problems identified in living heritage conservation. This offered a

profound knowledge to understand the importance of social quality, as a

capital in the process of sustainable development, and interpreted social

quality in terms of social indicators.


‐ 148 ‐

Chapters 5 adopted the MOP (Morphology, Operation, Performance)

framework to structure and generalize the evidences obtained from

previous case studies and literatures. The MOP framework employs the

categories of (1) Morphology: the spatial organization of the built tissue

of the given case, (2) Operation: the patterns of activities, uses and

processes that take place within this tissue as constrained by its

Morphology, and (3) Performance: the beneficial or detrimental output ‐

in this case social quality ‐ as constrained by its Morphology and

Operation. An evidence‐based model hypothesis was proposed to

identify the influence of spatial morphology on the social quality of

traditional communities experiencing intense pressure from tourism in

the process of conservation.

Subsequently, the case study of Ogimachi village was introduced in

Chapter 6 to test the above model. It examined the positive impacts of

bottom‐up, community‐based conservation method and constrained

spatial morphology on the social quality of the living community as a

successful instance. The case study conformed in key elements with the

hypothetic model for achieving high social quality performance in

relation to specific operations and morphological characteristics. As an

applicable result, this dissertation proposed design guidelines for future

implementation, with aims to retain high social quality in the process of

living heritage conservation. The main findings of the dissertation

included:

1) Current conservation approaches to living heritage sites merely

focused on their physical characteristics, of which the

improvements were driven by the obligations of national and

local authorities and the interests of tourism development. The

top‐down, expert‐based conservation approach did not gain

insights into traditional practices and networks, which has led to

the serious degradation of social quality in indigenous

communities. This reflected on the destruction of social

networks and interactions, loss of socio‐economic security and


‐ 149 ‐

privacy and dissolving social identity. This in turn led to the

exodus of indigenous inhabitants and aged society problems in

most living heritage sites. Additionally, the bottom‐up,

community‐based approach applied in pilot projects remained

only a passive engagement of local population in the practice of

conservation and tourism development.

2) In response to the main social problems generalized above, this

research selected five social dimensions, i.e. socio‐economic

security, privacy, communication, participation, and social

identity, with a set of observable and measurable social

indicators to evaluate social quality in the context of living

heritage conservation. The findings offered a manageable and

explicit base to develop an appropriate design‐tool in

conservation practices.

3) This research identified that the social quality of living heritage

sites is sensitive to various changes in land‐use: spatial

morphology and spatial operation. Adopting the MOP

framework, this research developed a model to generalize the

relationships between spatial morphology and social

performance in a traditional living community. The model

highlighted the importance of constrained spatial morphologies

in retaining high social quality of an indigenous community,

which was tested and confirmed through field study in Ogimachi

village.

4) As an applicable product, this research proposed a new

knowledge‐based design tool in the form of design guidelines to

retain social quality of the indigenous community by means of

constrained spatial morphology. The guidelines consisted of

prescriptions and proscriptions to constrain new actors and

activities introduced by tourism‐related development with those

of the indigenous community. These indicated the necessity of

bottom‐up, community‐based approach in the implementation


‐ 150 ‐

of the guidelines to retain high social quality of the living

heritage sites in the long run.

The study leads to a new approach to conservation planning that takes

into account sustaining the needs of local populations in the process of

living heritage conservation and proposes a new knowledge‐based design

tool to put this into practice.

7.2 Evaluations of this research This research fulfilled the proposed objectives in the initial claims. It

brought forward social problems and drew special attention to the social

quality in the process of living heritage conservation and tourism

development. The research offered an important complement to

mainstream conservation, which merely focused on the preservation of

physical environment and resulted in failure in most cases in the long run.

This research employed comparative case studies in Dayan town and in

Ogimachi village to understand and diagnose the impacts of different

conservation policies and spatial morphologies on the social quality of

indigenous communities and generalized the relationship between

spatial morphology and social performance in the MOP (Morphology‐

Operation‐Performance) framework.

The innovative contribution of this research was that it created an

applicable, knowledge‐based design‐tool in the form of design guidelines

to retain social quality of living heritage sites. The research was built

upon interdisciplinary knowledge and articulated the relationships

among spatial morphology, pattern of activities in relation to different

actors and social quality at living heritage sites in an evolutionary point of

view. It offered explicit design guidelines for retaining key social quality

performance in virtue of constraining certain spatial morphology. This

research highlighted the inconspicuous deterioration of social quality

compared to the retention of physical characteristics in the practice of


‐ 151 ‐

living heritage conservation and tourism development. Furthermore, the

research proposed an applicable approach to diagnose and overcome the

social problems by means of controlling various interventions via

constrained spatial morphology.

In addition, this research contrasted the top‐down, expert‐driven

approach with the bottom‐up, community‐based approach through the

review of applied conservation programs in Dayan town and Ogimachi

village. It analyzed their respective advantages and disadvantages in

relation to retaining social quality of indigenous communities. The

research offered valuable arguments for the policy‐making and

management in the process of conservation and tourism development of

living heritage sites. The research inspired interdisciplinary studies in this

domain and shed light on the integrated approach in the interest of

sustainable living heritage conservation.

7.3 Limitation and extensions The findings of this research and the application of design guidelines

were built upon three major assumptions:

1) that the living heritage sites should be viable and desirable places to

live for indigenous inhabitants

2) that it is possible to find a consensus on living ‘values’ of the site

between indigenous people, public authorities and tourists, which

makes possible a compromise between economic, entertainment,

educational and social objectives

3) that the way of traditional life and practice carried out by the

indigenous inhabitants of the heritage site represent universal value

as a social capital and as an expression of cultural diversity

As stated above, the evidence in support of this research hypothesis and

its findings was grounded upon two field case studies. Therefore the

findings are limited by:


‐ 152 ‐

1) the number and the type of cases selected to develop and examine

the hypothesis empirically (only two case studies from an Asian

context)

2) the methods to obtain data, such as the ways of observations and

surveys carried out at the site, and sample sizes in the surveys

3) the methods of data aggregation and analysis applied in the research

in the framework of MOP

Future investigation is called for to expand the conclusions and the

applicability of the knowledge‐based design tool, in order to develop the

knowledge between social quality maintenance and environmental

conservation at living heritage sites in the long run. Such investigations

might involve a larger number of sample cases and extend all over the

world.

In addition, social indicators to evaluate the social quality of indigenous

communities in this research were abstracted from social problems in

relation to tourism development. However, there might be other factors

that caused social problems and conflicts, such as the deterioration of

environmental performance, discrimination against the minorities,

unequal distribution of economic benefits and so on, which were out of

the scope of this research.

The conservation of living heritage sites is much more complicated than

that of an artifact, involving economic, environmental, managerial and

political considerations. This research limited its findings and applications

in dealing with the deterioration of social quality in relation to just

tourism‐related development at living heritage sites. Future study could

be advised to deal with different subjects with relation to social quality of

a living heritage site. For instance, study on the relationship between

environmental performance and social quality in a living community,

where noise level (dB) and thermal comfort indicators (daylight, wind

speed, MRT and so on) could be measured and compared to understand


‐ 153 ‐

the relationship between social quality and spatial quality in the process

of conservation and restoration. Given the heterogeneous nature of

these indicators, special techniques of multidimensional scaling might be

necessary to apply. Meanwhile this work would require tremendous time

and financial resources to collect data from a large number of field

studies.

The limitations of this research might have affected the generalization of

the conclusions and applicability of the design tool. However, the

conclusions suggested new directions for future research, which could

expand the knowledge of the relationship between social quality

maintenance and environmental conservation, in order to achieve a

more comprehensive strategy for sustainable development of living

heritage sites.

The present study focused on the development of a knowledge‐based

design tool. However, such a tool to be applied requires an efficient

policy and management of implementation. Based on the case studies in

Dayan town and Ogimachi village, the following section elaborates on the

measures to complement the bottom‐up, community‐based approach of

implementation, which has been widely debated in recent programs of

Living Heritage conservation. It suggests the future managerial study on

in depth bottom‐up, community‐based approach through inspiring

indigenous inhabitants actively engaged in both conservation and


7.3.1 In-depth method of local participation In order to retain social quality via constrained spatial morphology

mentioned above, an effective management system with the active

involvement of indigenous inhabitants needs to be developed at the

same time. The engagement of local residents should go beyond the

stage of value identification, as previous community‐based approaches

applied in most cases. Local residents should play a leading role in the

development and management of tourism as well as conservation. As


‐ 154 ‐

showed in the conservation of Ogimachi village, local associations

involved in different tourism industries and traditional activities

demonstrated very positive effects in controlling the collective identities

of the living heritage site. For instance, the local associations of

restaurants and commercial businesses reached agreement on opening

hours. This regulated working schedules under the principle of equal

competition on one hand; on the other hand, it controlled the

environmental quality via restricting tourism activities and potential

disturbances, and thus reserved a peaceful country environment at night

time. Based on the observations and conversations with tourists, they

enjoyed the quiet nights here with local people, because they had not

come for night life, but for appreciating the unique culture in the

mountainous countryside. Moreover, the local associations created

plenty of employment related to preservation and tourism industries,

which played a significant role in the economic security of local society.

In general, for the conservation and tourism development of a living

heritage site, interactions between tourists and local residents are

necessary and inevitable. Local associations as traditional mutual help

forums represent the interests of local residents and maintain the

standards of living quality. There are two important forms of local

associations deserving further promotion: associations carrying

traditional knowledge, skills and responsibilities; and associations acting

in a similar manner to guilds in traditional and modern business fields.

These could be either inherited from the past as part of local tradition, or

developed corresponding to current needs. The first type of associations

is receiving growing attention with wide recognition of ‘intangible’

heritage. They are usually bound with nostalgia, similar interests or a

sense of responsibility. The second type of associations does not receive

enough attention in current living heritage conservation, because in most

living heritage sites, local residents have lost their control and the

initiative in the development due to the fast speed of transformation.

Even though there have been some traditional guilds in the past, they

declined as the traditional businesses vanished, and became ornaments


‐ 155 ‐

to some extent. However, in some living heritage sites, it is the local

associations that initiate conservation and development, like Ogimachi

village, and therefore, they continue performing these key roles in the

future. In other sites, the local community realized the necessity of

regaining control of their living environment, like Baisha district in Lijiang

ancient town, and thus they reorganized different groups to take

responsibilities for both conservation and development issues. Baisha

district is not the only living heritage site with such self‐motivated

conservation of living environment. There is growing interest in

developing high autonomy in living heritage conservation from different

sectors.

7.3.2 Importance of local guilds Guilds are defined as ‘associations of persons of the same trade or

pursuits, formed to protect mutual interests and maintain standards’. The local guilds emphasize the active involvement of local residents in

traditional and modern business, which hand the initiative of

development back to the local community. They play a key role in

maintaining social quality at a living site in the process of conservation as

well as tourism development. On one hand, they offer part‐time/full‐

time working opportunities in the field of management, which encourage

local people to share benefits as well as responsibilities. Local guilds help

to develop the full potential resources with reference to local life, and

thus enhance socio‐economic security in a living community; on the

other hand, decision‐making is based on agreement among indigenous

residents, and therefore the social preferences and corresponding

environmental quality are taken into consideration in the process. In

particular, the temporal characteristics of the operation at the living site

could be respected in developing tourism‐related activities and facilities.

To achieve sustainable development of living heritage sites, solely

conservation of physical objects and environment proved to be

insufficient. Social quality of indigenous community studied in this

research brought an important complementary perspective in the


‐ 156 ‐

conservation process of living heritage sites. More interdisciplinary study

is needed and a more cooperative approach is encouraged for future

implementation of living heritage conservation.

References

‐ 157 ‐

8 References Alderfer, C. 1972. Existence, relatedness and growth. New York: Free Press.

Alexander, Christopher, Sara Ishikawa, and Ingrid Fiksdahl‐King Murray Silverstein with Max Jacobson, Shlomo Angel. 1977. A pattern language: Towns, buildings, construction. New York: Oxford University Press.

Altman, Irwin, and Abraham Wandersman, eds. 1987. Neighborhood and community environment: Plenum Press.

ASHRAE STANDARDE. 1992. Thermal Environmental Conditions for human Occupancy. Atlanta, GA: ASHRAE.

Barker, Roger Garlock, Herbert F. Wright, and et. al. Louise S. Barker. 1951. One boy's day: A specimen record of behavior. New York: Harper & Brothers Publishers.

Beck, Wolfgang, Laurent van der Maesen, Alan Walker, ed. 1997. The Social Quality of Europe. The Hague/London/Boston: Kluwer Law International.

Becker, Egon, Thomas Jahn, and Immanuel Stiess. 1999. Sustainability and the Social Sciences. A crossing disciplinary approach to integrating environmental considerations into theoretical reorientation. London: ZED Books.

Becker, Egon, Thomas Jahn, Immanuel Stiess, and Peter Wehling. 1997. Sustainability: A Cross‐Disciplinary Concept for Social Transformations: UNESCO Management of Social Transformations Program.

Beem, Christopher. 1999. The necessity of politics: Reclaiming American public life. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Berger‐Schmitt, Regina. 2001. Dimensions, indicators and time series in a European system of social indicators by example. Mannheim: Centre for Survey Research and Methodology (ZUMA).

Berger‐Schmitt, Regina. 2002. Considering social cohesion in quality of life assessments: concept and measurement. Social Indicators Research 50 (403‐428).


‐ 158 ‐

Berkes, Fikret. 2003. Rethinking community‐based conservation, Natural Resources Institute, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba R3T 2N2, Canada.

Berman, Y., and David Phillips. 2004. Social Quality and the Conditional Factor of Social Cohesion: 3rd draft

Boito, Camillo. 1983. Questioni pratiche di Belle Arti. Milano: Hoepli.

Bourdieu, Pierre. 1977. Outline of a theory of practice, translated by Richard Nice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Chermayeff, Serge, and Christopher Alexander. 1963. Community and privacy: toward a new architecture of humanism. Garden City, New York: Doubleday.

Chermayeff, Serge, and Alexander Tzonis. 1971. Shape of community: realization of human potential: Penguin.

Choi, HwanSuk Chris, and Ercan Sirakaya. 2006. Sustainability indicators for managing community tourism. Tourism management 27:1274‐1289.

Coccossis, H., and P. Nijkamp. 1995. Urban Conservation and Planning. In Planning for Our Cultural Heritage, edited by H. Coccossis, and P. Nijkamp. Aldershot: Avebury.

Coleman, J.C. 1988. Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology 94:95‐120.

Costanza, Rober, Brendan Fisher et al. 2007. Quality of life: An approach integrating opportunities, human needs, and subjective well‐being. Ecological Economics 61:267‐276.

Costanza, Rober, and H. E. Daly. 1992. Natural capital and sustainable development. Conservation Biology 6:37‐46.

Dijkgraaf, Cor. 2003. How world heritage sites disappear: Four cases, four threats. Paper read at Linking universal and local values: Managing a sustainable future for World Heritage, at Amsterdam, the Netherlands.

Dwyer, Larry, and Deborah Edwards. 2000. Nature‐based tourism on the edge of urban development. Sustainable Tourism 8 (4).

References

‐ 159 ‐

Edensor, Tim. 1998. Tourist at the Taj: Performance and Meaning at a sybolic Site. London and New York: Routledge.

Fahey, T., B. Nolan, and C.T. Whelan. 2002. A proposal for the future activities on living conditions and quality of life. Paper read at European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions, at Dublin.

Fairclough, Graham. 2001. Cultural landscape, sustainability and living with change? Paper read at Managing Change: Sustainable Approaches to the Conservation of the Built Environment‐4th Annual US/ICOMOS International Symposium, at Philadelphia.

Fairclough, G.J., G. Lambrick, and A. McNab. 1999. Yesterday's World, Tomorrow's Landscape. The English Heritage Historic Landscape Project, 1992‐1994. London: English Heritage.

Fan, Li, and Shao Yong. 2005. The impact of tourism on core area and buffer zone: Heritage management in the old town of Lijiang, China. Paper read at Monuments and sites in their setting‐Conserving cultural heritage in changing townscapes and landscapes, at Xi'an.

Feilden, Bernard M. and Jukka Jokilehto. 1998. Management Guidelines for World Cultural Heritage Sites. second ed. Rome: ICCROM.

Festinger, Leon. 1954. A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations 7 (2):117‐140.

Filho, Walter Leal. 2000. Dealing with misconceptions on the concept of sustainability. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education 1 (1):9‐19.

Frisch, Michael B. 1998. Quality of life therapy and assessment in health care. Clinical psychology: Science and Practice 5 (1):19‐40.

Gans, Herbert J. 1967. The Levittowners: Ways of life and politics in a new suburban community. Morningside ed 1982. New York: Columbia University Press.

Gans, Herbert J. 1968. People and plans: Essays on urban problems and solutions. New York: Basic Books.

Gehl, Jan. 1987. Life between buildings: Using public space. New York: Van nostrand reinhold company.


‐ 160 ‐

Grimm, N.B., Grove J.M., Pickett S.T.A., and Redman C.L. 2000. Integrated approaches to long‐term studies of urban ecological systems. BioScience 50:571‐584.

Hall, Eeward T. 1969. The Hidden Dimension, Man's use of space in public and private. London: The Bodley Head.

Haslam, Alexander S. 2001. Psychology in Organizations ‐ The Social Identitty Approach. London: Sage Publications Ltd.

Haslam, S. A., C. McGarty, and J. C. Turner. 1996. Salient group memberships and persuasion: The structuring of consensus through identity‐based social influence. In What's so social about social cognition? Social cognition research in small groups, edited by J. L. Nye and A. M. Brower. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Herrmann, P. 2003. Social Quality and the Conditional Factor of Social

Empowerment, 3rd draft. Amsterdam: EFSQ (October 2003).

Historic Environment Review. 2000. Power of Place: A future for the historic environment. London: English Heritage.

Hogg, M.A., and G.M. Vaughan. 2002. Social psychology. 3rd ed. London: Prentice Hall.

Huangb, Peggy Teo and Shirlena. 1995. Tourism and heritage conservation in Singapore. Annals of Tourism Research 22 (3):589‐615.

Huitt, W. 2004. Maslow's hierarchy of needs: Educational psychology interactive. Valdosta, GA: Valdosta State University.

The Getty Conservation Institute. 2001. Managing Change: Sustainable Approaches to the Conservation of the Built Environment. Paper read at 4th Annual US/ICOMOS International Symposium, at Philadephia, Pennsylvania.

Jacobs, Jane. 1961. The Death and Life of Great American Cities: the failure of town planning: Panguin Books in association with Jonathan Cape.

Keizer, M., and L.J.G. van der Maesen. 2003. Social Quality and the Conditional Factor of Socio‐Economic Security: 3rd draft Working Paper. Amsterdam: EFSQ (September 2003).

References

‐ 161 ‐

Kellert, S.R., J.N.Mehta, S.A. Ebbin, and L.L.Lichenfeld. 2000. Community natural resource management: promise, rhetoric and reality. Society & Natural Resources 13:705‐715.

Kenkyuukai, Tobikoe Gasshou Bunka. 1996. Seikai Isan no Gasshouzukuriteki Shuuraku: Sainou Insatu Kabushikigaisha.

Klitgaarde, R., and J. Fedderke. 1995. Social integration and disintegration: An exploratory analysis of cross‐country data. World Development 23:357‐369.

Kong, ping. 2005. Gardening in semi‐open spaces in tropical high‐rise housing: Environmental and social benefits. M.A. Research Dissertation, Architecture Dept, National University of Singapore, Singapore.

Kugel, Seth. 2006. Preservation: Sure, It's a Good Thing, but.. New York Time, Jan 15th.

Layard, R. 2005. Happiness: Lessons from a new science. New York: Penguin.

Levin, S.A. 1999. Fragile dominion: complexity and the commons. New York: Perseus.

Lockwood, D. 1999. Civic integration and social cohesion. In Capitalism and social cohesion, edited by I. G. a. G. Olofsson. Basingstoke: Macmillan.

Low, Setha M. 2001. Social Sustainability: People, History, and Values. Paper read at Managing Change: Sustainable Approaches to the Conservation of the Built Environment‐4th Annual US/ICOMOS International Symposium, at Philadelphia.

Low, Setha M. and I. Altman. 1992. Place Attachment. New York: Plenum.

Lynch, Kevin. 1960. The image of the city: The MIT Press.

Maesen, Laurent J.G. van der, Alan C. Walker and W.A. Beck. 2000. Indicators of social quality: Proposal to DG‐Research of the European Commission. Amsterdam: EFSQ.

Maesen, Laurent J.G. van der and Alan C. Walker. 2006. Indicators of social quality: Outcomes of the European Scientific Network. European Journal of Social Quality 5 (1/2).


‐ 162 ‐

Mason, Randall and Erica Avrami. 2000. Heritage Values and Challenges of Conservation Planning. Paper read at Management Planning for Archaeological Sites, at Corinth, Greece.

Mathes, E. 1981. Maslow's hierarchy of needs as a guide for living. Journal of Humanistic Psychology 21:69‐72.

McGarty, C., J. C. Turner, P. J. Oakes, and S. A. Haslam. 1993. The creation of uncertainty in the influence process: The roles of stimulus information and disagreement with similar others. European Journal of Social Psychology 23:17‐38.

Mendoza, G.A. and Macoun, P. with Prabhu, R., Sukadri, D., Purnomo, H., and H. and Hartanto. 1999. Guidelines for applying Multi‐Criteria analysis to the assessment of criteria and indicators. Vol. 9, The criteria & indicators toolbox seriers. Jakarta, Indonesia: Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR).

Motani, Kosuke. 2007. 'Life style and pop culture? Strategic featuring points of tourism in Japan' in Report of the research committee on "Industry measures to enhance the competitiveness of Japanese tourism industry": Global industrial and social progress research institute.

Murphree, M.W. 2002. Protected areas and the commons. Common Property Resource Digest, 1‐3.

Newman, Oscar. 1972. Defensible Space: People and Design in the violent city. London: Architectural Press.

Ostrom, E. 1990. Governing the commons: the evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University press.

Otsuki, Youji. 2006. Outline and Specification of Preservation Districts for Groups of Historic Buildings System in Japan: As management system of Historic Environment for Living. Paper read at 3rd International conference of protection and development of Chinese ancient village, at Wuyuan, Jianxi province, China.

Phillips, David. 2003. Social cohesion, social exclusion and social quality. Paper read at Social quality in Europe stream, at Copenhagen.

References

‐ 163 ‐

Phillips, David and Yitzhak Berman. 2003. Social quality and ethnos communities: Concepts and indicators. Community Development Journal 38 (4):344‐357.

Poulsen, F. 1920. Delphi. London, UK: Gyldendal.

Putnam, Robert D. 1993. The prosperous community: social captial and public life. American Prospect 4.

Putnam, Robert D. 2000. Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Ramirez, Laura K. Brennan, Christine M. Hoehner et al. 2006. Indicators of activity‐friendly communities: An evidence‐based consensus process. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 31:515‐524.

Rapoport, Amos. 1976. Sociocultural aspects of Man‐Environment Studies. In The mutual interaction of people and their built environment: A cross‐cultural perspective, edited by A. Rapoport. The Hague, Paris: Mouton Publishers.

Rapoport, Amos. 1983. Development, cultural change and supportive design. Habitatinti 7 (5/6):249‐268.

Ragin, Charles. 1987. The Comparative Method: Moving beyond qualitative and quantitative strategies. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Sable, Karin A. and Robert W. Kling. 2001. The double public good: A conceptual framework for "Shared Experience" values associated with heritage conservation. Journal of Cultural Economics 25:77‐89.

Sachs, Ignacy. 1996. What state, what markets, for what development? Social Indicators Research 39 (3):311‐320.

Sachs, Ignacy. 2006. New opportunities for community driven rural development. Sao Paulo: Institute of Advanced Studies of the University of Sao Paulo.

Saito, Hidetoshi and Nobuko Inaba. 1996. The historic villages of Shirakawa‐go and Gokayama ‐ Traditional houses in the Gassho style: The committee of the Commenmoration of the Inscription of "The historic villages of Shirakawa‐go and Gokayama ‐ Traditional houses in the Gassho style" on the World Heirage List.


‐ 164 ‐

Schomaker, M. 1997. Development of environmental indicators in UNEP. Paper read at Land quality indicators and their use in sustainable agriculture and rural development, at Rome.

Shao, Yong. 2004. Research and Conservation of Urban Heritage Sites. Ideal Space.

Shao, Yong , Sun Meng, Zhang Lan, Gu Mingming, Fan Li, and Kong Ping. 2002. Conservation Plan for Lijiang Ancient Town, World Heritage Site. Shanghai: Tongji Urban Planning and Design Institute.

Sirgy, M. Joseph, Dennis Cole, Rustan Kosenko, H. Lee Meadow, Don Rahtz, Muris Cicic, Guang Xi Jin, Duygun Yarsuvat, David L. Blenkhom, and Natasha Nagpal. 1995. Measures and methods in QOL/Marketing research. In New dimensions in marketing/quality‐of‐life research, edited by M. J. Sirgy and A. C. Samli: Greenwood Publishing Group.

Smith, M.K. 2007. Social capital [www,infed.org/biblio/social‐capital.htm]. the encyclopedia of informal education, 04 December 2007 2007 [cited 04 December 2007].

Songorwa, A.N. 1999. Community‐based wildlife management (CWM) in Tanzania: are the communities interested?: World Development.

Stovel, Herb. 1991. Safeguarding historic uran ensembles in a time of change: a management guide. Paper read at International Symposium on World Heritage Towns, at Quebec, Canada.

Tajfel, H., and J. C. Turner. 1986. The social identity theory of inter‐group behavior. In Psychology of Intergroup Relations, edited by S. Worchel and L. W. Austin. Chigago: Nelson‐Hall.

Throsby, David. 2002. Culture Capital and Sustainability Conceptions in the Economics of Cultural Heritage. In Assessing the Values of Culture Heritage, edited by M. d. l. Torre. Los Angeles: The Getty Conservation Institute.

Toyoshima, Hisano. 2007. Water Environment in Ogimachi, Shirakawa, the World Heritage Site. Paper read at Series on the Management and Conservation of World Heritage Sites: Workshop on World Heritage management over time ‐ maintaining values and significance, at Hiroshima, Japan.

References

‐ 165 ‐

Turnhout, Esther, Matthijs Hisschemoller, and Herman Eijsackers. 2007. Ecological indicators: Between the two fires of science and policy. Ecological Indicators 7:215‐228.

Tzonis, Alexander. 1987. Frames, Plans, Representation: Introductory course to programmatic and functional analysis of buildings. Delft: T.U. Delft publication.

Tzonis, Alexander. 2006. Rethinking design methodology for sustainable social quality. In Tropical sustainable architecture: Social and environmental dimensions, edited by J.‐H. B. a. B. L. Ong: Architectural Press and Elsevier.

Tzonis, Alexander, and Liane Lefaivre. 1978. Development of the populist movement in architecture. Harvard Publication Series.

Vogel, Joachim. 1997. The future direction of social indicator research. Social Indicators Research 42:103‐116.

Vyzoviti, Sophia. 2005. Emergent places for urban groups without a place: Representation, Explanation, Prescription. Doctorate dissertation in Technology University of Delft, the Netherlands. ISBN 90‐9019141‐0

Walker, Alan, and Laurent van der Maesen. 2003. Social quality and quality of life. Paper read at ESPA‐NET Conference, 13‐15 Nov, 2003, at Copenhagen.

Western, David, R. Michael Wright, and Shirley Carol Strum. 1994. Natural connections: Perspectives in community‐based conservation. Island Press.

Wijesuriya, Gamini, Kazuhiko Nishi, and Joe King. 2006. Living Heritage Sites Workshop: Empowering the Community. ICCROM Newsletter.

Woolcock, M. 1998. Social capital and economic development: towards a theoretical synthesis and policy framework. Theory and Society 27:151‐208.

World Bank. 1998. The initiative on defining, monitoring and measuring social capital: Overview and program description. New York: World Bank.

Woudenberg, F. 1991. An evaluation of Delphi. Technological Forecasting & Social Change 40:131‐150.


‐ 166 ‐

Yin, Robert K. 1994. Case study research: Design and methods (second editon). Vol. 5, Applied social research methods series. Thousand Oaks, London, New Delhi: SAGE Publications.

Yli‐Pelkonen, Vesa, and Jari Niemela. 2005. Linking ecological and social systems in cities: urban planning in Finland as a case. Biodiversity and Conservation 14:1947‐1967.

Yoshida, Sei, ed. Nihon no minka vol.1. Tokyo: Gakushukenkyusha, 1981

Yu, Li. 1994. A framework for comparing and controlling: Number‐based design reasoning systems: Delft.

Zeisel, John. 1975. Sociology and architectural design. New York: Russel Sage Foundation.

Zeisel, John. 1981, 1984. Inquiry by design: Tools for Environment ‐ Behavior research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Annex

‐ 167 ‐

9 Annex

Annex 1: Photographs of Dayan Town

Figure A 1: Landuse plan of the core protected area of Dayan town (Data source: Conservation planning of Lijiang ancient town, 2002,

Tongji Urban Planning and Design Institute)


‐ 168 ‐

Figure A 2: Architectural patterns in Dayan town (Data source: Conservation planning of Lijiang ancient town, 2002, Tongji Urban

Planning and Design Institute)

Annex

‐ 169 ‐

Figure A 3: Traffic systems and car parks of Dayan town (after

Conservation planning of Lijiang ancient town, 2002, Tongji Urban Planning and Design Institute)


‐ 170 ‐

Figure A 4: Distribution of tourismrelated facilities (2002 vs. 2007)

Annex

‐ 171 ‐

Traditional residence: made of wood, stone, adobe and rammed earth

Traditional residence: made of timber framework with stone foundation (Section of Xian Wen Lane, after the drawing in Conceptual Plan of Lijiang ancient town, 2002)

Courtyards in the traditional residences

An atrium in the traditional residence

Streets along the canals

Streets along the canals


‐ 172 ‐

Shopping street for tourists Fruit/vegetable market for locals

Residential streets Streets along the topography

Open space in a neighborhood ‘Three‐wells’ in a neighborhood

Annex

‐ 173 ‐

Plaza in Dayan

Entrance plaza in Dayan

Family hostels in a neighborhood Family hostels, tea‐house and craft‐shops in a neighborhood

Figure A 5: Onsite photos in Dayan town


‐ 174 ‐

Annex 2: Questionnaire Analysis of Dayan town in Lijiang Ancient Town Date: June, 2002

Place: Dayan – Lijiang Ancient Town, China (CN)

Method of data collection: multiple‐choice & open question Questionnaire

Number of valid questionnaires: 99

Appendix I: Demography

Race Percentage Naxi 87% Han 7% Bai 5% Others 1%

Total 100%

Age Composition Percentage Below 20 1% 20‐30 1% 30‐45 25% 45‐60 34% above 60 38%

Total 100%

Family Composition Percentage Nuclear Family (A couple with children) 38% Stem Family ( Grandparents, parents and children) 51% United Family (Two or more Nuclear families) 1% Family without children 0% Aged family 6% Living alone 0% Single family 2% Others 2%

Total 100%

Annex

‐ 175 ‐

Appendix II: Living Environment and Quality

Main Family Income Percentage Working in other cities 4% Tourism related business(retail, restaurant, lodge, etc.) 18% Property landlord 9% Local employee at tourism market 19% Agriculture 1% Retirement pension 26% Others 22%

Total 100%

Career Analysis Percentage Retired 54% Individual business 18% Jobless 10% Teacher 7% Others (worker, student, doctor etc) 11%

Total 100%

Average living areas per capita (SqM) Percentage 0‐20 24% 20‐50 58% above 50 18%

Total 100%

Years lived in Dayan town Percentage below 5 5% 5‐10 3% 10‐20 11% 20‐50 38% above 50 42%

Total 100%


‐ 176 ‐

Property Percentage Public 6% Private 90% Rented 4%

Total 100%

Sanitation Percentage With 34% Without 66%

Total 100%

Services wanted (multi‐choice) Percentage Open markets 24% Shopping malls 28% Grain and oil supply stands 26% Barber shops 21% Grocers 13% Post offices 18% Repair stalls 72% Entertainment centres 75% Community centres for old people 40% Middle school 25% Primary school 10% Hospital 38%

Distance with potable water systems (Meter) Percentage Within 10 58% Around 50 32% Around 100 7% Far away 3%

Total 100%

Annex

‐ 177 ‐

Appendix II: Summary of open questions on the opinions relating to current living conditions in Dayan

Most satisfying factors:

Open air; tradition; unique identity; good neighborhood relationship;

vernacular residences in relation to bridges and canals; natural environment;

etc.

Least satisfying factors:

Lack of sanitary services in houses/neighborhoods and lack of drainage

system in neighborhoods; lack of community centers for old people and

other daily services; lack of job opportunities and melon‐cutting from

tourism industry; mass immigrants without respects to the traditions of the

ancient town; insecure environment in the ancient town with growing

incident of theft and robbery; inefficient traffic system; potential dangers of

fire, flood and earthquake; etc.

Appendix III: Social Interaction

Relationship with neighbors Percentage Good 73% Ok 26% Not good 1%

Total 100%

Socializing with neighbors Percentage Often 46% Sometimes 48% Seldom 5%

Total 100%


‐ 178 ‐

With whom you often socialize (multi‐choice) Percentage Neighbors 62% Colleagues 51% Relatives 53% Others 15% Where do you socialize with neighbors (multi‐choice) Percentage In the courtyards 22% On the streets 63% In the nearby blocks 38% Other places 8%

Where do you often go shopping (multi‐choice) Percentage Open markets 75% Shopping malls 35% Supermarkets in the new district 14%

Time needed for daily shopping Percentage Within 10 mins 11% 10‐30 mins 35% 30‐60 mins 53% more than 60 mins 1%

Total 100%

Do you think there are short of places for socializing and entertainment?

Percentage

Not at all 16% Yes 54% Very much 30%

Total 100%

Annex

‐ 179 ‐

Appendix IV: Attitude to conservation and tourism development

How will you maintain the preserved residence? Percentage Will maintain with government subsidy 9% Maintain by own accord 75% Already maintained recently 15% Won't maintain 1%

Total 100%

Ideal living place Percentage Old town 61% New developed district 13% Both are ok 26%

Total 100%

Most disturbing factor caused by tourism Percentage Too many tourist 6% Environmental pollution 40% Too much noise 10% No melon‐cutting from tourism benefit 26% Being forced to leave the old town 15% Being visited and taken photos by visitors 0% Others 2%

Total 100%

Do you welcome tourists to visit your house Percentage Welcome 62% Indifferent 35% Don't like 3%

Total 100%

What if the tourism extended to your neighborhood? Percentage Move away 10% Open a shop or a hostel 35% Indifferent, continue normal life 55%

Total 100%


‐ 180 ‐

How do you participate tourism development Percentage Opening a shop or a hostel 58% Renting out houses along the street 18% Renting out houses and move away 9% Being a cicerone 7% Others 7%

Total 99%

Economic Benefit from tourism Percentage Quite good 19% Only good in holiday season 49% Not good 31%

Total 100%

Annex

‐ 181 ‐

Annex 3: Social Indicators developed by the Network Indicators of Social Quality Final list of social indicators developed by Network Indicators of Social

Quality in April 2005, under the framework of European Foundation of

Social Quality (Maesen and Walker, 2006).

Appendix I: Indicators of socioeconomic security61

Domains Sub‐domains Indicators

Income sufficiency

Part of household income spent on health, clothing, food and housing (in the lower and median household incomes).

Financial resources

Income security

How certain biographical events affect the risk of poverty on household level. Proportion of total population living in households receiving entitlement transfers (means‐tested, cash and in‐kind transfers) that allow them to live above EU poverty level.

Housing security

Proportion of people who have certainty of keeping their home.

Proportion of hidden families (i.e., several families within the same household).

Housing conditions

Number of square meters per household member

Proportion of population living in houses with lack of functioning basic amenities (water, sanitation and energy).

Housing and environment

Environmental conditions (social and natural)

People affected by criminal offences per 10,000 inhabitants

Proportion living in households that are situated in neighbourhoods with above average pollution rate (water, air and noise).

61 Keizer et al. (2003). Cit. in Maesen and Walker (2006), p. 17‐18.


‐ 182 ‐

Security of health provisions

Proportion of people covered by compulsory/ voluntary health insurance (including qualitative exploration of what is and what is not covered by insurance system).

Health services

Number of medical doctors per 10,000 inhabitants.

Average distance to hospital, measured in minutes, not in metres.

Average response time of medical ambulance.

Health

Care services Average number of hours spent on care differentiated by paid and unpaid.

Employment security

Length of notice before employer can change terms and conditions of labour relation/contract.

Length of notice before termination of labour contract.

Proportion employed workforce with temporary, non permanent, job contract.

Proportion of workforce that is illegal.

Work

Working conditions

Number of employees that reduced work time because of interruption (parental leave, medical assistance of relative, palliative leave) as a proportion of the employees who are entitled to these kinds of work time reductions.

Number of accidents (fatal/non‐fatal) at work per 100,000 employed persons (if possible: per sector)

Number of hours a full‐time employee typically works a week (actual working week).

Education Security of education

Proportion of pupils leaving education without finishing compulsory education (early school leavers).

Study fees as proportion of national mean net wage.

Annex

‐ 183 ‐

Quality of education

Proportion of students who, within a year of leaving school with or without certificate, are able to find employment.

Appendix II: Indicators of social cohesion62


Trust Generalised trust

Specific trust

Extent to which ‘most people can be trusted’.

Trust in: government; elected representatives; political parties; armed forces; legal system; the media; trade unions, police; religious institutions; civil service; economic transactions.

Number of cases being referred to European Court of law.

Importance of: family; friends; leisure; politics; respecting parents. parents’ duty to children.

Altruism Volunteering: number of hours per week.

Blood donation.

Tolerance Views on immigration, pluralism and multiculturalism.

Tolerance of other people’s self‐identity, beliefs, behaviour and lifestyle preferences.

Other integrative forms and values

Social contract Beliefs on causes of poverty: individual or structural.

Willingness to pay more taxes if you were sure that it would improve the situation of the poor.

Intergenerational: willingness to pay 1 percent more taxes in order to improve the

62 Berman et al. (2004). Cit. in Maesen and Walker (2006), p. 19.


‐ 184 ‐

situation of elderly people in your country.

Willingness to actually do something practical for the people in your community/ neighbourhood, such as: picking up litter, doing some shopping for elderly/disabled/sick people in your neighbourhood, assisting neighbours/community members with filling out (fax/municipal/etc.) forms, cleaning the street/porch/doorway.

Division of household tasks between men and women: Do you have an understanding with your husband/spouse about the division of household tasks, raising of the children, and gaining household income?

Social networks

Networks Membership (active or inactive) of political, voluntary, charitable organisations or sport clubs.

Support received from family, neighbours and friends.

Frequency of contact with friends and colleagues.

National/ European identity

Sense of national pride.

Identification with national symbols and European symbols.

Regional/ community/local identity

Sense of regional/community/local identity.

Identity

Interpersonal identity

Sense of belonging to family and kinship network.

Annex

‐ 185 ‐

Appendix III: Indicators of Social Inclusion63


Constitutional/ political rights

Proportion of residents with citizenship.

Proportion having right to vote in local elections and proportion exercising it.

Social right Proportion with right to a public pension (i.e., a pension organised or regulated by the government).

Women’s pay as a proportion of men’s.

Civil rights Proportion with right to free legal advice.

Proportion experiencing discrimination.

Citizenship rights

Economic and political networks

Proportion of ethnic minority groups elected or appointed to parliament, boards of private companies and foundations.

Proportion of women elected or appointed to parliament, boards of private companies and foundations.

Labour market

Access to paid employment

Long‐term unemployment (12+ months).

Involuntary part‐time or temporary employment.

Health services Proportions with entitlement to and using public primary health care

Housing Proportion homeless, sleeping rough.

Average waiting time for social housing.

Education School participation rates and higher education participation rates.

Services

Social care Proportion of people in need receiving care services.

Average waiting time for care services (including child care).

63 Walker et al. (2003). Cit. in Maesen and Walker (2006), p. 20.


‐ 186 ‐

Financial services

Proportion denied credit differentiated by income groups

Access to financial assistance/advice in case of need.

Transport Proportion of population who has access to public transport system.

Density of public transport system and road density.

Civic/cultural services

Number of public sport facilities per 10,000 inhabitants

Number of public and private civic & cultural

facilities (e.g., cinema, theatre, concerts) per 10,000 inhabitants.

Neighbourhood participation

Proportion in regular contact with neighbours.

Friendships Proportion in regular contact with friends.

Social networks

Family life Duration of contact with relatives (cohabiting and non‐cohabiting).

Informal (non‐monetary) assistance received by different types of family.

Annex

‐ 187 ‐

Appendix IV: Indicators of social empowerment64


Application of knowledge

Extent to which social mobility is knowledge‐based (formal qualifications).

Availability of information

Per cent of population literate and numerate.

Availability of free media. Access to the Internet.

Knowledge base

User friendliness of information

Provision of information in multiple languages on social services.

Availability of free advocacy, advice and guidance centres.

Control over employment contract

Percent of labour force that is member of a trades union (differentiated to public and private employees).

Percent of labour force covered by a collective agreement (differentiated by public and private employees).

Prospects of job mobility

Percent of employed labour force receiving work‐based training.

Percent of labour force availing of publicly provided training (not only skills based). (Please outline costs of such training if any.)

Percent of labour force participating in any ‘back to work scheme’

Labour market

Reconciliation of work and family life (work/life balance)

Percent of organisations operating work life balance policies.

Percent of employed labour force actually making use of work/life balance measures (see indicator above).

Openness and supportiveness

Openness and supportiveness

Existence of processes of consultation and direct democracy (e.g., referenda).

64 Herrmann (2003). Cit. in Maesen and Walker (2006), p. 21‐22.


‐ 188 ‐

of political system

Openness of economic system

Number of instances of public involvement in major economic decision making (e.g., public hearings about company relocation, inward investment and plant closure).

of institutions

Openness of organisations

Percent of organisations/institutions with work councils.

Support for collective action

Percent of the national and local public budget that is reserved for voluntary, not‐for‐profit citizenship initiatives.

Marches and demonstrations banned in the past 12 months as proportion of total marched and demonstrations (held and banned).

Public space

Cultural

enrichment

Proportion of local and national budget allocated to all cultural activities.

Number of self‐organised cultural groups and events. Proportion of people experiencing different forms of personal enrichment on a regular basis.

Annex

‐ 189 ‐

Annex 4: Social indicators proposed by Choi and Sirakaya (2006, p.1281) Indicators for the social dimension Key themes Indicators/issues Mean Soundness

Host community satisfaction toward tourism development

4.30 0.83

Host community attitude toward tourism development

4.20 1.00

Continuance of traditional activities by local residents

3.70 0.50

Stress in visitors/host relationship

3.60 0.92

Resident/non‐resident ownership of homes (2nd homes/part time residents)

3.60 1.00

Level of congruency among stakeholders

3.50 0.75

Host community/residents and stakeholders

Resident involvement in tourism industry

4.10 1.00

Change in social cohesion 3.70 0.67

Change in community structure evident of a community breakdown and alienation

3.50 0.67 Social cohesion

Change in family cohesion 3.50 0.50

Sex tourism 3.60 0.75

Percent employed in sex tourism

3.60 0.42

Prostitution number and rate in local sex tourism industry

3.60 0.67 Sex tourism

Community attitude toward sex tourism

3.60 0.83

Tourist satisfaction Tourist satisfaction/attitude toward tourism development

4.00 1.00

Community resource Degradation/erosion of natural and cultural resource

4.00 0.92


‐ 190 ‐

Shift in social structure (e.g. power shift and its socio‐economic implications)

3.80 0.67 Distribution of resources/power

Percent of managerial employment from local residents

3.80 0.83

Litter/pollution (air, water, etc.) 4.20 1.00

Overcrowding 4.00 0.92

Congestion (road) 3.90 0.92

Crime rate 3.60 0.67

Public awareness toward value of tourism

3.70 0.75

Number of incidents of vandalism reported

3.50 0.67

Community health (availability of health policy related to tourism)

3.50 0.75

Community health and safety

Loss of traditional lifestyle and knowledge via modernization

3.50 0.92

Quality of life in general

Levels of satisfaction with community life in general (QOL)

3.56 0.67

Note: Mean: each itemized indicator of each category has been rated by panel members from strongly agree (5) to strongly disagree (1). Cutoff point: 3.5.

Annex

‐ 191 ‐

Annex 5: Interview questions and response analysis in Ogimachi

Date: 17‐18 November, 2007

Place: Ogimachi, Shirakawa‐Go, Gifu Prefecture, Japan

Method of data collection: Structured interview

Number of interviewees: 5

# Age Family structure Career Main family income

1 39 Husband, wife and a child, 3 members

Officers at the Local Preservation Committee

Salary from the committee

2 42

Wife, husband, children and grandparents, 7 members all together

Housewife,

Husband works for the Village commerce and industry society

Running Minshuku, Salary from local association, cultivating vegetables

3 46 Parents and a brother, 4 members all together

Buddhism monk, looking after religious Gassho‐style houses

Tourism, entrance fee and government sponsor

4 66 Wife and husband, 2 members

Farmer, looking after the Gassho‐style houses,

Retired with pension, cultivating wild vegetables, tourism entrance fee

5 29 Parents and siblings, 5 members all together

Working at the Onsen (hot spring) hotel and restaurant

Salary related to tourism industry


‐ 192 ‐

1. Why do you think it is important to preserve your village (Ogimachi village)? (what are the motivations)

4 respondents (except the respondent, who is 29 years‐old, an outsider,

working in the restaurant) recalled the crisis in 1970s that because of the

construction of dams, selling or renting out local properties and

abandonment of their homes, Ogimachi village was at the risk of

disappearance. The initiative preservation initiative came from the

recognition of importance of Gassho‐style houses, life styles in the fast

transformation of economic and social conditions in Japan.

2. What happened after your village being listed as ‘Important Preservation District for groups of Historic Buildings’ since 1976?

Good facts include:

Acts and regulations to protect the Gassho‐style houses and village

environment; 5 responses

Improvement of material life via tourism and governmental subsidy;

3 responses

Technical assistance from outside to restore historic buildings; 1

response

Sharing the cultural and unique features with outside people; 1

response

Bad facts include:

Limitation to change their own houses at their convenience –

forbidden or severely restricted new constructions; 4 responses

The gap (living condition) between the people who changed their

houses before the law and people living in the traditional houses

who cannot changed their houses after the law; 1 response

Not as relaxed and easy to live as before; 1 response

Annex

‐ 193 ‐

3. What do you think is important to preserve in your village?

Responsibility of preservation among local residents; 2 responses

Cooperative system (adoption of Village Chater for no sell, no rent,

and no destruction) ; 3 responses

Harmonious relationship between the local people and environment;

2 responses

Enlightenment and education for tourists in order to respect privacy

and cooperate in conservation; 3 responses

4. How do you describe your current living conditions?

Very satisfied 2 responses (one respondent is 66, who felt very

satisfied with familiar and natural environment; the

other is 29, because she loves nature: ‘so I go to

gather edible wild plants in spring and pick Japanese

horse chestnut in fall. I also like to feel the clear

changes of the seasons’)

Satisfied 2 responses especially for raising children

Ok 1 response (complain to limitation of new

constructions)

Not satisfied 0 response

Very unsatisfied 0 response


‐ 194 ‐

5. What do you think is necessary to have in order to make your life more convenient and comfortable?

Space, such as public space, place for games, social life, and other

activities

Interior spaces, convenient and comfortable house, not so cold or

hot – 2 responses

Provide place for tourists gathering – 1 response

Facilities, such as hospital, kindergarten, primary/middle/high school,

grocery, drug store, etc.

Hospital – 4 responses,

School – 2 responses,

Drug store (Japanese style grocery store) – 2 responses

But all responses showed that because of cars and better

transportation system, it was not a problem to reach the facilities in

neighbor villages or some place near

6. How’s your relationship with neighbors?

very close (visit more than twice a week) 2 responses

close (visit around twice a month) 3 responses

normal (visit several times a year) 1 response

not close (only meet in special occasions,

such as yui or ceremonies)

0 response

no personal

contact

0 response

Annex

‐ 195 ‐

All responses reflected a close or very close relationship with neighbors,

even the new comer felt being included

7. Where do you usually associate with neighbors?

Community places, where activities are organized by local

associations – 4 responses

The activities in this district are very vibrant, so local residents have many

chances to meet neighbors. People participate in different social

associations, such as volunteer fire brigade (group), cooperative group to

remove the snow from the roof, group to clean the irrigation channels,

and association to preserve the natural environment of Hagi Machi

(district), they could always meet neighbors in the group activities and

meetings of each association.

Club for aged people, school, festivals, Buddhist memorial service –

2 responses

Public spaces, like restaurant, theater, Onsen and places near home

‐ 2 responses

8. What attract or make you to live in the village, instead of going to live in big town or cities?

Bonds of family and job ‐ 1 response

Nature and agriculture – 3 responses

Warm heart of local people ‐ 1 response

Pride of culture – 2 responses


‐ 196 ‐

9. What do you want more from the preservation program?

More education to enhance the sense of conservation of both local

residents and tourists ‐1 response

Life style, such as traditions and cultural events and environment

preservation to hand over to next generations ‐ 1 response

Sense of nostalgia and making Ogimachi a livable place for all

residents ‐ 2 responses (not giving priorities to tourists)

Communications with foreign culture – 1 response

Annex

‐ 197 ‐

Annex 6: Photographs of Ogimachi village

Figure A‐ 6: Natural boundaries and current land‐use patterns of Ogimiachi village, after Appendix 3b, Saito et al., 1996


‐ 198 ‐

Figure A‐ 7: Routes and Parking system in Ogimachi village, after the tourism map on bus routes, 2007

Annex

‐ 199 ‐

Figure A‐ 8: Facility distribution in Ogimachi village (after tourism map 2007)


‐ 200 ‐

Night view of Gassho‐style house Night view of Ogimachi village

Street light along main road Street light in front of the temple

Main road

Canals and pavements besidesresidences

Annex

‐ 201 ‐

Pavement around the house and rice field

Pavement in open space near the temple

Pavement across canals to link main road and private access

Pavement across canals around private house


‐ 202 ‐

Private garden in front of the residence

Private play yard in front of the residence

Cemeteries around residential area Shrine among the residences

Figure A‐ 9: On‐site pictures

Annex

‐ 203 ‐

Annex 7: Summary of UNESCO-ICOMOS Documents on Cultural Heritage Conservation

Resource Year Name of the Document

1954 Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict with Regulations for the Execution of the Convention

1970 Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property

1972 Convention concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage

1994 Buenos Aires Draft Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage

1995 Unidroit Convention on Stolen or Illegally Exported Cultural Objects

1999 Second Protocol to the Hague Convention of 1954 for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict

2001 Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage

2003 Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage

UNESCO

Conventions

2005 Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions

Recommendation on International Principles Applicable to Archaeological Excavations

UNESCO

Recommendations

and Declarations

1956

Recommendation Concerning International Competitions in Architecture and Town Planning


‐ 204 ‐

1960 Recommendation concerning the Most Effective Means of Rendering Museums Accessible to Everyone

1962 Recommendation concerning the Safeguarding of Beauty and Character of Landscapes and Sites

Recommendation on the means of prohibiting and preventing the illicit export, import and transfer of wonershiop of cultural property

Recommendation on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property

1964

Declaration of Principles of International Cultural Co‐operation

1968 Recommendation concerning the Preservation of Cultural Property Endangered by Public or Private works

1972 Recommendation concerning the Protection, at National Level, of the Cultural and Natural Heritage

Recommendation concerning the Safeguarding and Contemporary Role of Historic Areas

1976

Recommendation concerning the International Exchange of Cultural Property

1978 Recommendation for the Protection of Movable Cultural Property

1980 Recommendation for the Safeguarding and Preservation of Moving Images

1989 Recommendation on the Safeguarding of Traditional Culture and Folklore

1993 Declaration of Oaxaca

1994 Resolution on Information as an Instrument for Protection against War Damages to the Cultural

Annex

‐ 205 ‐

Heritage

1996 Declaration of Valencia

1997 Declaration of Quebec

1998 Declaration of Melbourne

1999 Cairo Decision

1992 Charter of Courmayeur

1997 Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of world Heritage Convention

2001 UNESCO Universal declaration on cultural diversity

2001 Hoi’an Agreement

2002 World Heritage in Africa and sustainable development

Charter on the Preservation of Digital Heritage 2003

Declaration concerning the Interntional Destruction of Cultural Heritage

Other UNESCO

Documents

2005 Vienna Memorandum

1931 General Conclusions of the Athens Conference

1964 The Venice Charter: International Charter for the Conservation and Restoration of Monuments and Sites

1976 Cultural Tourism

1981 The Florence Charter: Historic Gardens

ICOMOS Charters

and Documents

Adopted at the

General

Conferences

1987 The Washington Charter: Charter on the Conservation of Historic Towns and Urban Areas


‐ 206 ‐

1990 Charter for the Protection and Management of the Archaeological Heritage

1996 Charter for the Protection and Management of the Underwater Cultural Heritage

International Wood Committee Charter: Principles for the Preservation of Historic Timber Buildings

International Cultural Tourism Charter: Managing Tourism at Places of Heritage Significance

1999

Charter on the Built Vermacular Heritage

ICOMOS PRINCIPLES FOR THE PRESERVATION AND CONSERVATION/RESTORATION OF WALL PAINTINGS

2003

ICOMOS Charter: Principles for the Analysis

Charter for the explanation of cultural Heritage sites

2004

Ename Charter (2nd Draft)

Beijing Document on the Conservation and Restoration of Historic Buildings in East Asia

1967 Norms of Quito: Final Report of the Meeting on the Preservation and Utilization of Monuments and Sites of Artistic and Historical Value

1972 Resolutions of the Symposium on the Introduction of Contemporary Architecture into Ancient Groups of Buildings

1975 Resolution on the Conservation of Smaller Historic Towns

Tlaxcala Declaration on the Revitalization of Small Settlements

ICOMOS

Declaration and

Resolutions

Adopted at

Symposiums

1982

Declaration of Dresden

Annex

‐ 207 ‐

1983 Declaration of Rome

1993 Guidelines for Education and Training in the Conservation of Monuments, Ensembles and Sites

1994 The Nara Document on Authenticity

Declaration of San Antonio 1996

Principles for the recording of monuments, groups of buildings and sites

1998 The Stockholm Declaration : Declaration of ICOMOS marking the 50th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

2005 Xi'an Declaration on the Conservation of the Setting of Heritage Structures, Sites and Areas

1976 Convention on the Protection of the Archeological, Historical, and Artistic Heritage of the American Nations, Convention of San Salvador

1982 Charter for the Preservation of Quebec's Heritage (Deschambault Declaration)

1983 Appleton Charter for the Protection and Enhancement of the Built Environment

1987 First Brazilian Seminar About the Preservation and Revitalization of Historic Centers

1992 Charter for the Conservation of Places of Cultural Heritage Value

A Preservation Charter for the Historic Towns and Areas of the United States of America

1999 The Australia ICOMOS Charter for the Conservation of Places of Cultural Significance

ICOMOS Charters

Adopted at

National Level

2000 Statement on Vernacular Cultural Heritage in


‐ 208 ‐

Australia）

1877 The SPAB Manifesto: The Principals of the Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings as Set Forth upon its Foundation

1904 Recommendations of the Madrid Conference

1931 Carta Di Atene

1933 Charter of Athens

1935 Roerich Pact: Protection of Artistic and Scientific Institutions and Historic Monuments

1954 European Cultural Convention

1969 European Convention on the Protection of the Archaeological Heritage

European Charter of the Architectural Heritage 1975

Declaration of Amsterdam

1976 The Vancouver Declaration On Human Settlements

1977 CHARTER OF MIACHU PICCHU

European Convention on Offences Relating to Cultural Property

1985

Convention for the Protection of the Architectural Heritage of Europe

1989 The Vermillion Accord on Archaeological Ethics and the Treatment of the Dead

1990 The Eindhoven Statement

1991 Charter for the Protection and Management

of the Archaeological Heritage

Other Related

International

Documents

1992 European Convention for the Protection of the

Annex

‐ 209 ‐

Archaeological Heritage of Europe (Revised)

New Orleans Charter for the Joint Preservation of Historic Structures and Artifacts

Agenda 21

Declaration of Rio

The Fez Charter 1993

UN General Assembly Resolution (A/RES/48/15) on the Return or Restitution of Cultural Property to the Countries of Origin

Bergen Protocol on Communications and Relations among Cities of the Organization of World Heritage Cities

Diversity of the Creation

Charter for Sustainable Tourism

1995

Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties

Istanbul Declaration on Human Settlements 1996

Final Communiqué of the NATO‐Partnership for Peace Conference on Cultural Heritage Protection in Wartime and in State of Emergency

Document of Pavia 1997

Evora Appeal

1998 Recommendation on Measures to Promote the

Integrated Conservation of Historic Complexes

Composed of Immovable and Moveable Property

Convention on Biological Diversity 2000

ASEAN Announcement on the Protection of

Cultural Heritage


‐ 210 ‐

European Convention on Landscape

2003 The NizhnyTagil Charter for the Industrial

Heritage（TICCIH）

2005 Vienna Memorandum

About the author

‐ 211 ‐

10 About the author

Ms. Ping KONG was born in Jinan on December 02, 1979. She received

her Bachelor and Master degrees in Urban Planning and Urban Design at

the College of Architecture and Urban Planning, Tongji University in

Shanghai, and M.A. (Arch) at the Department of Architecture, National

University of Singapore. She worked at the Chinese National Commission

for UNESCO in 2005‐2006 as a coordinator to set up the World Heritage

Training and Research Institute for the Asia and the Pacific Region

(WHITR‐AP) in China, as a category II centre under the auspices of

UNESCO. Supported by UNESCO Beijing Office and Tongji University, she

edited and published a book entitled World Heritage in China in 2006.

From Oct 2006 to Jan 2007, she conducted a research on the Living

Heritage Site Program at the International Centre for the Study of the

Preservation and Restoration of Cultural Property (ICCROM). Afterwards,

she has been working in WHITR‐AP as the director of projects unit and

program specialist. She joined the Chinese delegation in the 30th and 31st

Session of the UNESCO World Heritage Committee and was actively

involved in discussions and evaluations on a number of conservation

programs of World Heritage sites. She presented papers at several

international conferences and seminars on heritage conservation in Italy

and Japan, and was invited to give lectures at the Department of Urban

Studies, Università degli Studi ROMA TRE and the College of Architecture

and Urban Planning, Tongji University. Since May 2005, she had the

opportunity to conduct a PhD research at the Design Knowledge System

Research Centre at the Faculty of Architecture, Delft University of

Technology, the Netherlands.

Social Quality in the Conservation Process of Living Heritage Sites

Documents

Transcript of Social Quality in the Conservation Process of Living Heritage Sites