Advertisement

Going Beyond pp 161-173 | Cite as

Shaken Cityscapes: Tangible and Intangible Urban Heritage in Kathmandu, Nepal, and Yogyakarta, Indonesia

  • Simone SandholzEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Heritage Studies book series (HEST)

Abstract

Many cities around the globe (still) comprise of historic fabric, particularly in the urban core areas. Very often intangible values, such as beliefs, events, habits or rituals, are intrinsically linked with it. This paper argues that urban heritage constitutes a crucial source of identity for present urban inhabitants, an important factor for sustainable and resilient urban development. Traditional Asian planning and architecture are not only linked to strong cosmological beliefs but at the same time a manifestation of craftsmanship skills and construction techniques. Such local wisdom comprises, among other things, knowledge of appropriate building technologies to withstand natural hazards—an aspect linking conservation and (disaster) resilience.

This paper analyses the cities of Yogyakarta, Indonesia, and Kathmandu, Nepal, two iconic places within their national borders which—still—comprise of impressive urban tangible and intangible heritage. At the same time, both cities are prone to different natural hazards and have suffered severe earthquakes within recent years. After assessing the potential urban heritage has for risk reduction, ranging from physical assets like regular community-based maintenance to making use of cultural expressions for awareness raising, conclusions are drawn regarding the contributions of heritage for urban resilience. Reference is also made to the Historic Urban Landscape approach, as it is linking different aspects and layers of the city, with a potential to establish more sustainable recovery processes.

Keywords

Kathmandu Nepal Yogyakarta Indonesia Asian urban heritage Historic city centres Intangible heritage Urban change Disaster risk Risk reduction 

References

  1. Adishakti, L. T. (2008). Community empowerment program on the revitalization of Kotagede Heritage District, Indonesia post earthquake. In T. Kidokoro, J. Okata, S. Matsumura, & N. Shima (Eds.), Vulnerable cities: Realities, innovations and strategies (pp. 241–256). Tokyo: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ahmad, Y. (2006). The scope and definitions of heritage: From tangible to intangible. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 12(3), 292–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Badan Pusat Statistik. (2015). Population projection by province, 2010–2035. http://www.bps.go.id/linkTabelStatis/view/id/1274. Accessed 16 Apr 2015.
  4. Badan Pusat Statistik tdt. (2015). Percentage of urban population by province, 2010–2035. http://www.bps.go.id/linkTabelStatis/view/id/1276. Accessed 16 Apr 2015.
  5. Bhattarai, K., & Conway, D. (2010). Urban vulnerabilities in the Kathmandu Valley, Nepal: Visualizations of human/hazard interactions. Journal of Geographic Information System, 2(2), 63–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Birabi, A. K. (2007). International urban conservation charters: catalytic or passive tools of urban conservation practices among developing countries. City & Time, 3(2)(4), 39–53.Google Scholar
  7. British Red Cross, Nepal Red Cross Society and Groupe Urgence - Réhabilitation - Développement. (2014). Urban Preparedness – Lessons from the Kathmandu Valley (p. 48). London: British Red Cross.Google Scholar
  8. Butina, B. (2011). From the seven wonders of the ancient world to the UNESCO World Heritage: Political and economic aspects of institutionalised cultural preservation. Hrvatski Geografski Glasnik, 73(2), 141–154.Google Scholar
  9. Ellingsen, W. (2010). Ethnic appropriation of the city. the territoriality of culture in Kathmandu. Saarbrücken: LAP Lambert.Google Scholar
  10. Engelhardt, R. A., & Rumball Rogers, P. (2009). Hoi an protocols for best conservation practice in Asia: Professional guidelines for assuring and preserving the authenticity of heritage sites in the context of the cultures of Asia. Bangkok: Office of Rigional [sic] Advisor for Culture in Asia & the Pacific.Google Scholar
  11. Fra Paleo, U. (2013). A functional risk society? Progressing from management to governance while learning from disasters. In Changing global environments, world social science report 2013 (pp. 434–438). Paris: OECD Publishing and UNESCO Publishing. SC and UNESCO.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. GFDRR. (2012). Disaster risk management in South Asia: A regional overview. Washington, DC: The World Bank.Google Scholar
  13. GFDRR. (2014). Nepal – Country program update May 2014. Washington, D.C.: GFDRR.Google Scholar
  14. Hadi, S. (2008). Improving vulnerable urban space in postdisaster in Yogyakarta and central Java, Indonesia: Participatory and comprehensive approach. In T. Kidokoro, J.Okata, S. Matsumura, N. Shima (eds) Vulnerable cities: Realities, innovations and strategies (pp. 225-240). Tokyo Springer.Google Scholar
  15. ICIMOD. (2015). , 21.05. Nepal earthquake 2015. http://www.icimod.org/v2/cms2/_files/images/e92e3b0202d11e51262a6e2cb1ed6f2d.jpg. Accessed 9 June 2016.
  16. ICOMOS. (1994). The Nara document on authenticity. Nara, Japan: ICOMOS.Google Scholar
  17. International Conference on Urban Culture. (2007). Beijing declaration concerning urban culture. Beijing: 2nd International Forum of Urban Planning/International Conference on Urban Culture.Google Scholar
  18. Irr, C. (2008). In L. Pauly & W. Coleman (Eds.), World Heritage sites and the concept of the commons. Institutions and autonomy in a changing world (pp. 85–105). Vancouver: UBC Press.Google Scholar
  19. Jaramillo Contreras, M. (2012). Beyond the protection of material cultural heritage in times of conflict. In S. Lambert & C. Rockwell (Eds.), Protecting cultural heritage in times of conflict (pp. 23–28). Rome: ICCROM.Google Scholar
  20. Jigyasu, R. (2014). Fostering resilience: Towards reducing disaster risks to World Heritage. World Heritage, 74, 4–13.Google Scholar
  21. Jones, S., Oven, K. J., Manyena, B., & Aryal, K. (2014). Governance struggles and policy processes in disaster risk reduction: A case study from Nepal. Geoforum, 57, 78–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Krüger, F., Bankoff, G., Cannon, T., Orlowski, B., & Schipper, E. L. F. (Eds.). (2015). Cultures and disasters: Understanding cultural framings in disaster risk reduction, Routledge studies in hazards, disaster risk and climate change. Routledge: London/New York.Google Scholar
  23. Kwanda, T. (2010). Tradition of conservation: Redefining authenticity in Javanese architectural conservation. In R. Amoêda, S. Lira, & C. Pinheiro (Eds.), Heritage 2010 - Heritage and sustainable development (pp. 141–152). Evora: Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Heritage and Sustainable Development.Google Scholar
  24. Lavigne, F., De Coster, B., Juvin, N., Flohic, F., Gaillard, J.-C., Texier, P., Morin, J., & Sartohadi, J. (2008). People's behaviour in the face of volcanic hazards: Perspectives from Javanese communities, Indonesia. Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research, 172, 273–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lucini, B. (2014). Multicultural approaches to disaster and cultural resilience. How to consider them to improve disaster management and prevention: The Italian case of two earthquakes. Procedia Economics and Finance, 18, 151–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Malalgoda, C., Amaratunga, D., & Haigh, R. (2014). Challenges in creating a disaster resilient built environment. Procedia – Economics and Finance, 18, 736–744.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Marcillia, S. R., & Ohno, R. (2012). Importance of social space in self-built and donated post disaster housing after Java earthquake 2006. Asian Journal of Environment-Behaviour Studies, 3(7), 25–34.Google Scholar
  28. Maskey, P. N. (2015). Disaster risk of culture heritage sites of the Kathmandu Valley. In K. Weise (Ed.), Revisiting Kathmandu. Safeguarding living urban heritage, International symposium Kathmandu Valley 25–29 November 2013 (pp. 283–290). Kathmandu: UNESCO, UNESCO Office in Kathmandu.Google Scholar
  29. Mercer, J., Gaillard, J. C., Crowley, K., Shannon, R., Alexander, B., Day, S., & Becker, J. (2012). Culture and disaster risk reduction: Lessons and opportunities. Environmental Hazards, 11(2), 74–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Muzzini, E., & Aparicio, G. (2013). Urban growth and spatial transition in Nepal: An initial assessment. Washington, DC: World Bank.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. National Planning Commission, & Government of Nepal (Eds.). (2015). Nepal earthquake 2015 post disaster needs assessment, Vol. A: Key findings. Kathmandu: Government of Nepal.Google Scholar
  32. Pavlova, I., Makarigakis, A., Depret, T., & Jomelli, V. (2015). Global overview of the geological hazard exposure and disaster risk awareness at world heritage sites. Journal of Cultural Heritage. doi: 10.1016/j.culher.2015.11.001. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1296207415001673.
  33. Pelling, M. (2012). Hazards, risk and urbanisation. In B. Wisner, J. C. Gaillard, & I. Kelman (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of hazards and disaster risk reduction (pp. 145–155). London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  34. Pickett, S. T. A., McGrath, B., Cadenasso, M. L., & Felson, A. J. (2014). Ecological resilience and resilient cities. Building Research & Information, 42(2), 143–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Romão, X., Paupério, E., & Menon, A. (2015). Traditional construction in high seismic zones: A losing battle? The case of the 2015 Nepal earthquake. In M. R. Correia, P. B. Lourenco, & H. Varum (Eds.), Seismic retrofitting: Learning from vernacular architecture (pp. 93–100). Leiden: CRC Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Salazar, N. B. (2008). Enough stories! Asian tourism redefining the roles of Asian tour guides. In A. Doquet & O. Evrard (Eds.), Tourisme, Mobilités et Alterités Contemporaines, Civilisations (Vol. LVII, n 1–2, pp. 207–222). Bruxelles: Bruxelles Institut de Sociologie, Université libre de Bruxelles.Google Scholar
  37. Sandholz, S. (2017). Urban centres in Asia and Latin America. Heritage and identities in changing urban landscapes, Urban Book Series. Cham: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Siauw, G. T. (2003). Yogyakarta. In H. Böhme, A. Körte, & M. Tokya-Seid (Eds.), WOHNEN – BAUEN – PLANEN. Erneuerung historischer Kernstädte in Südostasien und Europa im historisch-architektonischen Vergleich (pp. 131–160). Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.Google Scholar
  39. The Consultative Group on Indonesia. (2006). Preliminary damage and loss assessment. Yogyakarta and Central Java Natural Disaster Jakarta, BAPPENAS, the Provincial and Local Governments of D.I.Yogyakarta, the Provincial and Local Governments of Central Java, and International Partners.Google Scholar
  40. Titz, A. (2012). Naturgefahren als Entwicklungshemmnis. Das Beispiel Nepal-Himalaya. Praxis Geographie, 42(9), 34–38.Google Scholar
  41. Turner, M. (2013). UNESCO recommendation on the historic urban landscape. In M. Albert, R. Bernecker, & B. Rudolff (Eds.), Understanding heritage: Perspectives in heritage studies (pp. 77–87). Berlin/Boston: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  42. UN-HABITAT. (2008). Water movements in patan with reference to traditional stone spouts. Kathmandu: UN-HABITAT Water for Asian Cities Programme Nepal.Google Scholar
  43. UNESCO. (1972). Convention concerning the protection of the world cultural and natural heritage. http://whc.unesco.org/en/conventiontext/. Accessed 25 July 2014.
  44. UNESCO. (2003). Convention for the safeguarding of intangible cultural heritage. http://www.unesco.org/culture/ich/index.php?pg=00006. Accessed 21 Aug 2014.
  45. UNESCO. (2005). Vienna memorandum on “world heritage and contemporary architecture – Managing the historic urban landscape”. http://whc.unesco.org/archive/2005/whc05-15ga-inf7e.pdf.
  46. UNESCO. (2011). Recommendation on the historic urban landscape. http://www.historicurbanlandscape.com/themes/196/userfiles/download/2014/3/31/3ptdwdsom3eihfb.pdf. Accessed 28 Aug 2014.
  47. UNESCO. (2012). Understanding World Heritage in Asia and the Pacific: The second cycle of periodic reporting 2010–2012. Paris: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization.Google Scholar
  48. UNESCO. (2016). Wayang puppet theatre. http://www.unesco.org/culture/ich/en/RL/wayang-puppet-theatre-00063. Accessed 19 Oct 2016.
  49. UNESCO Kathmandu. (2004). Conserve! Kathmandu Valley World Heritage site. Potential areas for cooperation. Lalitpur: UNESCO, Kathmandu Office.Google Scholar
  50. WBGU. (2016). Der Umzug der Menschheit: Die transformative Kraft der Städte. Zusammenfassung. Berlin: Wissenschaftlicher Beirat der Bundesregierung Globale Umweltveränderungen (WBGU).Google Scholar
  51. Weise, K. (2012). Kathmandu Valley World Heritage property: Conservation and community. In ICOMOS Korea (Ed.), Involving Communities in World Heritage Conservation – Concepts and Actions in Asia. International Conference in Celebration of the 40th Anniversary of the World Heritage Convention (pp. 65–76). Buyeo, Korea: UNESCO.Google Scholar
  52. World Bank. (2011). Where there is a will there is a way : cash for work in early recovery post Merapi eruption. The Worldbank: Washington D.C.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.United Nations University, Institute for Environment and Human Security (UNU-EHS)BonnGermany

Personalised recommendations