Available via license: CC BY-NC-SA
Content may be subject to copyright.
KEMENTERIAN PENDIDIKAN DAN
KEBUDAYAAN
Balai Arkeologi Maluku
Kapata Arkeologi, 15(1) 2019, 1—14
p-ISSN: 1858-4101, e-ISSN: 2503-0876
KAPATA ARKEOLOGI
SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY AND CULTURAL STUDIES
Accredited by the Indonesian Ministry of Research, Technology, and Higher Education
(RISTEKDIKTI)
http://kapata-arkeologi.kemdikbud.go.id/
: 10.24832/kapata.v15i1.523
©2019 Kapata Arkeologi – Kementerian Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-SA license
Accreditation Number: (RISTEKDIKTI) 51/E/K PT/2017.
1
LOCAL COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION IN ESTABLISHING THE
CRITERIA FOR HERITAGE SIGNIFICANCE ASSESSMENT OF THE
CULTURAL HERITAGE IN MEDAN
Isnen Fitri 1 *, Yahaya Ahmad 2, Ratna 3
1 Department of Architecture, Faculty of Engineering, Universitas Sumatera Utara
Jl. Perpustakaan, Padang Bulan, Medan 20155, Indonesia
2 Centre for Urban Design, Conservation and Tropical Architecture, University of Malaya
Kuala Lumpur 50603, Malaysia
3 Department of History, Faculty of Cultural Science, Universitas Sumatera Utara
Jl. Universitas No.19, Padang Bulan, Medan 20155, Indonesia
* isnen@usu.ac.id
Received: 08/09/2018; revisions: 12/10 — 25/12/2018; accepted: 25/12/2018
Published online: 31/07/2019
Abstract
Value is the sole reason underlying heritage conservation. It is self-evident that no society makes an effort to conserve a historic
asset what it does not value. Since the publication of the Burra Charter in 1979, many countries recognized the importance of
identifying the cultural heritage significance or values to develop the policy and planning in heritage management. Today, the cultural
significance assessment is part of the listing process of a historical asset as heritage. Although the discourse of cultural heritage
conservation in Medan had evolved since the 1980s, cultural significance assessment is still a new concept for Indonesia heritage
community with the absence of its description within the Indonesian Heritage Act No. 11 of 2010. For that reason, we need a set of
criteria which contain principles, characteristics, categories, and guidance to help decide whether a historic asset has heritage value
or not and to make the assessment results more accountable, transparent, and consistent as well. Establishing criteria for listing have
traditionally been the territory of academics and experts coordinated by the authorities of the region. However, this study has shown
that establishing criteria for significance assessment could be done by involving 33 local people through three phases of data
collections and analyses such as field survey; in-depth interview; group meeting; and questionnaire to the 33 participants. Finally,
the research revealed six criteria for the significance assessment of cultural heritage in Medan derived from five values: history,
physical design or architecture, cultural and spiritual, scientific, and social.
Keywords: Heritage Significance Criteria; Medan; Local Community Participation; Heritage Value
INTRODUCTION
The study initially stimulated by the vague listing of
Medan’s heritage. Until today, most of the cultural
activists in Medan are questioning the criteria for listing
under the Local Regulation No.6 year of 1988. The
absence of inventory, documentation, and value
assessment have become the reasons why there have not
been any progress in terms of guidelines and policies
after the designation. To find answers to this problem,
we need to investigate what the rationale is in making
national heritage list criteria in Indonesia? These all were
discussed by Fitri et al. (2015) in the paper entitled
‘Conservation of Tangible Cultural Heritage in
Indonesia: A Review Current National Criteria for
Assessing Heritage Value.’
Also, interest in this research topic arises in line with
the implementation of the decentralization of heritage
management in Indonesia, at three levels: national,
provincial, and district/city. Each level of administration
should prepare and establish their heritage registers,
including the municipal government of Medan. Until
today, the Medan Municipal Government has not
established any explicit criteria for listing. As such, this
study will reveal the components of values and criteria
for identifying and protecting the cultural heritage, in
particular, immovable heritage. In addition to
establishing the social heritage criteria for listing, the
first step involves documenting the immovable heritage
in Medan, followed by evaluating the national heritage
list criteria as mentioned under the Indonesia Law No.11
Kapata Arkeologi Volume 15 Issue 1, 2019: 1—14
2
of 2010. This research will also provide a comprehensive
understanding on significance assessment and the
process of listing at both national and local levels, as well
as improvement of the heritage legislation and
management in Indonesia based on the heritage
legislation review.
Internationally, professional and scholarly interest in
the identification, conservation, and promotion of
twentieth-century cultural heritage is growing, yet
significant works of the era are underrepresented on
heritage registers from local inventories to the World
Heritage List (Macdonald & Ostergren, 2011: 1). This
awareness is also experienced by many scholars and
heritage professionals in Asian countries, including
Indonesia, over the past decades. Burra Charter has been
adopted as the standard for best practice in the
conservation of historic environment particularly in
Australia, New Zealand, Canada and many developed
countries in Latin America, North America, Europe, and
Asia. The Hoi An Protocols (Engelhardt, 2009) which is
signed by professionals representing the heritage from
Asia countries serves as a guideline of the cultural
significance adopted from Burra Charter. Also, The
Principles for the Conservation of Heritage Sites in
China, known as China Principles (China ICOMOS,
2015) is inspired by Burra Charter.
Nevertheless, the Indonesian government has not
adopted the Burra Charter; therefore, the concept of
cultural heritage significance has not yet elaborated in
the heritage legislation. They are starting to realize the
importance of conserving their cultural assets and have
transferred this awareness to a broader community. As a
result, it has influenced the improvement of heritage
protection for each bureaucracy. It can be traced back
from the increase in the number of charters, guidelines,
and declarations issued during the last three decades
mainly in Asia which had an impact on the regional,
national, and local levels. From the early 1980s, aspects
of heritage significance had become famous in the
discourse of cultural identity, the spirit of a place,
sustainable development, and community involvement.
As mentioned in the Burra Charter (2013), conservation
must also be carried out to preserve the values and
significance of place, establishing urban character and
identity. For instance, the term ‘cultural significance’ is
not something new. As stated in Venice Charter (1964),
the term has expanded rapidly since the Burra Charter
was published. Although the Burra Charter was first set
up to guide practitioners such as archaeologists,
historians, architects, engineers, and planners, it is also a
useful document for others. It means that anyone
participating in the care of significant places will make
better, more informed decisions if they understand the
Burra Charter. For that reason, Zancheti, Hidaka et al.
(2009: 47) asserted to identify and retain the cultural
significance, which has been the primary objective of
heritage conservation management and projects over the
last 30 years. Later, the issue of cultural heritage
significance assessment continues and develops along
with the increase of heritage professionals globally.
Since the recent decades, many countries have
recognized the importance of identifying value, so that
this conservation process often referred to other
countries as ‘management based heritage significance’
or ‘values-based heritage management.’ A conservation
plan based on significance is a helpful first step in
making decisions about what and how to conserve it and
considered a positive move towards a more transparent
and coherent approach to cultural-heritage management
(Clark, 2014).
Like those mentioned above, the value is a sole
reason underlying heritage conservation. It is self-
evident that no society makes an effort to conserve a
historical asset that it does not value. Since the
publication of the Burra Charter in 1979, many countries
recognized the importance of identifying the cultural
heritage significance or value to develop the policy and
planning in heritage management. Today, the cultural
significance assessment is being part of the designation
of a historical asset as heritage. When identifying the
heritage significances, we need a set of criteria which
contain principles, characteristics, categories and
guidance to help decide whether a place has heritage
value or not and to make the assessment result more
accountable, transparent, and consistent as well.
Recognition of cultural heritage and establishing of
criteria for listing have traditionally conducted by
academics and cultural-heritage experts in cooperation
with the authorities of the region. To be included in the
listing, the nomination must set out the qualities or
values that make it outstanding to the nation/state by
indicating how it meets one or more of the numbers of
National/Provincial/Municipal criteria. This paper
correlates and establishes the criteria of heritage
significance assessment through the participation of the
33 local people in Medan, one of the capital city in
Sumatra, Indonesia which has abundant urban heritage,
especially architectural heritage. The participants
represent the various communities of the non-
government organizations, custodians or managers, the
professional institutions and local government officers
who are responsible for the heritage conservation.
The Importance of Heritage Significance
Assessment in Cultural Heritage Protection and
Management
The term cultural significance vividly first described
in the Burra Charter in 1979, this concept, in brief,
defined as the "aesthetic, historical, scientific, social or
spiritual value for past, present or future generations."
Local Community Participation in Establishing the Criteria for Heritage Significance Assessment of the Cultural Heritage
in Medan, Isnen Fitri, Yahaya Ahmad, Ratna
3
Accordingly, significance means "embodied in the place
itself, its fabric, setting, use, associations, meanings,
records, related places, and related objects" (AICOMOS,
2013). Besides, the term ‘cultural significance’ of this
charter used as a synonym for cultural values and
asserted that encompassed in such sites, in their fabric,
uses associations, meanings, and memories. During
more than three decades, many countries around the
world have adopted the conservation process of the
Burra Charter with certain adapting to the administrative
structure of their countries. It currently has become the
best-known guideline for heritage significance
assessment. Today, the cultural significance assessment
is part of the designation or labeling historical asset as
heritage. The creation of heritage indicates the difference
between those who subscribe to it from those who do not.
In this context, cultural heritage valuation becomes a tool
to get better understand the significance of heritage to
different sections of society.
Nevertheless, this is not the only reason why we need
to value our cultural heritage in which to understand, to
preserve, and to manage our heritage. The valuation
process also intends to assess existing values as attached
by the relevant population. However, the final aim in the
context of policy analysis is to significantly achieve the
valorization of our heritage, in other words, to add new
values to the existing ones (Riganti & Nijkamp, 2004: 1).
As the arguments of O’Connor (2011: 189) and
Tomback (2007: 209), the benefit of applying the
evaluation process to cultural heritage is a significant
step beyond identifying places of cultural significance as
it provides a basis for decision making with short and
long-term conservation and maintenance. Accordingly,
it is noteworthy that valuation represents a crucial step in
the management of cultural heritage, especially when we
narrow the concept to the built environment.
Regarding the process in Burra Charter, the sequence
of investigations, decisions, and actions are started by
understanding the cultural significance, then developing
a policy and finally administering or managing the
heritage asset following the policy. Kerr (2013: 4)
explained that cultural heritage significance aims to help
in identifying and assessing the attributes that describe
why a historical asset being necessary or valuable for us
or society. An understanding of it is, therefore, essential
to any planning process. Afterward, he emphasized the
process as a necessary sequence in conservation planning,
which naturally consisted of two stages. The first stage
covers the gathering and analysis of evidence and the
assessment of significance — the second concerns about
developing a conservation policy and setting out
strategies for its implementation. To achieve the purpose
of conservation, Zancheti, et al. (2009: 49) criticize that
the procedures or process should not be performed in
isolation from each other, but instead they must interact.
They also suggest some procedures must repeatedly be
conducted while consultations with stakeholders; further
investigations are also necessary. Later, they
recommended that the process must follow four steps to
get a better understanding of cultural significance. Firstly,
identifying and defining the site, its fabric, and
associations, then securing it and making it safe;
secondly, gathering and recording adequate information
(whether physically, orally or in document form) so as to
understand the significance of the site; thirdly, assessing
the significance; and lastly, preparing and developing the
statement of significance. In a similar vein, Lithgow &
Thackray (2009) proposed three main steps in the
process of studying and understanding the meanings and
values of places, objects and collections as follows: first,
analyzing the object or resource; second, understanding
its history and context and third, identifying its value for
the communities which created and/or care for it.
Referring to the conservation process diagram within
Burra Charter, understanding the significance of
historical asset is unable to proceed without gathering
and recording its information. Furthermore, creating a
record of the cultural heritage asset is part of the process
of establishing its significance and of managing the care
and protection of the heritage. Due to this reason, it
would be preceded by conducting an inventory or
documentation before significance assessment (Orbasly,
2008: 94—95). Most heritage experts asserted the
essential of inventory and documentation for a
conservation project, as the argument of Rand & Chabbi
(2007: 3) which refers to “documenting of cultural
heritage is a critical component of the conservation
planning process which can provide a long-term
foundation for the maintenance, management, and
monitoring of a site.” In a similar vein, ICOMOS (1996)
emphasized that recording or documentation of cultural
heritage is the best way to get an understanding of its
significance, therefore, it is essential to acquire
knowledge getting advance understanding of its values
and evolution. Indeed, inventory has long been discussed
since 1931 as mentioned in Athen Charter [Article VII
(c)] on the value of international documentation, where
each country or the institutions are recommended to
establish an inventory of ancient monuments, with
photographs and explanatory notes. Therefore, proper
documentation and significance assessment is part of the
package for the initial step in conservation work to
identify, ensure, and understand the cultural asset that
will be passed on to future generations.
Also, to obtain the purpose, it is essential to keep
precise records of decisions, and changes to the historical
asset help in its care, management, and interpretation.
While, in term of the approach, Avrami et al. (2000: 9—
10) and O’Connor (2011: 189) asserted the
methodological approach to value assessment proposed
Kapata Arkeologi Volume 15 Issue 1, 2019: 1—14
4
must be flexible — the ideas, plans and also the process
should be transferable, transparent, useful, balanced, and
fair. Therefore, the cultural heritage valuation should not
apply a general assessment technique or an unambiguous
approach that has universal validity, but it has to be
performed by tailor-made methods that address the
classification of cultural assets.
Local Community Participation in Heritage
Significance Assessment
In recent decades, the new groups which do not
include heritage specialist and experts are emerging in
line with the expanding and evolving concept of heritage.
These groups are citizens or local communities, of
professionals from other fields such as economics,
political, and tourism, and of representatives of special
interests in the heritage field. These new groups have
participated in and supported many heritage programs. It
is notably evident in the growing number of people who,
in many countries, visited historic buildings and districts
which make up the critical part of the heritage (Jokilehto,
2005).
Nevertheless, people’s involvement is merely an
instrument and rarely a goal. UNESCO experiences
while carrying out the process of inclusion for listing
revealed that the concept of OUV is often poorly
understood and need to improve with communication at
the site level. Accordingly, it is recommended that the
identification of OUV requires “extensive participation
by stakeholders, including local communities and
indigenous people.” Besides, the 1987 Washington
Charter/ICOMOS emphasized that the participation and
involvement of the local people are essential to the
success of the conservation program and should be
encouraged. As such, the conservation of historic towns
and urban areas is a must, first of all, involves their
residents (ICOMOS, 1987).
The word ‘public or community’ has a broad
meaning and is involved. A simple understanding of
these aspects refers to what was stated by Davidoff in
1965 (Clark, 2014) quoted from Dian & Abdullah,
(2013): ‘communities as local people who are either
individuals or organizations have an interest in or likely
to be affected, either positively or negatively, with a
decision to be made on any certain issues by the
authorities.’ Appiah (2006) and Johnson (2000) in
Chirikure et al. (2008) explained: ‘community is a body
of people inhabiting the locality.’ Furthermore, he
explained in his paper that the community, which is base
on interests, is called stakeholders. Previously, the
archaeologist and heritage managers argued that the local
communities are regarded as a source of cheap labor for
fieldwork instead of consumers with knowledge of the
past. Local people are often viewed as troublemakers.
Therefore, the archaeologists and heritage managers are
trying to protect sites from the neighborhood (Chirikure
et al., 2008). At present, the implementation of the
method is in line with the development of the global
trend in heritage conservation that is still devoted to
knowledge rather than to community interest. In contrast
to archaeology, to the disciplines of architecture, history,
and anthropology had already positioned the public as
consumers of knowledge of the past.
Up to the date, planning and managing the heritage
asset was often seen as exclusively a job for the expert.
Involvement of ordinary people has often been limited.
Therefore, developing an understanding of local historic
assets can be an effective and powerful way of increasing
public awareness and participation (English Heritage,
2008: 316—317). The question about ‘stakeholders’ is
an essential issue in value assessment. Thus, identifying
the social and implying approaches designed to reach
and hear them in light of their particular identity and
capacity are required for any methodology for heritage
value assessment (Mason, 2008).
Nonetheless, there are many challenges to involve the
people in heritage conservation, such as the experience
and mindset, even the background of the people leading
individuals and groups are unable to collaborate well.
UNESCO Nairobi Recommendation (1976) described
that there was a method to establish constant co-
operation between communities and individuals at all
level in safeguarding heritage as follows:
(… information adapted to the various of individuals
concerned; surveys adapted to the persons questioned;
establishment of advisory groups attached to the
planning teams; representations of the owners,
occupants, and managers in advisory function on bodies
responsible for decision-making, management and
organization of operations associated with a plan to
protect, or the creation of public corporations to play a
role in the implementation of the plan.)
According to the World Bank (1994), the level of public
participation categorized into two levels: low and high.
Low-level participation still applies a one-way
communication such as sharing information or
consultation.
Nevertheless, the high-level participation would be
achieved by collaboration and empowerment in the
transfer of control over decisions/resources. Accordingly,
the high level of participation in heritage conservation
will make conservation efforts more sustainable. Herb
Stovel (2002) asserted in his article that quoted by
Zerrudo (2008), community involvement improves the
understanding of heritage and associated meanings;
encourages social cohesion and sustainability, and work
towards a shared vision at a local level. Then he
described heritage belongs to the society, not to
Local Community Participation in Establishing the Criteria for Heritage Significance Assessment of the Cultural Heritage
in Medan, Isnen Fitri, Yahaya Ahmad, Ratna
5
authorities and community organizing like community
consultations, leadership training, team building,
heritage orientation, local history seminars are
fundamentally bonding together the community
stakeholders towards a universal emotion, understanding,
and valuation of the heritage.
The contemporary trend in heritage conservation
theory today emphasizes the role of community in the
cultural significance assessment is essential. In
conclusion, there are several benefits to community
participation in heritage conservation as the following
paragraphs:
- Participation encourages community stakeholder to
voice their needs and issues. Outsiders are never
able to determine the best needs of any community
without consulting first with the community.
- Participation encourages social cohesion and
sustainability and works towards a shared vision and
a universal emotion.
- Participation builds trust, confidence, and self-worth
as community members recognize the importance of
their knowledge and ideas in solving the issues in
heritage conservation through consensus on areas of
work.
- Participation improves the understanding of heritage
and associated meanings as well as builds technical
and interactive skills of community members as they
begin to work together collaboratively on problems
articulated.
- Participation respects local knowledge and know-
how in the design of projects or interventions as well
as creates the conditions for sustainability.
- Participation encourages community members to
organize around problem identification and
solutions by strengthening a community to take
action to solve its problems.
The issue of cultural heritage conservation in
Sumatra Island, especially in Medan, had started in the
1980s; however, it spread out rapidly since the
establishment of Badan Warisan Sumatra (BWS) or
Sumatra Heritage Trust in 1998. According to its vision,
BWS ideally serves and manages the heritage
conservation issue and work in Sumatra Island.
Therefore, it encouraged the establishment of other
heritage conservation’s NGO in West Sumatra, Bangka-
Belitung Island, Jambi. It established a network for
heritage conservation in Sumatra, namely Pan Sumatra
Network in 1999. Since establishment the other
organizations, the scope of activity of BWS also covers
heritage conservation in Sumatra. Up to the date, the
awareness of the community in Medan can be seen by
the activities and the increased number of heritage
organization in town. Several local communities in
Medan led by BWS protested to the local government
over the demolition of historic buildings that have high
historical and architectural values such as the Mega Eltra
building (2002), villas on Jalan Diponegoro (2010),
Beringin Park (2014), and the Esplanade or locally
known as Lapangan Merdeka (2014—2018). In the last
four years, there are twelve organizations formed a
coalition locally called Koalisi Masyarakat Sipil Medan
(KMS) have been struggling to save the Esplanade of
Medan that is going to be chaos and losing its character
and historical value.
METHODS
The study is involved in collecting, analyzing, and
integrating quantitative (field survey and questionnaire)
and qualitative (interview and group discussion meeting)
data. The single case study by using participatory
community approach. Following the recommendations
of the conservation charters published in the past 50
years to promote the role of the community. The
participation of local people is not only to get their inputs
but also to engage the local community in establishing
the criteria for better protection and conservation of their
cultural heritage in the future. The inventory of the
immovable heritage began in 2010, continued in 2012
and was updated in 2014. All the previous inventories
done by other scholars or organizations were compiled
before carrying out the field survey to update the
inventories. Three seasons of field surveys done in 2010,
2012, and 2014. Another study focused on establishing
the local assessment criteria for cultural heritage in
Medan was done by the author. At the end of September
of 2014, after completing documentation, it is
immediately followed by conducting the second group
discussion meeting to assess the cultural significance of
sampling using the new criteria. The significance
assessment involved 50 local people to validating and
strengthening the new criteria.
Before creating the assessment criteria, three
essential steps carried out: firstly, a literature review was
done to gain a comprehensive understanding and
interpretation of the cultural significance assessment. It
was then followed by identification and documentation
of the cultural heritage of Medan through field survey
aimed at identifying the character and significance of
Medan’s heritage that was discussed in a paper by the
author published in the proceeding of the 2nd
International Nusantara Cultural Heritage (2017). The
results of the inventory on the immovable cultural
heritage in Medan will use for setting up the criteria for
cultural significance assessment. The next step was a
critical review of the national heritage criteria stated
under the Article 5 of Indonesia Law No.11 of 2010
(Undang-Undang RI, 2010) by interviewing the
respondents to obtain their opinions on the assessment
Kapata Arkeologi Volume 15 Issue 1, 2019: 1—14
6
criteria which should be constructed for the evaluation of
nominated historical assets in Medan. The
recommendation of this review as mentioned in Fitri &
Yahaya (2017) will be the foundation for setting up the
criteria for the significance assessment of the cultural
heritage in Medan by inviting the participants in group
discussion & meeting using a Nominal Group Technique
followed by questionnaires to the research respondents.
In order to gain maximum benefits, the community
should be involved from the beginning of conservation
work, starting from gathering of information to
managing the heritage asset as shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1. Community involvement during the conservation
process
(Source: Adopted from Clark & Maeer, 2008)
RESULT AND DISCUSSION
Avrami (2000: 7—8) pointed out that cultural
significance was the term that the conservation
community has used to encapsulate the multiple values
ascribed to objects, buildings, or landscape. Before
gauging the value of cultural heritage, it was essential to
benchmark the components of values. This identification
and ordering of values serve as a vehicle to inform
decisions about how best to preserve these values in the
physical conservation of the object or historic asset.
The assessment will issue a Statement of
Significance (SOS). During the process of assessment in
Australia for instance, if an SOS is not comprehensive
enough then the listing is not thorough in its analysis,
suggesting that it is advisable to develop it for approval
by the authority (Australian Heritage Council, 2010).
Hence, an SOS for a cultural asset is a crucial document
in determining goals, standards, and techniques that are
appropriate for safeguarding the historic environment in
the future. This cultural significance statement is also
crucial for developing conservation policy, strategy, and
planning. According to the literature review, there are
many kinds of value types and the interactions among
them are so complicated as summarized by the experts,
organization, and charter or convention, as shown in
Table 1. This part delves into classifying the notion of
value as a guiding idea in cultural significance
assessment. Mason (2002), in his paper, ‘Assessing
Values in Conservation Planning: Methodological Issues
and Choices’ wrote the term characterization of cultural
heritage value had been first discussed from art-historic
view in 1902 by Alois Riegl. According to the table
compiled by Mason on the development of heritage
value, Riegl stated that five values should be considered
in the evaluation of the heritage value of age, historical,
commemorative, use, and art. This typology then
compared with the characteristics of important heritage
value are reviewed by several experts and organizations,
expressed by an archaeologist, William Lipe (1984),
Bruno S. Frey from economic view (1994), the Burra
Charter (first in 1979, the latest revision in 2013), The
New Zealand Charter (2013, first published in 1992), and
English Heritage (1997). Later in 2008, the English
Heritage proposed a typology of values headings, which
explained as evidential, historical, aesthetic, and
communal values (English Heritage, 2008).
Table 1. Typology of values based on the theoretical concept
Reigl (1902)
• Age
• Historical
• Commemorative
• Use
• Newness
Feilden (1982)
• Emotional
• Cultural
• Use
Lipe (1984)
• Aesthetic
• Associative-symbolic
• Economic
• lnformational
Feilden & Jokilehto
(1993)
Cultural Values:
• Artistic or technical
• Rarity
Contemporary socio-economic:
• Economic
• Functional
• Educational
• Social
• Political
Frey (1997)
• Monetary
• Option
• Existence
• Bequest
• Prestige education
English Heritage
(England, 1997)
• Cultural
• Resource
• Recreational
• Aesthetic
• Economic-importance
Thorsby (2006)
• Aesthetic
• Spiritual
• Social
• Historical
• Symbolic
• Authenticity
Local Community Participation in Establishing the Criteria for Heritage Significance Assessment of the Cultural Heritage
in Medan, Isnen Fitri, Yahaya Ahmad, Ratna
7
Burra Charter (the
latest revision 2013)
• Aesthetic
• Historic
• Scientific
• Social or
• Spritual
New Zealand Charter
(the latest revision
2013)
• Historical
• Archaeological
• Architectural
• Technological
• Aesthetic
• Scientific
• Spritual
• Social
• Traditional
• other special cultural
significance, associated with
human activity
Source: Adapted and modified from Mason 2002: 9; Worthing
& Bond 2008
By looking the values mentioned above, therefore,
Mason argued it was clear that there are several distinct,
if not entirely separable, categories of heritage value:
historical, spiritual, political, educational, aesthetic,
artistic and economic. All characteristic of value are
summarized to have similarities, and there are only a few
points of view and different ways. While, in its
Guidelines to the Burra Charter: Cultural Significance
(1984), it is mentioned that the categorization of value
into an aesthetic, historical, scientific, and social value is
one approach to understanding the concept of cultural
significance. In the Burra Charter, for instance,
economic value is minimized because they are seen as a
derivation from the cultural and historical values of and
are, therefore, given as secondary consideration.
In the earlier, the discussion of values focused on the
distinction between the tangible and intangible value.
The tangible value is commonly defined as the intrinsic
value, perceived as unchanged or do not require
modification and universally existed in cultural
properties. While, the intangible value is called the
extrinsic value, which is constructed by personal, social,
and cultural perspective and is therefore inherently
subjective. Often, intrinsic values can be assessed
objectively, and hence, the significance level attributed
to them can gain widespread agreement. Architectural
design value or tangible value in roommate’s structure of
the building is often perceived as intrinsic value.
However, cultural heritage values are not constant and
could be changed over time as well as highly influenced
and shaped by a contextual factor such as culture trend,
social and economic imperatives. Thus, the distinction
between intrinsic and extrinsic values is seldom
discussed by heritage experts and scholars.
By using such a typology—a framework that breaks
down significance into constituent kinds of heritage
value—the views of experts, citizens, communities,
governments, and other stakeholders can be voiced and
compared more efficiently. The breakdown is also
oriented to conservation practices as categories focusing
on how the heritage value is used and evaluated
(contingent, and by public other than the elite and expert),
while many other characteristics resonate more with
connoisseurship and professional values and strongly
influenced by the idea of the value the natural heritage.
Furthermore, he concludes two significant types of
values; those are socio-cultural values and economic
values as alternative ways of understanding and labeling
the same, wide range of values. The socio-cultural values
have subcategories which are not distinct, exclusive, and
quite overlapped extensively. In contrast, the
subcategories under economic values intended to distinct
and exclusive of one another (see Figure 2).
Figure 2. The Schematic for Values Typology Based on the theoretical concept
(Source: Compilation of Value Types from Mason, 2008; Worthing & Bond, 2008)
Kapata Arkeologi Volume 15 Issue 1, 2019: 1—14
8
During two decades, many countries have amended
their legislation and accommodate the concept of cultural
significance assessment in the process of establishing a
heritage register. In order to obtain comprehensive types
of values in the heritage practice, this study compiled the
heritage values and criteria applied for the eight
countries starting from England, United States of
America, Canada, New Zealand, Australia, Malaysia,
South Africa, and Vietnam collected from the Heritage
Act for each country. The reason to select these countries
is that they have accepted the concept of cultural
significance assessment of the Burra Charter, perhaps
excluded the USA.
Compare to the schematic of value types according
to the literature review; it is found that the historical
value, aesthetic value, scientific and cultural value as
well as social associative value are central values types.
It is identified by the eight countries as samples to be
included in the listing while social and cultural values are
quite overlapping in the statement of criteria. It needs to
read the principles and guidelines carefully to know what
exactly value meant by the Acts. Because it is very often,
these values were linked to the historical value. While no
countries of the eight countries as the samples that are
applying the best practice criteria for listing defined that
economic value as one the criterion for inscription in the
listing. Therefore, it can be illustrated the schematic
values for the best practice in the listing applied by the
eight countries, as shown in Figure 3. Those values types
are identified from the determined criteria, as stated in
their Heritage Act. It is referring to Table 2.iv and 2.v,
this summarized that there are 12 criteria determined by
the eight countries ranging from historical to integrity. It
seemed that criterion ‘history’ is dominant, followed by
aesthetic and social associative. The most criteria
defined by the eight countries, hold the type of values:
historical, aesthetic, scientific, and cultural as well as
social associative, as shown in Figure 4.
Compare to the schematic of value types based on the
theoretical concept; it was found that the historical value,
aesthetic value, scientific and cultural value as well as
social associative value are central values types
identified by the eight countries as samples to be
included in the listing. While social and cultural values
are quite overlapping in the statement of criteria. It needs
to read the principles and guidelines carefully to know
what exactly value meant by the Acts. Because it is very
often, these values were linked to the historical value.
While no countries of the eight countries as the samples
that are applying the best practice criteria for listing
defined that economic value as one the criterion for
inscription in the listing. Therefore, it can be illustrated
the schematic values for the best practice in the listing
applied by the eight countries.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Historical/ Associative historic: Event, Person, Place
Aesthetic/Artistic/ Architecture
Social Associative
Scientific/ Knowledge
Cultural/Indigenous/ Traditional
Rarity
Repetitiveness
Technological Achievement
Information potential
Age
Archaeological
Figure 3. The value types according to the eight countries
(Source: Authors, 2018)
0123456789
Historic/Historic Associative: Event, Person, Place
Aesthetic/Artistic/ Architecture
Scientific/ Knowledge/ Technological Achievement
Social Associative/ National Identity
Age/Rarity
Cultural/Indigenous/ Traditional
Archaeological
Figure 4. The assessment criteria according to the eight countries
(Source: Authors, 2018)
Local Community Participation in Establishing the Criteria for Heritage Significance Assessment of the Cultural Heritage
in Medan, Isnen Fitri, Yahaya Ahmad, Ratna
9
The analysis for establishing the criteria of
significance assessment for the cultural heritage in
Medan after reviewing the national criteria divided into
four steps: (i) interview; (ii) group discussion meeting;
(iii) the questionnaire; and (iv) the second group meeting
as shown in Figure 6.
Figure 6. The process of establishing the assessment criteria
(Source: Authors, 2018)
Interview
The in-depth interviews with the 33 participants
were conducted between December 2013 and January
2014 after carrying out the field survey and literature
review. The study applied the semi-structured interview
with open-ended questions because more specific issues
can be addressed. There were two parts of questions
during the interview section as follows: first, the review
of the national criteria stated in the Indonesia Law
No.11/2010. The second is the questions to establish the
criteria for significance assessment on immovable
heritage in Medan.
The four questions of the first part interview are as
follows:
1. The value types to include in national criteria;
2. The importance of education value to be included in
the national criteria
3. The review of each criterion of the national criteria
stated in article 5 of the law No.11 the year 2010.
4. The minimum number of criteria that must meet in
order to include in the listing
These questions are addressed to review national
criteria for assessing heritage value of Indonesian
tangible cultural property designating as heritage based
on Law of Cultural Properties No. 11 of 2010 mentioned
as follows: first, must have the age at least 50 (fifty) years
or more; second representing the style with the minimum
aged 50 (fifty) years; third, having a significant meaning
for history, science, education, religion and/or culture,
and fourth, having cultural value that can strengthen
cultural identity of the nation (Undang-Undang RI,
2010). The second section of the interview has two
questions, first is to determine the value types that should
meet by the historic assets for inclusion in heritage listing
of Medan and second is to derive the criteria for
assessment from the proposed value types.
Figure 5. The Schematic of Values and its subcategories for the best practice for the listing process
(Source: Authors, 2018)
Kapata Arkeologi Volume 15 Issue 1, 2019: 1—14
10
The results of the interviews revealed nine critical
values (see Figure 3). Based on the interview, there were
16 criteria proposed by the 33 participants, as shown in
Table 1.
Figure 7. Value Types based on interview results
(Source: Authors, 2018)
Figure 7 shows that there are nine critical values
represented by the personal views of the participants.
These values are summarised from the 16 criteria, as
shown in Table 2.
Table 2. Assessment Criteria for cultural significance based on
interview results
The Range of Criteria
i It has a strong connection with an important person,
workplace of an important person; events and activities
that are important parts and contribute to the historical
and cultural of Medan city.
ii It is the creation of one designer or architect who is
significant for the community.
iii It possesses uncommon, rare or endangered aspects.
iv It has the potential to increase patriotism and national
consciousness.
v It has the potential in strengthening the nation’s
character.
vi It demonstrates high achievement of creativity or
technology at a particular period.
vii It has the information potential that will contribute to the
understanding of history and culture and is useful in the
present.
viii It has a strong or special association with a particular
community or cultural group in aspects of social, cultural,
or spiritual.
ix It has potential specific local traditions.
x It represents the identity or symbolism and interests of
ethnic and cultural diversity.
xi It is accessible to the public (open to the public).
xii It demonstrates the aesthetic and characteristics that are
considered important.
xiii It shows the main characteristics or specific
environment/symbolic/ritual of the classification of
cultural heritage.
xiv It has the potential to be a landmark.
xv It has the economic potential to enhance the
development of the town.
xvi It has a recreational function.
Source: Authors, 2018
The First Group Meeting
The values types from the interview results were
reduced to eight after a discussion with participants in a
forum by combining the traditional values with the
cultural values. At the first group discussion meeting, 16
criteria were revised and reduced to 12 criteria by
combining the archival record and archaeology with
criteria on (vii): information potential. Then the criterion
symbolic is combined with criterion (x): representing the
identity and interests of ethnic and cultural diversity. The
FGD is summarized into eight values as the interview
result excluded the traditional value. According to the
participants, it is to avoid overlapping with the cultural
and spiritual values which were intended to include in
the traditional value. The 12 criteria for FGD are
presented in Table 3.
Table 3. Criteria for cultural heritage significance assessment
based on the group discussion meeting result
The Range of Criteria
i It has a strong association with events that have played
an important part and contributed to the historical and
cultural development of Medan city.
ii It possesses uncommon, rare or endangered aspects.
iii It has potential information that will contribute to the
understanding of the cultural history of Medan and
science so that it can be utilized for the present.
iv Demonstrating specific local tradition and representing
the identity or symbolism of ethnic and cultural
diversity.
v It is exhibiting aesthetics and characteristics that are
considered important for Medan city.
vi Demonstrating main or principal characteristics of
classification of cultural heritage in Medan.
vii Creation of product of a designer, architect, builder,
and artist that have played an important part and
contributed to the historical and cultural development
of Medan city.
viii It has a strong or special association with an important
person, in particular, a community or cultural group in
aspects of social, cultural, or spiritual.
ix It has the potential to increase and strengthen
patriotism, national consciousness, and character.
x Demonstrating high achievement of creativity or
technology at a particular period.
xi It has the economic potential that will contribute to
increasing the protection or conservation efforts and
community wellness.
xii It has the potential to be a recreational place that will
contribute to increasing the protection/conservation
efforts and economic activities in Medan.
Source: Authors, 2018
This category of values and criteria has yet to
finalized because most respondents thought it should be
screened more comprehensively after the group
discussion meeting. The result of the workshop showed
that about 12 criteria still overlapped and need to be
revised for better results and clearer criteria. Therefore,
the next step is to develop and screen the criteria during
our group discussion meeting by distributing the
questionnaire, which is also intended to validate the
findings of the study.
010 20 30 40
Historical
Physical Design
Cultural/Spiritual
Social
Scientifc
Educational
Economic
Traditional
Recreational
Local Community Participation in Establishing the Criteria for Heritage Significance Assessment of the Cultural Heritage
in Medan, Isnen Fitri, Yahaya Ahmad, Ratna
11
Questionnaire
The questionnaire was distributed after the group
discussion meeting. The feedback from the participants
on the 12 criteria are as follows:
- Criterion i can be accepted by all respondents.
- A majority of respondents can accept criterion ii, but
with improvements such as eliminating the word
‘high level’ because it is difficult to measure it. Prefer
to use word ‘rarity and endangered’;
- Criterion iii and iv can be accepted by all respondents
with little improvement in the editorial sentence;
- Criterion v can be accepted by the respondents.
However, and, some respondents argued it is difficult
to determine the indicator, and half of the
respondents suggest merging with the criteria vii;
- Only 40% of respondent agree with criterion vi since
it is difficult to determine the indicator so that the
evaluation tends to be a more subjective opinion. As
a result, it is proposed that criterion vi be removed or
merged with criterion vii;
- Criterion vii can be accepted by almost all
respondents, but there are proposals for improvement
of this criterion by adding the word ‘unique’ and
‘high achievement of a creativity’ which is stated in
criterion x;
- Criterion viii is acceptable by all respondents, but
should be merged with criterion ix;
- Criterion ix can be accepted by some respondents;
nevertheless, other respondents argued the meaning
and intention of criterion ix already included in
criterion viii. By considering this criterion derived
from ‘use-value,’ then, it is proposed to be excluded
in valuation.
- Criterion x can be accepted by the respondent, but
some respondents suggested it be combined with
criterion vii;
- Criterion xi and xii are proposed to be delisted or
changed to secondary criteria used after the
assessment of cultural heritage significance to
develop the policy.
Finally, the respondents concluded there are five
main values based on its rank, which are historical value,
cultural and spiritual value, scientific value, physical
design value, and social values. Educational value,
economic value, and recreational value are considered as
one of purpose when we conserve cultural heritage. That
is why these values do not need to be stated
independently and specifically because it should be
applied after the designation process. The participants
later proposed that the physical design value will cover
the uniqueness and rarity value. These values were not
included in the assessment of significance and should be
used after the process of designation as heritage in the
local register. The results of the criteria based on the
questionnaire are summarized as follows:
i. It has a strong association with events and important
people (warrior, politician, historian, humanist,
writer, scientist, philanthropist, and others.) that have
played an important part and contributed to the
historical development of Medan city.
ii. It has potential information that will contribute to the
understanding of the historical development of
Medan, and it can be utilized for the present.
iii. It has a strong or special association with a society or
community, showing the identity and character of a
diverse ethnic and nation.
iv. It possesses rarity in terms of function, design, and
craftsmanship.
v. It was a creation or product of a designer, architect,
builder, and artist that demonstrated high
achievement of creativity, technology or scientific,
uniqueness, which has contributed to the cultural and
historical development of Medan city.
vi. It demonstrated specific local tradition and
represented the local identity or cultural diversity.
Figure 8. Assessment Criteria resulted by the First Group Meeting
(Source: Authors, 2018)
Kapata Arkeologi Volume 15 Issue 1, 2019: 1—14
12
The Second Group Discussion Meeting
Based on the feedback, a set of values category and
criteria for cultural significance assessment of the built
heritage of Medan summarized as the research findings.
The next stage of study is to confirm the six criteria to
the respondents either by email or delivery the hardcopy
to the respondent is addressed. This stage is intended to
refine and validate the research findings. Table 3 shows
the seven samples of the immovable heritage, and the
participants are divided into seven groups. Group 1
evaluates the historic area of Merdeka Kesawan, and
group 2 evaluates the central post office, as shown in
Table 4 and 5.
It shows that criterion ii appeared by all sampling
then followed by criterion v, i, vi, and iii. The table above
shows that criterion iii appears the lowest of the seven
samples. Finally, it concludes there six assessment
criteria which are derived from five main values, which
are historical value, cultural and spiritual value, scientific
value, physical design value, and social values. A
historic asset must meet one of them to be included in the
heritage listing of Medan. The approach of local
community participation in the identification of cultural
heritage value is powerful and effective. The selection of
respondents from different disciplines and profession
make finding more comprehensive research. Based on
the process, it is concluded that the method to establish
the criteria by involving the local community can figure
out, as shown in the next scheme.
Table 5. The range criteria for significance assessment of the
seven samples at the second group discussion meeting
Criterion
Sampling
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
i
⚫
⚫
⚫
⚫
⚫
ii
⚫
⚫
⚫
⚫
⚫
⚫
⚫
iii
⚫
⚫
iv
⚫
⚫
⚫
⚫
v
⚫
⚫
⚫
⚫
⚫
⚫
vi
⚫
⚫
⚫
Source: Authors, 2018
No.
Group 1
Group 2
Group 3
Group 4
Group 5
Group 6
Group 7
Sample
Merdeka
Kesawan
Central Post
Office
Tjong Afie
Mansion
Grand Mosque
Al Makshun
Seri Deli Park
Tirtanadi
Water Tank
Kota Cina Site
Category
Historic Area
Building
Building
Building
Park
Structure
Site
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
NGO1
P1
CM7
G8
P8
P15
G1
NGO2
P2
CM6
G9
P9
NGO9
G2
NGO3
P3
CM5
G10
P10
NGO8
G3
NGO4
P4
CM4
NGO14
P11
P19
G4
NGO5
P5
CM3
NGO13
P12
P18
G5
NGO6
P6
CM2
NGO12
P13
P17
G6
NGO7
P7
CM1
NGO11
P14
P16
G7
31,4 31,6 31,8 32 32,2 32,4 32,6 32,8 33 33,2
Historic Value
Scientific Value
Social Value
Physical Design/Architectural Value
Cultural Spritual Value
Figure 10. The established criteria based on the questionnaire
(Source: Authors, 2018)
Table 4. Group discussion results on assessing the significance of the samples by using the new criteria
Criterion iii
Criterion i
Criterion ii
Criterion v
Criterion vi
Criterion iv
Cultural &
Spiritual
Value
Design
Physical
Value
Social
Value
Scientific
Value
Historical
Value
Figure 9. Schematic of Value Types and Criteria for
Significance Assessment the Cultural heritage in Medan
(Source: Authors, 2018)
Source: Authors, 2018
Local Community Participation in Establishing the Criteria for Heritage Significance Assessment of the Cultural Heritage
in Medan, Isnen Fitri, Yahaya Ahmad, Ratna
13
CONCLUSION
The criteria of significance assessment for the
cultural heritage in Medan and the evaluation forms can
fill up the absence of tool for heritage listing of Medan.
The research finding has proved that the criteria of
heritage significance assessment can be established by
involving the local society or stakeholders generally
speaking that they are not categorized as the specialist or
experts. Regarding the listing process, the research has
found the value typologies which based on the socio-
cultural value, while the economic value excluded from
heritage significance assessment in the gazettal.
The research has found the schematic of value
typologies that can help to establish criteria of
assessment for the cultural heritage regarding listing or
nomination process. Based on the schematic, it helps the
authorities or the communities to establish the
assessment criteria because it is guiding which are values
and sub-values and then sub value types as an array of
options for establishing criteria. The method and process
to establish the assessment criteria can be applied by
other cities in North Sumatra Province and Indonesia
region that will be necessary to create assessment criteria
for their cultural heritage. It helps and guides the
authorities of other cities mainly in North Sumatra
Province and other parts of Indonesia to establish their
heritage register comprehensively since the absence of
cultural significance assessment within the Indonesia
Law No. 11 of 2010 up to date.
The study has involved the local people from the
beginning of the study. Therefore, carrying out the study
is also once has trained and socialized to the local people
how to research establishing the criteria for significance
assessment since many other cities in Indonesia have no
such guideline how to establish their heritage register.
This study is limited to find the criteria for significance
assessment of the cultural heritage, mainly the
immovable cultural heritage in Medan. Nevertheless, in
its practical, it needs to detail the principles and
indicators derived from each criterion. Therefore, for
more comprehensive finding, the following areas are
recommended to investigate for future study:
- The development of heritage principles and
indicators for significance assessment for every
criterion established by the study. The principles and
indicators would be guided and assist the assessor in
assessing the values of the historic asset. Then, the
fewer experience of people can be an assessor.
- Carrying out comprehensive inventory and
documentation of the immovable heritage in Medan,
including its mapping by using GIS. It can be more
helpful to assess the cultural significance of them.
The development of national criteria based on the
finding of the study on a critical review of the national
heritage list criteria, it includes the principles and
indicators for the assessment of the values.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The authors gratefully acknowledge that the present
paper is funded by the Universitas Sumatera Utara,
Medan, Indonesia regarding the contract of research
skim of TALENTA year 2018 Number: 2590 / UN5.1.R
/ PPM / 2017 dated March 16, 2018. Part of this paper
has been drawn from the author’s Ph.D. thesis entitled
“Criteria of Significance Assessment for the Cultural
Heritage by Involving Local Community Participation in
Medan, Indonesia.”
*****
REFERENCES
AICOMOS. (2013). Burra Charter (The latest Revision).
ICOMOS, Australia (Revised in 1981, 1999, and 2013).
Retrieved from http://australia.icomos.org/
Appiah, A. K. (2006). Cosmopolitanism: Ethics in the world of
strangers. New York: W. W. Norton.
Questionnaire
To finalize the
values and
criteria
2nd Group
Discussion
To validate and
Test the Criteria
Establishing on
Value Types and
Criteria for
significance
assessment
Inventory/
Documentation
on the
(immovable)
cultural heritage
of the town
Through field
survey
Interview
To benchmark
the value
types and
criteria
1st Group
Discussion
To confirm the
values and
criteria
Figure 11. Proposed Method for Establishing the Criteria of Significance Assessment by involving the local community
(Source: Authors, 2018)
Kapata Arkeologi Volume 15 Issue 1, 2019: 1—14
14
Australian Heritage Council. (2010). Identifying
Commonwealth Heritage Values and Establishing a
Heritage Register: a guideline for commonwealth
agencies. Retrieved from
http://www.environment.gov.au/
Avrami, E., Mason, R., & Torre, M. (2000). Values and
Heritage Conservation: Research Report. Los Angeles:
The Getty Conservation Institute.
China ICOMOS. (2015). Principles for the Conservation of
Heritage Sites in China. Los Angeles: The Getty
Conservation Institute.
Chirikure, S., Pwiti, G., Damm, C., Folorunso, C. A., Hughes,
D. M., Phillips, C., ... & Pwiti, G. (2008). Community
involvement in archaeology and cultural heritage
management: An assessment from case studies in
Southern Africa and elsewhere. Current Anthropology,
49(3), 467—485.
Clark, K. (2014). Values-based heritage management and the
Heritage Lottery Fund in the UK. APT Bulletin, Journal
of Preservation Technology, 45(2-3), 65—71.
Clark, K., & Maeer, G. (2008). The cultural value of heritage:
evidence from the Heritage Lottery Fund. Cultural
Trends, 17(1), 23—56.
Dian, A. M., & Abdullah, N. C. (2013). Public participation in
heritage sites conservation in Malaysia: Issues and
challenges. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences,
101, 248—255.
Engelhardt, R. A., & Rogers, P. R. (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: UNESCO Bangkok.
English Heritage. (2008). Sustaining the historic environment.
In Graham Fairclough, Rodney Harrison, John H.
Jameson Jnr & J. Schofield (Eds.), The Heritage Reader.
New York: Routledge.
Fitri, I., Ahmad, Y., & Ahmad, F. (2015). Conservation of
Tangible Cultural Heritage in Indonesia: A Review
Current National Criteria for Assessing Heritage Value.
Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 184, 71—78.
Fitri, I., & Yahaya. (2017). Identification and Documentation
of the Immovable Cultural Heritage in Medan City,
North Sumatra. Proceeding the 2nd International
Nusantara Cultural Heritage (INCH) Symposium
(pp.146—150). Padang.
Frey, B. S. (1994). Cultural Economics and Museum
Behaviour. Scottish Journal of Political Economy, 41,
325—335.
ICOMOS. (1987). Charter for the Conservation of Historic
Towns and Urban Areas (Washington Charter).
Retrieved from http://www.international.icomos.org/
ICOMOS. (1996). Principles for the Recording of Monuments,
Groups of Buildings and Sites. The 11th ICOMOS
General Assembly in Sofia. Retrieved from
http://www.icomos.org/
Johnson, N. (2000). Historical Geographies of the Present. In
B. Graham & C. Nash (Eds.), Modern Historical
Geographies (pp. 251–72). Harlow: Prentice Hall.
Jokilehto, J. (2005). Definition of Cultural Heritage:
References to documents in history. ICCROM Working
Group Heritage and Society, 4—8.
Kerr, J. S. (2013). The Seventh Edition Conservation Plan, A
Guide to preparation plans for places of European
Cultural Significance. Sydney: Australian ICOMOS.
Lipe, W. D. (1984). Value and Meaning in Cultural Resources.
In H. Cleere (Ed.), Approaches to the Archaeological
Heritage (pp. 1—11). Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Lithgow, K., & Thackray, D. (2009). The National Trust’s
approach to conservation. Conservation Bulletin, 60, 16-
19.
Macdonald, S., & Ostergren, G. (2011). Developing a Historic
Thematic Framework to Assess the Significance of
Twentieth-Century Cultural Heritage: An Initiative of the
ICOMOS International Scientific Committee on
Twentieth-Century Heritage. An Expert Meeting Hosted
by the Getty Conservation Institute ed. Los Angeles, CA:
The Getty Conservation Institute.
Mason, R. (2002). Assessing Values in Conservation Planning:
Methodological Issues and Choices. In Marta de la Torre
(Ed.), Assessing the Values of Cultural Heritage (pp.
p.5—30). Los Angeles: The Getty Conservation Institute.
Mason, R. (2008). Assessing Value in Conservation Planning.
Methodological Issues and Choices. In Graham
Fairclough, Rodney Harrison, John H. Jameson Jnr &
John Schofield (Eds.), The Heritage Reader (pp. 95—
125). New York: Routledge.
O’Connor, Z. (2011). Valuation of Cultural Heritage: toward a
conceptual model and potential evaluation strategies. In
Mittleman D., & Middleton D. A. (Eds.), The 42nd
Annual Conference of the Environmental Design
Research Association (pp. 189—196). Chicago:
Environmental Design Research Association.
Orbasly, A. (2008). Architectural Conservation, Principle and
Practice. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
Rand, E., & Chabbi, A. (2007). Recording, Documentation,
and Information Management for the Conservation of
Heritage Places, lllustrated examples. Los Angeles, CA:
The Getty Conservation Institute.
Riganti, P., & Nijkamp, P. (2004). Valuing Cultural Heritage
Benefits to Urban and Regional Development. Paper
presented at the 44th European Congress of The
European Regional Science Association Regions and
Fiscall Federalism. Porto: University of Porto.
Stovel, H. (2002). An Advisory Body View of the
Development of Monitoring for World Cultural Heritage.
In Venice Congress Proceedings Monitoring World
Heritage (pp. 17—21). Vicenza: UNESCO World
Heritage Centre.
Tomback, D. H. (2007). Valuing our heritage. In M. Forsyth
(Ed.), Understanding Historic Building Conservation (pp.
204—210). Victoria: Wiley-Blackwell.
Undang-Undang RI. UU tentang Cagar Budaya, Pub. L. No. 11
(2010). Indonesia.
UNESCO. (1976). Nairobi Recommendation: International
Recommendation concerning the Safeguarding and
Contemporary Role of Historic Areas. Retrieved from
http://www.icomos.org/
Venice Charter. (1964). International Charter for the
Conservation and Restoration of Monuments and Sites.
Venice.
World Bank. (1994). Final Report of the Participatory
Development Learning Group. NW Washington, DC:
World Bank.
Worthing, D., & Bond, S. (2008). Managing Built Heritage:
The Role of Cultural Significance. Oxford: Wiley-
Blackwell.
Zancheti, S. M., Hidaka, L. T. F., Ribeiro, C., & Aguiar, B.
(2009). Judgment and Validation in the Burra Charter
Process: Introducing feedback in assessing the cultural
significance of heritage sites. City & Time, 4(2), 47—53.
Zerrudo, E. B. (2008). The Cultural Mapping Project of the
Heritage City of Vigan: Towards building a Framework
for Heritage Conservation and Sustainable Development.
Paper presented at the 3rd International Memory of the
World Conference. Canberra: UNESCO Australia.
