HERITAGE AS A SOCIAL CONSTRUCT: AN EXPLORATORY STUDY OF HERITAGE DEFINITIONS, BENEFITS, AND PRACTICES AS PERCEIVED BY INDONESIAN KEY HERITAGE ACTORS By Teguh Amor Patria A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Sustainable Tourism and Protected Area Management – Doctor of Philosophy 2021 ABSTRACT HERITAGE AS A SOCIAL CONSTRUCT: AN EXPLORATORY STUDY OF HERITAGE DEFINITIONS, BENEFITS, AND PRACTICES AS PERCEIVED BY INDONESIAN KEY HERITAGE ACTORS By Teguh Amor Patria Since 1987, conscious heritage conservation and heritage interpretation community groups have been proliferating in Indonesia. The emergence of these heritage groups has raised public awareness of heritage and heritage conservation in Indonesia. However, because conscious heritage work by Indonesians is a relatively recent phenomenon, limited scholarly attention had been paid to this field of study. Thus, there has been a need to explore heritage- related concepts and processes in the Indonesian context. The purpose of this exploratory study is to begin to understand how Indonesian key actors working in conscious heritage conservation and interpretation define heritage, why conscious heritage conservation and interpretation are important, what motivates key actors, particularly as related to heritage benefits to individuals and society, how key actors practice their heritage work, and their recommendations for principles for how such work should be practiced. The study uses in-depth interviews of key actors, identified through purposive sampling. The study involved 11 respondents from two Indonesian cities, namely Bandung, representing Dutch colonial-built heritage, and Yogyakarta, a city with a strong Javanese culture, and representing two types of heritage work, heritage conservation and interpretation. Study findings suggest that key actors’ definitions of heritage have evolved over their lifespans and experiences. Current collective definitions of heritage consider it to 1) represent outstanding values of the past that are passed on and beneficial to the next generation; 2) be a complex, integrated system comprising diverse elements – including tangible and intangible, and cultural, natural, and spiritual elements that all interact; and 3) give a community identity and strength. Motivations of heritage workers are related to the perceived benefits of heritage that accrue to both individuals and society, and that include: financial benefits (personal and community); raised societal awareness of heritage and values; knowledge about local history and local wisdom; development of social skills, creation of local ambiance, place identity, and community pride; maintenance of living traditions and cultural aspects of social life; and improved societal wellbeing. Actual heritage practices include raising public awareness of heritage through varied activities such as disseminating heritage information to the public and organizing outreach programs for the public; conducting inventories of heritage resources; helping governments prepare policies vis-à-vis heritage conservation; using heritage as a modality to assist with redevelopment of communities after natural disasters; and developing local heritage-themed, community-based tour opportunities. Interviewees conveyed that heritage work could have been done more effectively in the past if the approach had been comprehensive and culturally appropriate, had involved diverse stakeholders within a community or society, conserved all integrated elements of heritage, and been based on local wisdom and histories. These principles are recommended for future heritage work. Study findings contribute to understanding perceptions of and work related to heritage, particularly from the Indonesian perspective; factors that influence these perceptions, including the strong role of spiritual values; the role of community-based heritage groups in conducting community-level heritage work; and the societal and individual benefits of heritage conservation and interpretation that motivate the work. Scholarly contributions include the role of specific concepts and theories as they influence perceptions of heritage and associated work, including broadly heritage as a social construct and, more specifically, interactions among people and place, place attachment, social exchange theory, collective memory, and roles of memory sites. Practical implications include providing a foundation for heritage-related government policies and regulations, insights into criteria for heritage conservation and interpretation priorities based on relevance and benefits to society and individuals, and contributions to effective heritage conservation and interpretation practices in Indonesia. Copyright by TEGUH AMOR PATRIA 2021 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to extend my deepest gratitude to my academic advisor-cum-committee chairperson, Dr. Gail A. Vander Stoep, for her thorough guidance, patience, encouragement, and support throughout my Ph.D. journey. Dr. Vander Stoep has broadened my perspectives and challenged me to strive for a higher level of performance. I also would like to extend my deepest gratitude to Dr. Kimberly Chung, my dissertation chairperson, also for her thorough guidance, patience, and encouragement, particularly throughout the fieldwork and data analysis stages. My sincere gratitude goes to Dr. Charles Kurt Dewhurst and Dr. Mindy Morgan for their continuous encouragement, patience, and understanding throughout the dissertation process, and valuable input during the dissertation defense. I also would like to express my gratitude to everyone who has given their time, encouragement, and assistance during various stages of my dissertation completion: to all my friends and families in the Department of Community Sustainability and East Lansing, Michigan, especially Udita Sanga, Rachel Larimore, Timothy Silberg, Chris Bardenhagen, and Astri Briliyanti for valuable sharing; to my family in Indonesia, especially my siblings (Munastiti Budiastuti, the late Endang Dwiningsih, Gunawan Trianggorokasih, Turendah Djuni Ratnawati, and Ambaria Suprabasari) and their families for their continuous encouragement; to colleagues and friends in Indonesia, especially Ratna Kemala, Defi Mahardani, Cahya Agung Mulyana, Aqilah Nurul Khaerani, Choirul Anam Ahmad, and Rifky Ramadhan, for their assistance during the data analysis stage; and to my colleagues and students in the Tourism Destination Department at the University of Bina Nusantara for their patience during my absence from work to finish my study. This research could not have been possible without the opportunity and tremendous support from the Indonesian Government, through the Beasiswa Pendidikan Pascasarjana – Luar Negeri (BPP-LN) scholarship provided by the Ministry of Education and Culture. In v addition, support also was provided by Michigan State University and my home university, University of Bina Nusantara in Jakarta. Last but not least, my utmost gratitude goes to my beloved late parents, Suhadi Hadi Pandoyo and Tukiyah Martodiwiryo, who always believed that I would be able to continue my academic studies at a high level. I am dedicating this work to both of you. vi TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES __________________________________________________________ xi LIST OF FIGURES _________________________________________________________ xii Chapter One Introduction ____________________________________________________ 1 1.1 Context and Background for the Study ______________________________________ 1 1.2 Statement of the Problem _________________________________________________ 7 1.3 Purpose of the Study ____________________________________________________ 9 1.4 Research Questions _____________________________________________________ 9 1.5 Significance of the Study ________________________________________________ 10 1.6 Definitions of Terms ____________________________________________________ 11 1.7 Study Delimitations _____________________________________________________ 12 1.7.1 Geographic _________________________________________________________ 12 1.7.2 Types of Heritage Groups ______________________________________________ 13 1.7.3 Study Subjects ______________________________________________________ 13 1.8 Organization of the Study ________________________________________________ 13 Chapter Two Literature Review ______________________________________________ 15 2.1 History of Conscious Heritage Conservation ________________________________ 15 2.2 Need for Non-Western Concepts and Practices of Heritage Conservation in Asia __ 22 2.2.1 Heritage Conservation Practices in Asia and Southeast Asia, as Influenced by Their Worldviews _____________________________________________________________ 25 2.2.2 Origin of Eastern Views of Impermanence _________________________________ 28 2.3 History of Conscious Heritage Conservation in Indonesia _____________________ 30 2.4 Tangible and Intangible Aspects of Heritage ________________________________ 34 2.5 Scholarly Concepts Informing the Study____________________________________ 40 2.5.1 Heritage as a Social Construct __________________________________________ 42 2.5.2 Interactions among People and Place _____________________________________ 43 2.5.3 Place Attachment ____________________________________________________ 45 2.5.4 Social Exchange Theory _______________________________________________ 47 2.5.5 Collective Memory and Memory Sites _____________________________________ 48 2.5.6 Cultural Heritage Management __________________________________________ 50 2.6 Recent Studies about Heritage in Indonesia _________________________________ 51 Chapter Three Methods ____________________________________________________ 55 3.1 Research Approach ____________________________________________________ 55 3.2 Study Context _________________________________________________________ 56 3.3 Overview of Study Design _______________________________________________ 59 3.4 Sampling Plan _________________________________________________________ 61 3.4.1 Case Study Cities ____________________________________________________ 61 3.4.2 Key Actors from Select Community Heritage Groups _________________________ 73 vii 3.5 Instrument Development and Pilot Testing __________________________________ 75 3.6 Data Collection ________________________________________________________ 76 3.6.1 Review of Groups’ Online Materials ______________________________________ 76 3.6.2 Gaining Access to and Building Rapport with Potential Initial Respondents ________ 77 3.6.3 In-depth Interviews ___________________________________________________ 78 3.6.4 Recording, Transcribing, Translating Interview Data __________________________ 79 3.7 Data Analysis__________________________________________________________ 80 3.7.1 Memos ____________________________________________________________ 80 3.7.2 Coding ____________________________________________________________ 81 3.7.2.1 Development of code book __________________________________________ 81 3.7.2.2 Text tagging _____________________________________________________ 81 3.7.3 Data Extraction and Condensation _______________________________________ 81 3.7.4 Displays ___________________________________________________________ 82 3.7.4.1 Interpretation of summary statements _________________________________ 82 3.7.4.2 Quotations ______________________________________________________ 82 3.8 Addressing Ethical Issues _______________________________________________ 83 3.8.1 Institutional Review Board _____________________________________________ 83 3.8.2 Research Participant Information and Consent Form (RPICF) __________________ 83 Chapter Four Findings and Discussion ________________________________________ 86 4.1 Definitions of Heritage According to Key Actors Involved with Heritage Work _____ 88 4.1.1 Key Actors’ Definitions of Heritage Have Evolved Over Time ___________________ 88 4.1.1.1 Key actors’ initial definitions of heritage were focused on tangible elements ____ 88 4.1.1.1.1 Early exposures from childhood ___________________________________ 89 4.1.1.1.2 Awareness and interest triggered in university ________________________ 90 4.1.1.1.3 First impressions and understandings mostly associated with the built environment and other tangible heritage forms _______________________________ 91 4.1.1.2 Definitions expanded to include significance and meanings of built environments 92 4.1.1.2.1 Aspects prompting recognition and exploration of the role of intangible elements ___________________________________________________________________ 93 4.1.1.2.2 Recognition of the importance of intangible representations _____________ 94 4.1.1.3 Definitions expanded to conscious selection of heritage values ______________ 95 4.1.1.3.1 Values-based selection of heritage ________________________________ 95 4.1.1.3.2 Important values for future generations _____________________________ 96 4.1.1.3.3 Modification of heritage values for future generations __________________ 97 4.1.1.4 Definitions expanded to view heritage as a complex system ________________ 98 4.1.2 Current Definitions of Heritage __________________________________________ 99 4.1.2.1 Outstanding values passed and beneficial to the next generation____________ 100 4.1.2.2 Heritage as a complex system of various elements ______________________ 101 4.1.2.3 Outstanding values as identity and strength ____________________________ 102 4.1.3 Integration of Tangible and Intangible Elements ____________________________ 102 4.1.3.1 A holistic view of heritage __________________________________________ 103 4.1.3.2 Tangible and intangible heritage together create unique values and identity for communities __________________________________________________________ 104 viii 4.1.3.3 Differences in findings between Bandung and Yogyakarta interviewees_______ 105 4.1.4 Discussion: Heritage Definition as Values of the Past that Benefit the Next Generations _____________________________________________________________________ 107 4.2 Motivations for Conscious Heritage Conservation and Interpretation ___________ 117 4.2.1 Benefits of Heritage Conservation and Interpretation for Individuals _____________ 118 4.2.1.1 Financial benefits of heritage conservation and interpretation to individuals ____ 118 4.2.1.1.1 Increased value of heritage properties as a result of adaptive reuse ______ 118 4.2.1.1.2 Income generation using local traditional arts and culture ______________ 120 4.2.1.1.3 Income generation using heritage sites as tourist attractions or facilities ___ 122 4.2.1.2 Non-financial benefits of heritage interpretation to individuals ______________ 124 4.2.2 Benefits of Heritage Conservation and Interpretation to Societies _______________ 125 4.2.2.1 Raising society’s awareness of their heritage value ______________________ 125 4.2.2.2 Generating knowledge about local history and local wisdom _______________ 126 4.2.2.3 Teaching social skills _____________________________________________ 127 4.2.2.4 Building local ambiance, place identity, and community pride _______________ 128 4.2.2.5 Maintaining living traditions and cultural aspects of social life _______________ 129 4.2.2.6 Improving society’s wellbeing _______________________________________ 130 4.2.3 Discussion: Benefits of Heritage as Knowledge and Place Identity, Income and Tourism _____________________________________________________________________ 132 4.2.3.1 Period between 1985 and 1993 _____________________________________ 133 4.2.3.2 Period between 1994 and 2005 _____________________________________ 136 4.2.3.3 Period between 2006 and 2019 _____________________________________ 140 4.3 Heritage Practices _____________________________________________________ 144 4.3.1 Key Actors’ Actual Practice of Heritage Work ______________________________ 144 4.3.1.1 Raising public awareness/disseminating information/organizing outreach programs on heritage ___________________________________________________________ 145 4.3.1.1.1 Organized public discussions about heritage ________________________ 145 4.3.1.1.2 Organized community art and cultural events _______________________ 147 4.3.1.1.3 Disseminated heritage information to the community at large ___________ 150 4.3.1.1.4 Organized capacity-building programs for the community at large ________ 152 4.3.1.1.5 Organized post-disaster recovery programs for affected communities _____ 153 4.3.1.2 Conducting inventories of heritage ___________________________________ 155 4.3.1.3 Helping governments prepare policies vis-à-vis heritage conservation ________ 156 4.3.1.4 Developing local heritage-themed, community-based tours ________________ 157 4.3.1.5 Point of differenc ________________________________________________ 159 4.3.2 Key Actors’ Vision for How Heritage Work Should be Practiced ________________ 161 4.3.2.1 Heritage work should be supported by diverse community stakeholder groups, networks, systems, and regulations ________________________________________ 161 4.3.2.2 Heritage work should consider comprehensive heritage elements ___________ 165 4.3.2.3 Community should conduct research about local history and heritage ________ 166 4.3.2.4 Community development should be based on local wisdom ________________ 167 4.3.2.5 Local community-based heritage tourism development should use a bottom-up approach ____________________________________________________________ 169 ix 4.3.3 Discussion: Heritage as a Comprehensive Practice toward Quality Community Living _____________________________________________________________________ 170 Chapter Five Conclusions and Recommendations _____________________________ 180 5.1 Conclusions and Questions Raised_______________________________________ 180 5.1.1 Heritage as A Dynamic, Continuing Process of Values Assessments and Perceptions _____________________________________________________________________ 183 5.1.2 Heritage as A Reflection of Worldviews: Eastern vs Western __________________ 183 5.1.3 Heritage as An Evolution of Understanding Past Values ______________________ 184 5.1.4 Heritage as a Consequence of Decisions Involving Social Power Dynamics_______ 185 5.1.5 Evolution of Indonesia’s Heritage Perceptions as a Reflection and Compression of Global Evolution of Heritage Perceptions ______________________________________ 187 5.1.6 Heritage as Oriented toward Future Community Welfare and Wellbeing __________ 188 5.1.7 Heritage as a Social Construct, Imbued with Contradictions ___________________ 189 5.2 Scholarly Contributions and Knowledge Creation ___________________________ 190 5.2.1 Scholarly Contributions _______________________________________________ 190 5.2.2 Contributions to Knowledge about Indonesia’s Heritage Conservation and Interpretation Development ___________________________________________________________ 192 5.3 Practical Applications and Recommendations for Indonesian Heritage Work _____ 195 5.3.1 Providing a Foundation for Government Policies and Regulations ______________ 195 5.3.2 Developing Processes and Criteria for Prioritizing which Heritage to Conserve and Interpret _______________________________________________________________ 196 5.3.3 Developing Recommendations for Partnership Development __________________ 197 5.3.4 Identify Innovative Applications of Heritage Work ___________________________ 197 5.3.5 Provide Insights into Direction for Heritage Tourism Professional Training ________ 198 5.4 Study Limitations _____________________________________________________ 198 5.4.1 Limitations in Study Sample ___________________________________________ 199 5.4.2 Transcription and Translation Constraints _________________________________ 199 5.5 Recommendations for Future Studies _____________________________________ 201 5.5.1 Factors that Influence Definitions of Heritage and Identification of Heritage Assets _ 201 5.5.2 Benefits and Costs of Heritage Conservation and Interpretation ________________ 202 5.5.3 Understanding Choices and Priorities in Heritage Practice ____________________ 203 5.5.4 Linking Heritage and Tourism __________________________________________ 203 5.5.5 Addressing Limitations and Delimitations of this Study in Future Studies _________ 204 APPENDICES ____________________________________________________________ 205 APPENDIX A Early Development of Heritage Groups in Indonesia _______________ 206 APPENDIX B Research Participant Information and Consent Form ______________ 216 APPENDIX C Sample of Interview Guide ____________________________________ 218 APPENDIX D Sample of Interview Guide (Follow-Up Interview) _________________ 221 APPENDIX E Coding ____________________________________________________ 224 REFERENCES ___________________________________________________________ 233 x LIST OF TABLES Table 1 Distribution of Respondents Across City and Type of Heritage Groups ___________ 74 Table 2 Terminology and Scale to Approximate the Extent of Discussion of Ideas across the 11 Interviewees___________________________________________________________ 87 Table A 1 Timeline of Key Events in the Development of Conscious Heritage Conservation and Interpretation in Indonesia _______________________________________________ 209 Table E 1 Definition of Heritage ______________________________________________ 224 Table E 2 Criteria for Heritage _______________________________________________ 224 Table E 3 Evolution of Heritage Definition _______________________________________ 225 Table E 4 How They SHOULD Practice ________________________________________ 226 Table E 5 How They ACTUALLY Practice ______________________________________ 226 Table E 6 Community Practice _______________________________________________ 227 Table E 7 Benefits for Common People ________________________________________ 228 Table E 8 Benefits for Society ________________________________________________ 229 Table E 9 Separability ______________________________________________________ 230 Table E 10 Necessity of Intangible Heritage for Conservation Success ________________ 230 Table E 11 Interdisciplinary__________________________________________________ 231 Table E 12 Tourism _______________________________________________________ 231 Table E 13 Accomplishments ________________________________________________ 232 xi LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Locator Map of Asia and Europe _______________________________________ 26 Figure 2 Locator Map of Indonesia and the United States of America __________________ 57 Figure 3 Indonesia with the Island of Java Identified _______________________________ 59 Figure 4 Java Island and Its Six Provinces, with Two Study Cities Identified: Bandung and Yogyakarta ___________________________________________________________ 60 Figure 5 Examples of Heritage Buildings in Bandung ______________________________ 63 Figure 6 Bandung’s City Hall Park _____________________________________________ 67 Figure 7 Examples of Tangible and Intangible Heritage in Yogyakarta _________________ 70 Figure 8 A Placard Depicting Yogyakarta’s Imaginary Axis and One of Its Points, Malioboro Street ________________________________________________________________ 71 Figure 9 Borobudur Temple _________________________________________________ 115 Figure 10 Braga Street Bandung _____________________________________________ 134 Figure 11 Monthly Meeting of A Heritage Conservation Group in Yogyakarta____________ 147 Figure 12 Displays at A Heritage Exhibition in Bandung ___________________________ 149 Figure 13 Market in Kotagede, Yogyakarta ______________________________________ 177 Figure A 1 Example of Recent Revitalization of Old Town of Semarang, the Capital of Central Java ________________________________________________________________ 208 Figure A 2 A Monthly Discussion Session of Bandung Heritage _____________________ 211 Figure A 3 Visiting Senior High School Students at a Batik Workshop with Kotagede Heritage Trails _______________________________________________________________ 213 Figure A 4 International Tourists on a Historical Walk of Bandung, Organized by Bandung Trails _______________________________________________________________ 215 xii Chapter One Introduction 1.1 Context and Background for the Study In a multitude of circumstances, tourism grows impromptu as part of or a consequence of a local community’s or a region’s economic, social, and cultural activities associated with tourist destinations (Aliyah et al., 2016; Tiberghien et al., 2017), in contrast to tourism that occurs in carefully planned and managed tourist resorts (Ozdemir, 2007). Examples of local economic activity are the transactions that occur between sellers and buyers at a local traditional market (Aliyah et al., 2007), whereas an example of a local social or cultural activity is organization of an art and cultural festival by a local community (Quinn, 2019). Some local economic, social, and cultural activities attract not only local residents but also visitors from other regions (Ashworth & Tunbridge, 2001; Judd & Fainstein, 1999; Smith et al., 2018). These attractions that are part of a local community’s fabric of daily life are different from tourism experiences that occur in tourist resorts, such as theme parks or holiday resorts that were planned intentionally and built as properties exclusively for tourists (Milman, 1991; Réau, 2011). In some instances, tourist resorts have been planned and managed to integrate local communities with resort areas and to protect local resources, but these developments still arise from careful and intentional planning targeting tourists (Gunn & Var, 2002; Ozdemir, 2007), and often local people are relegated to low-paying service jobs or theatrical presentations of their culture. The point is that there is a difference in tourism venues that are intentionally planned and developed to attract and service tourists and those community-based natural and cultural resources that attract tourists because they are unique and interesting parts of the communities (Mtapuri & Giampiccoli, 2019; Salazar, 2012). This study is concerned with the latter, whereby cultural resources and their surrounding landscapes are integral components of local communities first, and that also can become tourism attractions. 1 People have been traveling for various purposes, including visiting or participating in economic, social, and cultural activities in other regions, for thousands of years – for example, travelers during the ancient Egyptian (2,700-343 B.C.), Greek (700-480 B.C.), and Roman (753 B.C.-476 A.D.) periods who traveled for religion-, sport-, and culture-related reasons; the young English aristocrats who visited classical sites and cities in continental Europe on a cultural Grand Tour in the 17th and 18th centuries; and contemporary tourists who travel to see and experience different aspects of places and communities outside of their home regions (Rabotic, 2014; Romero, 2013; Towner, 1996). Travelers’ diverse intentions, broadly to seek benefits from their travels, have become the reasons for modern travel and tourism industries to segment tourist markets so that supply and demand, as well as the promotion of tourist destinations, can more effectively link tourists having specific motivations with appropriate destinations and experiences (Frochot & Morrison, 2000). From the supply side, segmentation is useful for travel and tourism industries to plan, market, and manage tourism products for targeted tourists. From the demand side, it is useful for the tourist market to seek, decide on, and experience types of tourism most desirable to them (Bloom, 2004; Dolnicar, 2002; Hennessey et al., 2012). A tourist market can be segmented based on the type of tourist attractions they visit or activities they do in a tourist destination (Dolnicar, 2008; McKercher et al., 2002; Mumuni & Mansour, 2014). Heritage tourism is one of those market segments. Within the context of heritage tourism1, 1 There has been debate among scholars on the definition of heritage tourism, mainly due to the complexities of heritage definitions and the different perspectives used by scholars from varied disciplines to define heritage tourism (Garrod & Fyall, 2001). I use Timothy’s reference to “heritage tourism” in his book, Cultural and Heritage Tourism: An Introduction (2 nd Edition), in which he describes heritage tourists as “travelers seeing or otherwise experiencing built heritage, living culture or manifestations of art” (2021, p. 4). 2 diverse heritage resources2 attract tourists for their varied perceived benefits3, even when the sites are identified, protected, and preserved primarily for their values to humanity rather than for tourism purposes (Li et al., 2008; Poria et al., 2003; Jimura, 2011; Timothy, 2018; Towner, 1996). Active and conscious4 heritage conservation5, promotion, and interpretation, whether tourism-oriented or otherwise, oftentimes are initiated by an organized entity, such as a governmental body, a business entity, a non-governmental organization, an interest group, an educational institution, or a group of residents (Fitri et al., 2015; Hollowell & Nicholas, 2009; Leader-Elliott, 2005; Power & Smyth, 2016; Sastramidjaja, 2014; Setiawan & Timothy, 2000; Yapp, 2020). Examples of conscious community-initiated heritage conservation, promotion, and interpretation endeavors, which can be assumed to have helped raise awareness of heritage among some community members, have been active in Indonesia since the last two decades of the 20th century. Since 1987, numerous heritage-focused community groups (“heritage groups” hereafter) have emerged in Indonesia. While these heritage groups share similar broad missions of raising community awareness of and interest in local heritage, their primary 2 The use of the term “heritage resources” here follows the description used by Timothy and Boyd (2003, p. 3) to refer to a combination of tangible immovable resources (e.g., buildings, rivers, natural areas); tangible movable resources (e.g., objects in museums, documents in archives); and intangibles such as values, customs, ceremonies, lifestyles, and experiences such as those expressed through festivals, arts, and cultural events. 3 Only for illustration, a study at a heritage park in Virginia found that the perceived benefits gained by visitors included knowledge and other more personal benefits, such as benefiting health, providing relaxation, gaining spiritual rewards, pursuing recreational activities, enjoying sightseeing, pursuing knowledge (particularly by those interested in natural and cultural attractions), and enriching existing personal knowledge (Chen, 1998). 4 The term “conscious” is used as an attribute of “heritage conservation” throughout this dissertation to indicate that people make planned and managed collective efforts at conserving heritage, as opposed to passing personal heritage to the next of kin. The use of “conscious” in this study follows that in Aygen (2013) when she describes early managed efforts regarding heritage conservation in Europe, “Lex Municipii Tarentini provides evidence for the existence of an early conservation management concept, challenging a common belief that dates the origins of conscious heritage conservation within a management frame to the European Enlightenment” (p. 1) 5 The term “conservation” is used throughout this dissertation. While preservation refers to “maintaining a place in its existing state and retarding deterioration” and often is used interchangeably with conservation, the term conservation usually covers a broader scope of actions than preservation, and is defined as “all the processes of looking after a place so as to retain its cultural significance” (The Australia ICOMOS Charter for Places of Cultural Significance, 2013). 3 functions, as ways of achieving this mission, can be categorized into two types: first, conserving local heritage (termed “heritage conservation groups” in this study), and second, organizing interpreted heritage activities to provide educational and recreational experiences for both residents and visitors (“heritage interpretation groups”) (Fitri et al., 2015; Patria, 2015; Sastramidjaja, 2014; Wiltcher & Affandy, 1993; Yapp, 2020). Heritage tourism, and the local groups that have conserved tangible heritage resources and developed interpreted experiences to help tourists understand local heritage, is a focus of my interests. However, before being able to study the heritage tourism experience specifically, it is essential first to understand the meanings of, experiences with, goals and rationales of local Indonesians for engaging in heritage-focused work. Thus, this exploratory study attempts to provide a foundation for understanding the development of conscious heritage conservation and interpretation within the Indonesian context so that future heritage tourism studies can be placed within a meaningful context for heritage more generally. Conscious attention to heritage in Indonesia, at least at the community level, seems to be a relatively recent phenomenon. Small, local community groups involved with heritage represent this awakening interest in and attention to heritage as an area of focused work. The emergence of Indonesian-led heritage groups since 1987 has raised questions: What has driven the emergence of heritage groups in Indonesia? How do Indonesian key actors of heritage groups perceive heritage? How do their perceptions of heritage impact the heritage-related conservation and interpretation work they do? And are these perceptions and resulting work compatible with Indonesian culture and values? For this study, I developed specific questions to begin to address these bigger questions by using them to guide interviews with key actors in two small regions of Indonesia. Key study questions are: How do Indonesian key actors of heritage groups define cultural heritage and practice their heritage work? What, according to select Indonesian heritage group key actors, is the importance of heritage work, and what motivated them to conserve and interpret cultural heritage to the public at large? How do 4 Indonesian heritage group key actors perceive the relative importance of tangible and intangible heritage? Because heritage develops and is given meaning within the context of socio-cultural milieus of communities, I propose that heritage is a social construct, and will assess interviewee comments to guide confirmation or disconfirmation of this notion (Ashworth & Larkham, 1994). According to Dormaels (2013), “… heritage can never be considered objectively, as it does not exist prior to being discovered. It is a creation of those who make the claim for it and thus transform the way others perceive it” (p. 108). Dormaels’ statement indicates that, for “an object” to become heritage, people must have constructed a meaning of “the object.” This study intends to explore how the people – in this study, the Indonesian key actors of two types of heritage groups in two types of heritage communities – build meanings of heritage, perceive its importance, and practice heritage work. To study this phenomenon in the Indonesian context, it is helpful to understand the early development of heritage conservation and interpretation groups in Indonesia (for details, see Appendix A). The growth of heritage groups in Indonesia is a relatively recent phenomenon – since 1987 – that has received little research attention. While some studies recently were undertaken within the anthropological context to examine the phenomenon, with a focus on built colonial heritage (e.g., Sastramidjaja, 2014; van Roosmalen, 2013), there has been little research into the same phenomenon within the heritage tourism context. Despite the heritage groups’ missions, which may not purposefully be directed at heritage tourism development, the heritage groups’ work has provided building blocks for heritage tourism development in their respective regions. To date, there has been limited study about the reasons for emergence of these heritage groups, the conceptual foundations upon which their work is based, and the factors that have influenced the work of these groups. Thus, this study explores perceptions of Indonesian heritage groups’ key actors about heritage, their definitions, their work, and their recommendations for future work, based on several decades of collective experience and reflection about heritage conservation and interpretation work and its role in Indonesian society. 5 The locus of this study is Indonesia, a predominantly Eastern culture-oriented nation that has been influenced throughout its history by many cultural groups, countries, and religions. Nevertheless, compared with cultures of the Western world, where most previous heritage tourism studies have been conducted, Eastern cultures tend to be less material-centric and focus less on the “authenticity” of original material fabric in the conservation process (Akagawa, 2016; Chung, 2005; Winter, 2014; Winter, 2014). In Western, industrialized societies, reasons for the extensive focus on tangible heritage conservation have been identified as: industrialization/modernization, nationalism and collective nostalgia, scientific and educative importance, economic benefits of heritage, artistic and aesthetic values, environmental diversity, and functionality of resources (Merriman, 1992). Therefore, in Eastern nations, where it would seem that emphasis would be more typically on intangible heritage and values, it is puzzling that so much focus of their heritage conservation organizations is on tangible culture, including colonial heritage. Because of the differences between Eastern and Western philosophies, according to Timothy and Boyd (2006), studies pertaining to heritage tourism in Asian and other less industrialized societal contexts are needed. This study helps to address this research gap. Although the focus of this study is not specifically to identify if and how heritage is perceived and practiced in Indonesia as compared with Western, developed nations’ perceptions and practices, the Eastern context is relevant, and findings may provide some insight into the current status of perceptions and practice. I frame my exploration of heritage groups’ key actors’ perceptions and understandings of local heritage, and the choices they make regarding heritage group operations, using several conceptual approaches. One of the concepts having potential relevance to ground an understanding of heritage is “place attachment,” which is one potential outcome of the interaction between people and place. Thus, place attachment is one possible way to understand how key actors’ initial perceptions of heritage were constructed, how these perceptions might have contributed to their decisions to engage in heritage work, and how their 6 perceptions have influenced their decisions about which kinds of heritage to conserve and interpret, their perceptions of benefits of heritage, and what and how they conserve and interpret heritage. Place attachment is based on emotional bonds that people develop for a place (Oh et al., 2012). I propose that a relationship develops between people and the living environments in which they grow and live, and to which people feel attached, and that this connection influences their worldviews. In turn, people’s worldviews determine what meanings they give to objects, ideas, and practices, which in turn have the potential to become perceived as heritage. To complement place attachment as an outcome of interactions between people and place, I use the “social construct” concept as a potential way to understand the influences of interactions among people as relevant to heritage. A social construct can be defined as the understandings of the world that are collectively built by humans that become the basis for shared assumptions about reality (Galbin, 2014; Leeds-Hurwitz, 2009). In addition to the influence of interactions among “people and place” and “place attachment” in forming ideas about heritage, and considering heritage as a social construct, I consider other concepts as potentially relevant for helping frame and explain key actors’ perceptions of heritage, including their views about tangible and intangible aspects of heritage as they impact the kinds of heritage that key actors prioritize for their heritage conservation and interpretation work. I consider “social exchange theory,” “collective memory,” and “memory sites” to explore what drives key actors’ choices about which heritage to work on. Finally, one model for “cultural heritage management” is used as a framework for understanding how key actors engage in their heritage practices. 1.2 Statement of the Problem The archipelago of Indonesia has a long and complex history. It was only in 1945 that the current country of Indonesia declared independence. Over millennia, it has been influenced by the lives and cultures of diverse original peoples and by their interactions with other cultural 7 groups as a result of migrations, trade, war, conquests, and colonization. The region was colonized by the Dutch for nearly 350 years, and for three and a half years by the Japanese. Thus, the cultural tapestry is diverse, rich (Hannigan, 2015), and complex. Recognizing this heritage as special and something worthy of overt acknowledgement and protection, organized community groups having common interests in conserving and sharing these multiple heritages have developed in Indonesia, beginning in about 1987. The earliest groups seem to have focused on conserving architecturally significant buildings. Soon thereafter, initiatives to share these architectural landmarks with others, often by conducting guided tours, evolved into heritage trails organizations that interpreted the buildings to both locals and visitors. These conservation and interpretive initiatives and organizations grew out of the beliefs, interests, and passions of individuals who became the leaders. Those individuals each had been influenced by their upbringing, personal experiences, education, and work focus. Because much of the early heritage work was an outgrowth of scholars – working predominantly in architecture, urban planning, economics, and tourism, but also in other fields – at least some of their interest and work has been influenced by their academic training, often underpinned by Western perspectives, principles, and practices. As academics taught and involved their students, and as those involved shared their interests with others, this grassroots effort has expanded to many communities and attracted others outside of academic circles. During the evolution of the heritage movement, there was no broad, national, thoughtful scholarly, professional, or practical exploration of what Indonesian heritage is, which heritage representations should be conserved and interpreted, or what the approach to this work should be. This has resulted in a patchwork of efforts, most of them developed at the grassroots community level that, only in the first decade of the 21 st century, have begun to receive attention from society at a national scale. Therefore, it is an appropriate time to reflect on the motivations for heritage work, the perceptions of heritage work leaders about what constitutes heritage 8 (including considerations of tangible and intangible elements of heritage), and how the work of heritage conservation and interpretation in Indonesia should proceed into the future. Part of that exploration is to consider both the internal and external factors that have influenced heritage perceptions and work until now, to explore their perceptions within predominant Indonesian values, beliefs, and culture, and to make recommendations for the future of heritage work that will respect and reflect the Indonesian experience and values. 1.3 Purpose of the Study The purpose of this study is to explore how Indonesian key actors working in conscious heritage conservation and interpretation define heritage, why conscious heritage conservation and interpretation are important, how they motivate key actors and benefit individuals and society, how key actors practice their heritage work and their recommendations for how such work should be practiced. Ultimately, results can be used to recommend how Indonesian concepts of heritage can be applied appropriately to conscious heritage conservation and interpretation work in the future. 1.4 Research Questions Based on the purpose of the study, the following research questions guided this exploratory study: RQ1: How do Indonesian heritage leaders define cultural heritage and describe their practice? RQ2: Why is cultural heritage important, and what benefits result from conserving and interpreting heritage? RQ3: What is the relative importance of conserving tangible versus intangible elements of heritage? 9 1.5 Significance of the Study Findings of this study contribute to an understanding of how key actors of heritage groups in Indonesia define cultural heritage, perceive its importance and benefits, and practice their heritage work. Many scholars have conducted studies about heritage at a global level. At a national (Indonesian) level, heritage studies gradually have been increasing in number – conducted by domestic Indonesian scholars, sometimes in collaboration with foreign scholars – particularly since about 2015 (for illustration, see the last section of Chapter Two). However, little has been studied with regard to the phenomenon of the rise in conscious heritage conservation and interpretation work, which often is coordinated by local community groups, as discussed earlier in this chapter. More particularly, little is known about how key actors of heritage groups in a predominantly Eastern culture-oriented nation such as Indonesia define cultural heritage, perceive its importance and benefits, and practice their work. From a knowledge exploration perspective, findings of this study can help inform Indonesia about relevant key actors’ understanding about heritage, its importance, their motivations and heritage-related practices, and the relevance of these perceptions and work to the Indonesian cultural context. From a scholarly perspective, this study explores the potential relevance of several conceptual constructs and/or theories as grounding some elements of heritage studies. Assuming that heritage is a social construct, I propose that key actors’ perceptions of heritage reflect their shared understanding – as influenced by each other, their communities, and their interactions with place – about heritage as an attempt to make sense of, value, and explain their world. (The perception of heritage as a social construct is explained more in Chapter Two.) Other concepts that are explored for potential relevance are processes and interactions among people and place, place attachment, social exchange theory, collective memory, and memory sites. From a practical perspective, findings of this study can be used as a basis for cultural heritage management broadly, for policy development concerning conscious heritage conservation and heritage education, for recommendations for conscious heritage conservation 10 and interpretation practice, and for community-based heritage tourism development in Indonesia. Such policies and practical recommendations will be needed to help increase local communities’ awareness of and appreciation for both tangible and intangible cultural heritage in Indonesia, and can contribute to rationales for decisions about protecting and promoting those heritage artifacts that will be valued by the community into the future. 1.6 Definitions of Terms Several key terms are used frequently throughout this dissertation. The key terms and their definitions, presented in alphabetical order, are: Community: A body of people inhabiting the same locality. Such a community can be insular or cosmopolitan; insular community residents are usually bound by common ancestry, heritage, and culture, while diversity is a hallmark of cosmopolitan communities (Appiah, 2007; Johnson, 2000; Wenger, 1998). Conscious heritage conservation: Community’s planned and managed collective efforts to conserve heritage (Aygen, 2012) Conservation: “All the processes of looking after a place so as to retain its cultural significance” (The Australia ICOMOS Charter for Places of Cultural Significance, 2013, p. 2) Heritage: “The legacy of physical artifacts and intangible attributes of a group or society that are inherited from past generations, maintained in the present, and bestowed for the benefit of future generations” (UNESCO, 2017). Heritage group: Any cultural heritage-focused community group that has emerged during the past 30 years in Indonesia (since 1987), whose mission broadly incorporates one or both of the following: 1) to conserve local heritage and promote the communities’ interest in heritage conservation, and 2) to organize interpreted heritage tours or other kinds of activities to provide educational and recreational experiences for both residents and visitors. 11 Interpretation: “A mission-based communication process that forges emotional and intellectual connections between the interests of the audience and the meanings inherent in resource” (National Association for Interpretation, N.D.) Key actor: An individual who is a member of or associated with a heritage group, who has contributed significantly to a group’s formation and operations, and is innovative and influential to the development of the heritage field in Indonesia. This includes organization founders, board members, managers, and group members who meet the stated requirements. Place: “A geographically defined area. It may include elements, objects, spaces and views. Place may have tangible and intangible dimensions” (The Australia ICOMOS Charter for Places of Cultural Significance, 2013, p. 2). 1.7 Study Delimitations The key delimitations of this study all are related to sample selection, and include selection of geographic locations, heritage group types, and characteristics of heritage group representatives. 1.7.1 Geographic Even though the broad context of this study is Indonesia, the country covers a vast area, consisting of more than 13,000 islands stretching across 3,275 miles (5,271 km), located between the Indian and Pacific Oceans. The country is highly diverse, in terms of environment, socio-economy, and socio-culture. To narrow the geographic scope of the study, the island of Java was selected among the five major islands that are part of Indonesia because its communities have been leaders in the conscious heritage conservation movement. Specifically, the sampling frame was limited to two municipalities on the island of Java: Bandung, West Java, and Yogyakarta, the Special Region of Yogyakarta. 12 1.7.2 Types of Heritage Groups Heritage groups from which key actors were selected are limited to heritage conservation groups and heritage interpretation groups, as described in the definitions of terms. 1.7.3 Study Subjects Study subjects were selected from key actors (leaders) representing heritage conservation and heritage interpretation groups in the two communities identified, and included founders, board members, managers, and other group members. In addition, I selected key actors who were recommended by initial interviewees based on their being influential and innovative in the field of heritage at the national level. “Initial interviewees” refers to the first- identified leaders representing five heritage groups. Interviewees were limited to adults aged 18 and older having Indonesian citizenship. No other criteria, such as gender or education type or level, were used for respondent selection. 1.8 Organization of the Study The dissertation is organized in five chapters, as used in traditional dissertations. Chapter One, Introduction, provides the context and background for the study; statement of the problem; purpose of the study; research questions; significance of the study; definitions of terms; study delimitations; and organization of the study. Chapter Two, Literature Review, includes the history of conscious heritage conservation as well as literature identifying the need for non-Western concepts and practices of heritage conservation in Asia and describing the origin of Eastern views of impermanence. Also included is a summary of the history of conscious heritage conservation in Indonesia; tangible and intangible aspects of heritage; scholarly concepts informing the study (including concepts of heritage as a social construct, people and place interactions, place attachment, social exchange theory, and collective memory and memory sites), and a discussion of cultural heritage 13 management as an area of practice. Also summarized are recent studies about heritage in Indonesia. Chapter Three, Methods, describes the research approach, study context, an overview of the study design, sampling plan, instrument development and pilot testing, data collection, data analysis, and procedures used to address ethical issues. Chapter Four, Findings and Discussion, presents and discusses the findings, organized by definitions of cultural heritage according to key actors involved with heritage work, including discussions of the relationships among tangible and intangible heritage, motivations for conscious heritage conservation and interpretation as illuminated by societal and individual benefits, and heritage practices that include current and recommended practices in heritage work. Each major section of this chapter presents the findings followed by a discussion. Chapter Five, Conclusions and Recommendations, includes conclusions and broader discussion of the findings presented in Chapter Four, scholarly contributions and knowledge creation, practical applications and recommendations for Indonesian heritage work, study limitations, and recommendations for future studies. 14 Chapter Two Literature Review This chapter provides a contextual background to the focus of this study, which is conscious heritage conservation in select geographic areas of Indonesia, and a review of literature relevant to key questions. The contextual background includes an overview of the history of conscious heritage conservation and a growing realization of the need for non- Western concepts and practices of heritage conservation in Asia, with a focus on Southeast Asia. The global contextual background is followed by the history of conscious heritage conservation globally and in Indonesia, including what is academically known and unknown. Current knowledge about conscious heritage conservation in Indonesia underlies what may be its similarities and differences with the predominant global narrative, which leads to an inquiry pertaining to why an alternative framing may be needed for future conscious heritage conservation and interpretation applications in Indonesia. This chapter also includes a literature review of concepts related to research questions in this study, including concepts of tangible and intangible aspects of heritage, heritage as a social construct, interactions among people and place that can result in place attachment (and a potential factor influencing perceptions of heritage), collective memory and memory sites (as potential contributors to perceptions of heritage, and as factors influencing types and focus of heritage work), social exchange theory (as related to benefits), and the practice of cultural heritage management. 2.1 History of Conscious Heritage Conservation Passing down things of value – whether tangible or intangible – to the next generation is an integral part of human lives. Humans inherit things from their predecessors for a variety of purposes, such as transferring tangible possessions to their kin for the successors’ benefit or passing on intangible values, stories, and practices in part to help maintain their collective 15 identities (Feilden, 1993). The objects of inheritance include tangible elements, such as cultural goods and natural features and ecosystems, and intangible elements, such as sociocultural systems6. Recipients of inheritance are not limited to those who have familial relationships, but include the wider society whose members are not related by blood. To retain the worth of inheritance to benefit future generations, conservation becomes an indispensable factor in maintaining heritage longevity (Harvey, 2001). Conservation of heritage probably has been practiced for as long as humans have lived. However, based on written records in the history of Western civilization, specifically in Europe, conscious conservation of relics already was managed and implemented in the period of the ancient Roman Empire, such as that by the municipality of Tarentum (now the city of Taranto in southern Italy). As a former colony of Ancient Greece that inherited Greek antiquities, Tarentum had to apply Roman laws about safeguarding local built heritage through a method that was close to that of today’s restoration7 (Aygen, 2012). Restored Greek antiquities in Taranto that still exist today as evidence of restoration projects from the Roman Empire era challenged what was previously believed – that conscious heritage conservation was practiced only in the much more recent European Age of Enlightenment (Aygen, 2012; Gonzaléz-Varas, 2006; Ballart Hernández & Tresserras, 2001). The attribution “conscious” to heritage conservation elucidates a planned practice by a group of people or authorities to achieve a purpose, as opposed to a personal or a more spontaneous practice that simply maintains a feature or structure. An example of the use of “conscious” is seen in Aygen’s quote (2012) when she discusses planned and managed efforts regarding heritage conservation in Europe: “Lex Municipii Tarentini 6 Sociocultural systems consist of three layers, including infrastructure (technological/ environmental base of a system), structure (the organization of the system, which includes the political economy [economic and political organizations] and the domestic economy [kinship]), and superstructure (the mental life of the systems [ideas, beliefs, values, norms]) (Harris, 1979) 7 Restoration is defined as “returning the existing fabric of a place to a known earlier state by removing accretions or by assembling existing components without the introduction of new material” (Article 1.7 of the International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) Burra Charter) 16 provides evidence for the existence of an early conservation management concept, challenging a common belief which dates the origins of conscious heritage conservation within a management frame to the European Enlightenment” (p. 1), as introduced in a footnote in Chapter One. The institutionalization of conscious heritage conservation at the international level began to occur in the first half of the 20th century (Aygen, 2012). However, it is noteworthy that institutionalization of heritage conservation at the local or national level had been initiated in Europe in previous centuries, such as in Rome (6 AD), Italy (1462 and 1802), Sweden (1666), France (1789-99, 1815, 1819, 1830), and England (1877) (ICCROM, 2005). Such institutionalization refers to the provision of legal bases for heritage conservation matters, usually in the form of a convention or decree, by the authorities. The international institutionalization of heritage conservation began in 1931 with the production of the Athens Charter, organized by the International Museums Office and sponsored by the International Congress of Architects and Technicians of Historic Monuments, which was considered as “the philosophical foundation for the field of heritage preservation” (Goetcheus & Mitchell, 2014, p. 339). In the following decades, scores of international conventions were held to produce international guidance about the definition, scope, value, and terms concerning heritage conservation. Examples of the documents produced and considered as milestones in the international heritage conservation domain include: 1. the International Charter for the Conservation and Restoration of Monuments and Sites (Venice Charter) in 1964 by the General Assembly of International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS), which marked the initial use of the term “historic monument,” followed by the expansion of coverage of heritage from solely tangible heritage, such as historic monuments and buildings and groups of buildings, historical 17 urban and rural centers, and historic gardens, to include intangible heritage, such as environments, social factors, and intangible values (Ahmad, 2006); 2. the Convention concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage in 1972 by the General Conference of United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), in which the scope of heritage was expanded to include natural heritage, such as gardens, landscapes, and the environment (Ahmad, 2006); 3. the Australia ICOMOS Charter for Places of Cultural Significance (Burra Charter) in 1979, which expanded the values of heritage from categories of historic, aesthetic, and scientific value to include categories of artistic, social, and spiritual values; and 4. the Nara Document on Authenticity in 1994 by ICOMOS, which added cultural diversity, heritage diversity, tangible and intangible resources, as well as tradition as values of heritage (Goetcheus & Mitchell, 2014). Despite the evolutional nature of the definition, scope, value, and terms in relation to heritage conservation, as exemplified by the aforementioned charters, heritage remains a complex concept for which no universal consensus has been achieved regarding a refined definition (Ahmad, 2006; Albert et al., 2013). A multitude of definitions of heritage have been proposed by both practitioners and scholars. The profusion of definitions result from, and may be shaped differently by, the varied educational and professional backgrounds, cultural perspectives, and personal experiences, among others, of the people involved in expounding heritage. Another affecting factor may have been the complexity of heritage itself, making it difficult to define as a concept. However, it is noteworthy to acquaint readers with some foundational and formal definitions of heritage. Oxford’s Learner’s Dictionary defines heritage as “the history, traditions, and qualities that a country or society has had for many years and that are considered an important part of its character” (Oxford University Press, 2021). UNESCO, the internationally recognized institution of world heritage sites conservation, defines cultural heritage as “the 18 entire corpus of material signs – either artistic or symbolic – handed on by the past to each culture and, therefore, to the whole of mankind” (Draft Medium Term Plan 1990-1995 in ICCROM, 2005, p. 4). In 2003, UNESCO added intangible cultural heritage to its definition, meaning “… the practices, representations, expressions, knowledge, skills – as well as the instruments, objects, artefacts and cultural spaces associated therewith – that communities, groups and, in some cases, individuals recognize as part of their cultural heritage” (UNESCO Convention [Intangible Cultural Heritage], 2003). By synthesizing these definitions, cultural heritage is any object or idea or practice ascribed with value that is handed on from the past, that is mainly associated with collectivities (owned by a group of people and handed on to a group of people, as the notion “culture” suggests). Additionally, it is recognized that the definition of cultural heritage has gone through an evolution that has broadened the scope from only tangible objects to include intangible heritage. In organizing its work, UNESCO specifically focuses on World Heritages that are described as “… places on Earth that are of outstanding universal value to humanity and, as such, have been inscribed on the World Heritage List to be protected for future generations to appreciate and enjoy” (UNESCO, 2017). UNESCO categorizes world heritage into cultural and natural heritage, plus heritage associated with events of armed conflict. Cultural heritage is described in two categories: tangible cultural heritage, which comprises movable (e.g., paintings, sculptures, coins, manuscripts), immovable (e.g., monuments, archaeological sites), and underwater (shipwrecks, underwater ruins and cities) objects and structures, and intangible cultural heritage (e.g., oral traditions, performing arts, rituals). Natural heritage includes natural sites having cultural meanings, uses, and values such as cultural landscapes and physical, biological, or geological formations (UNESCO, 2017). Heritage in the event of armed conflict refers to cultural properties that are lost, damaged, or destroyed due to wars and need to be saved and protected (UNESCO, 2017). 19 As with efforts to define heritage, practitioners and scholars have been working to define “conservation.” ICOMOS was among the first institutions that made such an effort in 1981. Through the 2013 revision of its 1981 Burra Charter, it defined conservation as “all the processes of looking after a place so as to retain its cultural significance.” (The Australia ICOMOS Charter for Places of Cultural Significance, 2013, p. 2). In other words, conservation is a broad term covering all the methods used in maintaining the value and tangible forms of heritage. Included in the charter are the aforementioned methods under conservation, namely “maintenance,” “preservation,” and “restoration” as well as sites, values, and materials of conservation, including “place,” “cultural significance,” and “fabric.” The definitions of each of these terms, according to The Australia ICOMOS Charter for Places of Cultural Significance, 2013 (p. 2), are as follows: Maintenance: “continuous protective care of a place, and its setting,” to be distinguished from repair, which involves restoration or reconstruction. Preservation: “maintaining a place in its existing state and retarding deterioration.” Restoration: “returning a place to a known earlier state by removing accretions or by reassembling existing elements without the introduction of new material.” Place: “a geographically defined area. It may include elements, objects, spaces and views. Place may have tangible and intangible dimensions.” Cultural significance: “aesthetic, historic, scientific, social or spiritual value for past, present or future generations.” Fabric: “all the physical material of the place including elements, fixtures, contents and objects.” While the majority of these terms, with respective definitions, reflect tangible-focused meanings and definitions of heritage items to be conserved, these terms are used as standards throughout this dissertation. 20 Providing an alternative to, and extending beyond traditional Western ideas of conscious heritage conservation practices and associated museums that originated in Europe, which focused primarily on tangible heritage structures and objects of society’s elites, is the ecomuseum. Ecomuseums emerged and began to diffuse across the globe in the early 1970s. First introduced in France in 1971, the ecomuseum was an innovation that combined cultural heritage with the environment (Donghai, 2008; Nitzky, 2012). In an ecomuseum, cultural lifeways of all community members, including both common people and elites, are showcased through a collection of tangible cultural structures and objects set in natural environments, often accompanied by demonstrations of past lifestyles and cultural practices by costumed interpreters. Presentation of a complete community underlies use of the term “community museum” for ecomuseums: [An ecomuseum] is one which grows from below, rather than being imposed from above. It arises in response to the needs and wishes of people living and working in the area and it actively involves them at every stage while it is planned, and created afterwards when it is open and functioning, (Varine, 2006, p. 60) [It] is designed around and within the community in order to combine the natural and social environments, and extend activities of the museum and the focus of its work beyond the actual museum building and into the community. (Varine, 2006, p. 80) The ecomuseum concept diffused to many countries in the following decades. Application of the ecomuseum in China was one strategy used to address environmental impacts resulting from rapid industrialization in the 1980s (Donghai, 2008; Nitzky, 2012). The ecomuseum concept is believed to be rooted in the concept of open air museums that originated in northern Europe in the late 19 th century. Skansen, believed to be the first open air museum in the world, is a public park consisting of a collection of natural and cultural objects that showcase lifeways in Sweden’s past centuries, particularly the 18 th and 19th centuries. The park was founded as an educational effort in the 1870s by Arthur Hazelius, a Swedish educator, linguist, folklorist, and oral history pioneer. Driven by national pride, Hazelius portrayed a wide array of lifeways in Sweden by including those of elites and common people in both urban and 21 rural settings, and by incorporating their living traditions, arts, and cultural expressions within natural surroundings. Both open air museums and ecomuseums integrated tangible and intangible representations of heritage in what they conserved and interpreted. The opening of Skansen marked a milestone for these non-traditional museums and the idea spread to other parts of the world. North American examples include the founding of Colonial Williamsburg in the United States and Louisbourg in Canada (MacLean, 1998; Oliver, 2001). 2.2 Need for Non-Western Concepts and Practices of Heritage Conservation in Asia Universally held concepts and implemented practices of heritage conservation have been influenced heavily by Western philosophies. It was only after the 1994 Nara Conference produced the Nara Document on Authenticity in the city of Nara, Japan that concerns about the underrepresentation of Eastern philosophies of heritage conservation were acknowledged, addressed, and integrated into a pre-existing charter. Thus, these ideas were introduced overtly to the international community by ICOMOS (Forster et al., 2019). Prior to that, international congresses and conventions that produced charters and recommendations pertaining to definitions and coverage of heritage, and technical terms related to heritage conservation, predominantly reflected Western principles and practices that drew attention to tangible heritage. All the preceding 36 charters and recommendations produced in international congresses and conventions on heritage conservation, as listed by ICCROM (2005), showed an accumulation and an evolution of definitions, coverage, and terms with regard to the material aspects of tangible heritage and conservation. Of this list, the first was the 6 th International Congress of Architects, held in Madrid, Spain in 1904, and the most recent was the Charter for the Conservation of Places of Cultural Heritage Value that resulted from a convention held by ICOMOS New Zealand in New Zealand in 1992. The 1994 Nara Charter contextualized Eastern 22 views of conservative repair8 by illuminating the importance of elements of “spirit”’ and “feeling,” expanding beyond the more physical elements of form and design, materials and substance, and location and setting by combining those physical elements with the functional uses and traditions of those sites, and the techniques used to construct them (Forster et al., 2019). In other words, Eastern views of conservation expand beyond material aspects to include intangible aspects of heritage. To provide readers with a background on heritage conservation practices in the global West and East, descriptions of worldviews, principles, and goals of heritage conservation in the two worlds are presented below. Heritage conservation practices in the West generally are rooted in a view of life as a linear process, ideas of permanence, and emphasis on authenticity of the place fabric, whereas Eastern practices are rooted in life as a cyclic process, ideas of impermanence, and in the process of creating a place rather than authenticity of the place fabric (Forster et al., 2019; Tom, 2013; Winter, 2009; Winter, 2014). Western principles of heritage conservation are rooted in Aristotle’s entelecheia, a Greek-based philosophy that views life as a linear process (Sachs, 2005). This philosophy perceives life as a series of subsequent stages, from birth through existence and ultimately departure from life, and that death is viewed as a final stage of the process. In this philosophy, rebirth is non-existent. For example, a butterfly has four stages: egg, caterpillar (larva), chrysalis (pupa), and finally the adult butterfly that eventually dies. Preservation of a dead butterfly in its final form reflects both the linear process and the ideas of permanence and authenticity, in that the form and the materials of the dead butterfly should not be altered in any way. This perception, also characterized as “permanence” due to a process that has a final end, has 8 Conservative repair is “an approach that seeks to do as much as is necessary, yet as little as possible [to preserve the values or significance of a building], whereas Restoration stimulates more extensive interventions [to preserve the material aspects]” (Forster et al., 2019, p. 871). Conservative repair is grounded more in ideas of impermanence, as opposed to conservative restoration that is rooted in ideas of permanence. 23 influenced Western principles of heritage conservation. This philosophy has minimized interventions and changes to places with the goal of maintaining them in their original states. For example, when a relic is conserved, minimal interventions are made, with the goal of keeping the relic in the state as it is found, which should be as close to its original state as possible. Thus, the word “authentic” has become an important keyword in Western practices of heritage conservation. In this context, authenticity refers to the actual materials used in conserving a material heritage object. Attention to maintaining the original fabric of the heritage object is believed to best maintain and represent its historic, aesthetic, and rarity values (Tom, 2013). The authenticity principle also requires precision in choosing fabrics and returning the form of a conserved structure to its original state. The efforts at returning the authenticity should be based on empirical evidence provided by all physical senses, including sight, hearing, touch, smell, and taste (Forster et al., 2019). Alternatively, the Eastern approach to heritage conservation is based on a view of life as a cyclic process, and on ideas of the fundamental characteristic of impermanence. Cultures that have adopted a cyclic view of life believe in rebirth. Still using a butterfly as an example, the Eastern view believes that the energy of a dead butterfly is reborn even though the material form of the butterfly decomposes. The concept of rebirth is the essence of the ideas of impermanence of the physical. Thus, the re-creation process reflects ideas of impermanence. In the Eastern practice of heritage conservation, the process of rebuilding a heritage place should place emphasis on more than solely the authenticity of the fabrics. For example, in Japan, people tear down and rebuild a heritage building by applying the same techniques and using similar materials (but they do not have to be the same, or the original materials) every 20 years (Chapagain, 2013). As aforementioned, the Western-centric worldview and its corresponding principles and practices of heritage conservation have resulted in standardized heritage conservation guidelines, applied globally. However, questions about the suitability of such implementation in 24 non-Western countries, specifically in Asia and Africa, began to be expressed more openly. Cultural groups on these continents recognized that their values, principles, and practices are different from those in the West. One example is the importance of maintaining oral traditions. In response, and better integrating Eastern-influenced philosophies and practices, the 2010 ICOMOS Conference, considered another milestone for non-Western heritage conservation approaches, recommended that oral tradition be included as heritage (Aygen, 2012). Following is a description of heritage conservation principles broadly in Asia, then more specifically in Southeast Asia, as influenced by the more general worldviews and philosophies of those regions. 2.2.1 Heritage Conservation Practices in Asia and Southeast Asia, as Influenced by Their Worldviews Asia is too vast a region and is too culturally diverse to generalize as having a single worldview or philosophical approach to life. This geographic region spans from Western Russia and the Middle East in the western part of the region to Japan and China in the east, and from Russia in the north to India in the south (see Figure 1). Asia’s population had reached 4.678 billion people by May 2021, which represents nearly 60% of the world’s population (Worldometer, 2021). This region comprises multiple and diverse ethnicities, cultures, and traditions. 25 Figure 1 Locator Map of Asia and Europe Note. Source of base map: www.freepik.com. Southeast Asia, specifically, denotes a region situated in the southeastern part of the continent, consisting of the southeastern part of continental Asia and the Southeast Asian archipelago. It comprises the countries of Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, Thailand, Philippines, Singapore, and Vietnam, which account for 655 million people, or 14% of Asia’s total population and 8.5% of the world’s population as of January 2021. This region has served as a transit hub and destination for millennia for peoples from many parts of the globe, particularly for those from India, China, the Middle East, and Europe. Some traders and visitors brought with them their religions and cultures, disseminating their values to local inhabitants, who gradually embraced and fused the foreign cultures into their own, often creating new cultures. The new religions and cultures were embraced and some of their values have become a foundation for and focus of heritage conservation in Asia, including in Southeast Asia. The receptive characteristic of Asian peoples is described by 26 Chapagain (2013): “Furthermore, Welty views Asian people as receptive of, and adaptable to, new ideas and institutions while also keeping up with their [own] traditions. His reference to the diversity of Asian people and their versatile nature, which is well grounded in long-held traditions, is relevant to the discussion on Asian heritage management” (p. 1). Worldviews or philosophies of Southeast Asian cultures had been influenced predominantly by Hinduism and Buddhism, particularly before the 16 th century, which both originated in India and were brought to the Southeast Asian region by traders and visitors. Eastern principles of heritage conservation took root in the worldview of life as a cyclical process. In the Eastern worldview, life consists of stages as in Western worldviews, including birth, existence, and departure from life. However, what differentiates the Eastern worldview from that of the West is the rebirth that is believed to occur after physical departure from life, or a return to the beginning. Eastern cultures have developed a strong connection with spiritual and natural realms, and this underlies many of their beliefs (Chung, 2005; Rössler & Lin, 2018; Taylor, 2013). Consequently, in heritage conservation practices, the East places less importance on authenticity of tangible objects and the original materials used in their construction, and greater importance on the process of re-creating or rebuilding a conserved structure. An example of this practice is given by Chapagain (2013) of temple conservation work being done in Japan: For example, in Japan it was traditional practice to reconstruct an entire temple complex every twenty years, with a new group matching the existing one exactly, as happened with the Ise Temple (Chapter 1). This is a case where the ‘aura’ of authenticity in Walter Benjamin’s sense contradicts the cyclical reconstruction, … regarding places of worship. (p. 27) In contrast with the Western view of the importance of permanence, the East views impermanence as a way to maintain its heritage. Rebirth is associated with the continuation of current life, from which impermanence receives its context and meaning. In addition, Eastern cultures also place importance on people, nature, and culture as collectively representing holistic heritage. “If we look at many traditional or indigenous ways of maintaining heritage in 27 Asian cultures, it appears that heritage had been managed to ensure the continuity of its spiritual and social values” (Chapagain, 2013, p. 9). 2.2.2 Origin of Eastern Views of Impermanence One suggested origin of the importance of impermanence is Hinduism. In Hinduism, which was founded in India more than 4,000 years ago, the concept of jiirnnoddharana describes preservation of all aspects of heritage, including both its essence and its material as well as the process of creation and the rituals that co-occur with it (Tom, 2013). The spiritual aspect of jiimnoddharana represented Hindus’ belief in new life after death. This belief was analogized by the cycle of human life, which consists of birth, infancy, childhood, adolescence, and passing, followed by rebirth. The close association of this concept with the belief in the integration of human, natural, and spiritual realms became the foundation for conservation practices in most Eastern cultures. Thus, Eastern practices of heritage conservation do not emphasize authenticity of material culture and structures as do Western practices, but rather the process of creation itself. Precision in use of original materials and original structural forms, as promoted extensively in Western perceptions of heritage conservation, are not important. On one hand we find the Western materialistic approach relying primarily on empirical evidence provided by the five senses – what can literally be seen, heard, tasted, touched, or smelled, depending on the outer appearances of things – to decide how and what to think and feel about them and how to take care of them. In contrast, the other approach highlights the spiritual way to see beyond mere outer appearances and the five senses, to an intuitive perception of the causes behind outer conditions to preserve all of that through jiirnnoddharana. (Tom, 2013, p. 37) Another worldview that has been suggested as the foundation of Eastern principles of heritage conservation is the Buddhist philosophy of impermanence (Chapagain, 2013; Karlström, 2005). Buddhism was established by Siddhart Gautama, also in India, with a substantial basis in Hindu values and teachings. Buddhist philosophies expanded to other parts of Asia, predominantly to the East Asia region that now comprises countries such as China, South and North Koreas, and Japan. The impermanence concept in Buddhism is described by Chapagain (2013), as follows: 28 At its essence, Buddhist philosophy, based on the teachings of Gautama Buddha, emphasizes the impermanence (anicca) of all conditioned material and non-material existence, in which all forms of existence revolve through the process (samsara) of birth, death, and rebirth until the great liberation (nirvana) from this unending cyclical process is achieved. (pp. 49-50) He continues: The understanding of the transient nature of the material world is connected to another characteristic of the conditioned world: the concept of insubstantiality (anatta), the non- existence of any inherent and eternal essence, personality, soul, or value in all material forms. (p. 50) What differentiates the Buddhist concept of impermanence from that of jiimnoddharana is it places more emphasis on spiritual materiality, or the symbolic representation of the spiritual or religious ideals and beliefs embodied in buildings, arts, and artefacts, than on physical appearance. Conservation of a heritage structure based on Buddhist philosophy allows alterations to both the values and the physical representations, as it perceives material changes as one of the perennial principles of nature: Conservation of material cultural heritage is, therefore, pertinent to Buddhist communities; however, what is important in the conservation activity is safeguarding this ‘spiritual materiality’ of heritage forms, and not necessarily their ‘physical materiality.’ Heritage elements, such as the embodiment of spiritual essence, facilitate the continuance of the Buddha’s teachings into the future and serve a didactic purpose for learning Buddhist ideals. Hence participation in the maintenance of such ‘spiritual materiality’ becomes both a moral responsibility and a merit-making opportunity for Buddhist followers. (Chapagain, 2013, p. 59) The underrepresentation of Eastern principles, concepts, and practices in international documents on conscious heritage conservation has prompted efforts by both non-Western and Western scholars and practitioners to integrate Eastern principles, concepts, and practices into international documents. For Southeast Asian countries, a critical first task was to produce charters, guidelines, and recommendations at the national level in their respective countries, to be considered by international organizations such as ICOMOS and UNESCO (Ahmad, 2006). It was only in 2000 when leaders of Southeast Asian countries convened to adopt the ASEAN Declaration on Cultural Heritage. In the document produced through that meeting, an attempt was made to define cultural heritage as “structures and artefacts, sites and human habitats, oral 29 or folk heritage, written heritage, and popular cultural heritage.” A study by Ahmad (2006) found this definition to be different from those of ICOMOS’s and UNESCO’s because it covered both tangible and intangible heritage rather than only tangible heritage, as described in previously produced international documents. The inclusion of oral and folk heritage in the ASEAN Declaration of Cultural Heritage suggests that the Southeast Asian countries regard intangible heritage as a part of heritage that needs to be conserved. 2.3 History of Conscious Heritage Conservation in Indonesia The first formal archaeological institution founded in Indonesia was The Archaeological Commission, created by the colonial Dutch East Indies (DEI) administration 9 in 1901 (Bloembergen & Eickhoff, 2011). Founding of The Archaeological Commission stemmed from concerns among Dutch societies, particularly the ethicists, nationalists, and aesthetes, about the material decay of Borobudur Temple, which at that time was regarded as a representation of the Indigenous Buddhist past in the colony (Bloembergen & Eickhoff, 2011). A project to restore Borobudur Temple was undertaken by the Archaeological Commission from 1907 through 1911 (Bloembergen & Eickhoff, 2011; Nagaoka, 2015). Founding of the Archaeological Commission had prompted formation of an archaeological working group and writing of The Monument of Act 1931 statute in the DEI. In 1913, the DEI administration formed the Dutch Archaeological Service, whose scope of work included not only relics from the Indonesian Classical Period (5 th through 15th centuries AD), also known as the Hindu-Buddhist period (Chihara, 1996), but also those of Islamic, Chinese, 9 Most island peoples of the Southeast Asia archipelago, now Indonesia (from the Greek words Indos = India and nesos = Island, or the Indian Isles), had built a complex relationship with the Dutch. Interactions began when Dutch traders came to the region in the early 1600s to find sources of spices. They later founded the Dutch East Indies (DEI) Company in 1602 for trading purposes. In the late 18th century, the DEI Company went bankrupt. The archipelago fell under British control between 1811 and 1815; after 1815, the DEI administration took control of the archipelago again and ruled it as a Dutch colony until 1945, when Indonesians proclaimed their independence. (Hannigan, 2015) 30 and Dutch heritage that emerged in the following centuries in the DEI archipelago. In 1931, the DEI administration promulgated the Monument Act of 1931 to support policy for conservation of cultural heritage included in the Dutch Archaeological Service (Bloembergen & Eickhoff, 2011). The Monument Act of 1931 was used continuously to provide guidance for heritage conservation work in the era following the proclamation of Indonesian independence in 1945. The Act became a cornerstone for the foundation of the Republican Archaeological Service that functioned from 1946 through 1950. In 1955, both the Dutch and the Republican Archaeological Services were combined into the Dinas Purbakala Republik Indonesia, or the Indonesian Board of Antiquities. The heritage conservation principles and practices, passed down from the Monument Act of 1931 and still reflected in the documents of Dinas Purbakala Republik Indonesia, were European-centric, as Nagaoka (2015) explained, citing other scholars: Influenced by that of the Netherlands, the main focus of Indonesia’s heritage policy and management was the preservation of the physical colonial heritage and archaeological remains. Eickhoff and Bloembergen (2011, p. 411) assert that this heritage discourse continued until 1957 when the Indonesian Ministry of Education and Culture fully took over its mandate from the Indonesian Archaeological Service in which higher posts were filled by the Dutch. Even after this period, the Dutch specialists’ teaching and writing were formative for the first and second generations of Indonesian archaeologists. And thus, the authority-driven monument-centric approach in heritage management continued until the post-colonial period (p. 242). Challenges in the heritage conservation domain in Indonesia did not revolve solely around the existing emphasis on tangible resources and authenticity as defined as “original material culture,” but also on who decides what heritage is (Nagaoka, 2015, p. 233). The era between the production of the Monument of Act of 1931 and the post-colonial restoration of Borobudur (1973 – 1983) resulted in the central government’s dominance in determining which heritage tangible objects to conserve and upon what criteria these decisions should be based. Such practices reflected the international heritage conservation conventions at that time and were contrary to the informal practices that were considered ideal in Asian cultures. Those Asian practices, philosophies, and principles were not formally recognized until endorsement of the 1994 ICOMOS Conference in Nara, Japan (Nagaoka, 2015). In Asian cultures, local 31 communities have a role in determining what heritage is, and their conceptions of heritage usually include the surrounding natural systems, cultural representations, and communities (Nagaoka, 2015). This is in juxtaposition to Western conceptions that focus primarily on monuments and other physical objects and structures. The juxtaposition was conveyed by Nagaoka (2015) based on the Japan International Cooperation Agency’s (JICA) finding during its restoration work on Borobudur Temple in Central Java, Indonesia. Through the project, Yasutaka Nagai, who led the project from 1973 through 1980, “found similarities in Japanese and Javanese beliefs, rituals, and myths that are linked to nature worship, mountain asceticism, and Buddhist and Hindu philosophies that were incorporated into local beliefs” (Nagaoka, 2015, p. 239). To help readers understand the Borobudur Temple context, an overview of the Borobudur temple and its restoration project is presented here. Borobudur Temple was founded by the Buddhist Syailendra dynasty in the 8 th – 9th centuries AD and is located close to the present town of Magelang, Central Java. After being abandoned by the kingdom for an abrupt, unknown reason in the 10 th century, it was buried by volcanic ash and impacted by other natural occurrences for more than 800 years. In 1814, it was re-discovered by the British ruler of Java, Thomas Raffles. However, it received no stabilization or restorative treatment due to the brief rule of the British in Java. It was only in 1907-1911 that the Archaeological Commission of the DEI administration began to conserve the temple. From 1973 through 1983, Borobudur Temple underwent a massive restoration, led by UNESCO in partnership with the Indonesian government and international heritage conservation experts. This project was considered to be the first and most extensive interventional heritage conservation project in Southeast Asia (Nagaoka, 2015). In 1991, Borobudur Temple and its surrounding compounds were inscribed as a UNESCO World Heritage Site and, consequently, as have other world heritage sites, has attracted domestic and international visitors. The post-colonial restoration of the Borobudur 32 Temple was the first major heritage restoration project conducted by Indonesian authorities, done with full support and assistance from UNESCO. The restoration of Borobudur, begun in 1973, was undertaken when global heritage conservation practices still embodied predominantly Western-centric conventions. Consequently, the restoration of Borobudur was guided by the strict interpretation of the “Outstanding Universal Values” (adhering to restoration of the original structure using original materials) as stipulated by UNESCO, while the original concept of Borobudur Temple incorporated Buddhist values of holism, which views the natural environment, strong Indigenous traditions of nature veneration, and highly developed mountain worship as a unity. The Western definition of authenticity, and related focus on the tangible elements of a place, was not in accordance with the Buddhist concept that grounded the original values and construction of Borobudur. Thus, there was a growing wave of arguments that called for inclusion of local communities in discussions and decisions about future restorations, so as to incorporate their socio-cultural understanding about the values of the Borobudur Temple. With inclusion of cultural landscapes in both international and national conventions, such as The Laws of the Republic of Indonesia Number 11 Year 2010, local communities have become an integral part of heritage conservation decisions and approaches. There is currently a move in Indonesia involving community in heritage management. Thirty years after the adoption of the JICA Master Plan, the Indonesian Ministry of Culture has recently developed a new law concerning cultural property that emphasizes tangible and intangible heritage as an integral part of culture and that gives heritage a function and a meaning for the community. (Nagaoka, 2015, p. 244) Reflecting Nagaoka’s statement, there is a statement that underlines community participation to protect, develop, and utilize cultural property as having the utmost importance in the preamble of The Laws of the Republic of Indonesia Number 11 Year 2010 concerning Cultural Heritage. Furthermore, article 82 of the Laws state, “Revitalization of cultural property shall provide benefit to improve quality of life of the community and to maintain the characteristics of the local culture” (p. 27). Article 97 proposes that the government form a management board that may 33 consist of (central) government and/or Regional Government, and community to promote community participation in heritage management. In line with inclusion of communities in heritage conservation work, heritage community groups have emerged in Indonesia since 1987. It was only in 1987 when the first conscious heritage conservation group, Bandung Society for Heritage Conservation (more commonly known as Bandung Heritage), initiated by local community members, was founded in Bandung (Fitri et al., 2015; Van Roosmalen, 2013; Wiltcher & Affandy, 1993). In the following decades, similar community groups developed and flourished in other cities, notably the Jogja Heritage Society in the city of Yogyakarta. Another key event in the development of community-initiated heritage conservation institutions was the formation of Balai Pelestarian Pusaka Indonesia (BPPI), or the Indonesian Heritage Trust, in Jakarta in 2004. BPPI was founded by a committee that comprised representatives from local heritage groups throughout the country as well as other stakeholders, both domestic and international, in the field of heritage. The work of these community heritage groups has contributed significantly to raising awareness about heritage and conservation within Indonesian society at large. 2.4 Tangible and Intangible Aspects of Heritage Tangible heritage had been the primary focus of international discourse and conventions on conscious heritage conservation until the Nara Document on Authenticity was produced in1994. The first recorded definition of heritage produced in written form by a government was publicized through the Antiquity (Theodoric the Great) document in the 6th Century AD of the Roman Empire (ICCROM, 2005). In the 1931 Athens Charter, one of the earliest documents of the 20th century, the focus of heritage conservation revolved around monuments of artistic, historic, and scientific interest and their surrounding neighborhood. In subsequent international documents, even though the scope of conserved heritage expanded, tangible heritage still dominated the focus of heritage conservation work. The tangible focus in documents produced 34 through international conventions in the first half of the 20 th century began to show an expansion of coverage in similar documents beginning in the 1960s. In 1962, UNESCO recommended the inclusion of landscapes in its work: For the purpose of this recommendation, the safeguarding of the beauty and character of landscapes and sites is taken to mean the preservation and, where possible, the restoration of the aspect of natural, rural and urban landscapes and sites, whether natural or man-made, which have a cultural or aesthetic interest or form typical natural surroundings (UNESCO, 1962) In 1965, ICOMOS began to use the terms “monuments and sites” as a reinterpretation of the term “historic monument” used in the 1964 Venice Charter. In 1968, UNESCO included both movable and immovable in cultural property (Ahmad, 2006). The primary focus on tangible heritage at the global level indicated a dominance of Western-centric concepts of heritage at the international level of heritage conventions. The Western concepts of heritage placed more importance on tangible heritage and less on intangible heritage, as described by Ruggles and Silverman (2009): “The early Western-centric concept of heritage had placed less importance on intangible heritage, which was mostly associated with ‘traditional culture,’ ‘oral tradition,’ and ‘folklore’“ (p. 9). Due to growing concerns with the lack of consideration for intangible heritage inclusion in international heritage conventions, particularly from non-Western societies, intangible heritage began to be included in international heritage conventions, such as in the 1994 Nara Document on Authenticity and the 2003 UNESCO Convention on Intangible Cultural Heritage. In 1994, the Japanese government collaborated with UNESCO, ICCROM (International Centre for the Study of Preservation and Restoration of Cultural Property), and ICOMOS to discuss concerns about the conservation of cultural heritage and a need for a broader understanding of cultural diversity and cultural heritage related to conservation. This resulted in the first international heritage conservation document that included intangible heritage, as written in the 1994 Nara Document and Authenticity. According to Article 5 of the document, cultural diversity and heritage diversity include spiritual and intellectual richness for all 35 humankind, which should be protected, enhanced, and promoted as an essential aspect of human development. In addition, the article also states that “culture and societies are rooted in the particular forms and means of tangible and intangible expression which constitute their heritage, and these should be respected” (ICOMOS, 1994, p. 46). In 2003, UNESCO included intangible heritage, and the need for its safeguarding, in its convention for the first time. The first article contained UNESCO’s definition of intangible heritage, as found on the UNESCO website: “1. The ‘intangible cultural heritage’ means the practices, representations, expressions, knowledge, skills – as well as the instruments, objects, artefacts and cultural spaces associated therewith – that communities, groups and, in some cases, individuals recognize as part of their cultural heritage. …” Included as domains in intangible heritage were oral traditions and expressions, including language; performing arts; social practices, rituals and festive events; knowledge and practices concerning nature and the universe; and traditional craftmanship (https://ich.unesco.org/en/convention). In the Southeast Asia region, a need for a specific definition and criteria for heritage as relevant to each of its countries has been conveyed since 2000, because there had been no charters, guidelines, or recommendations developed and adopted by either ICOMOS or UNESCO (Ahmad, 2006). The need for a relevant definition and criteria for heritage that would represent Southeast Asian countries as a region implies that, even within Southeast Asia, there are diverse concepts and practices related to heritage and heritage conservation that reflect national perspectives. In Indonesia, the first law of protected cultural objects was issued by the state through the UU RI No. 5 Tahun 1992 tentang Benda Cagar Budaya (the Laws of the Republic of Indonesia Number 5 Year 1992 concerning Cultural Heritage), and was updated in 2010 through the UU RI No. 11 Tahun 2010 tentang Benda Cagar Budaya (the Laws of the Republic of Indonesia Number 11 Year 2010 concerning Cultural Heritage). A key difference between the laws produced in 1992 and 2010 was the shift in responsibility for heritage conservation from the central government to regional governments and community authorities. 36 The 1992 laws, which focused on a common obligation to protect heritage among governments and communities, neglected to identify the regional government’s responsibility to facilitate and support communities in their heritage work. Previous studies at a global level suggested that formal regulations about heritage and heritage conservation at the national level were studied and prepared by experts who worked for the governments. Findings also suggested that the scope of heritage had been predominantly Western-centric, with a focus mainly on tangible heritage (Howard, 2007). At the local level, or any level below the national level, concepts with regard to heritage and heritage conservation are allowed to be dissimilar to those at the national level. This may be because local communities live and practice their heritage in their own socio-cultural settings, and those experiences differ from the pronouncements of national experts. Oftentimes at a local level, traditions, values, and meanings are the core of daily cultural practices, and these non-material aspects are part of what is associated with intangible heritage (Howard, 2007). Arrunnapaporn in Swensen et al. (2013) affirmed the idea: “The intangible aspects refer specifically to practices, representations, expressions, knowledge, and skills and the cultural spaces in which these ‘living heritage’ traditions are played out” (p. 204). Thus, as opposed to experts’ perspectives that are used to determine what heritage is, and to identify which heritage to conserve at the national level, local communities’ perspectives often are reflected in the heritage conserved at a local level (Benton, 2010). A study conducted by Swensen et al. (2013) in three Norwegian cities suggested that even the materially-focused Western perspectives about heritage in specific communities may be different from those at the national level. Their study revealed that the intangible aspect of heritage in the three Norwegian cities was perceived as more important than the tangible or a combination of tangible and intangible heritage. This is consistent with what Nora (1989) suggested, that local communities’ focus is usually on sites, activities, and people as differs from experts’ focus on material heritage. 37 Inclusion of intangible heritage in international conventions as a kind of heritage separate from tangible heritage has created another issue. Recent studies found some cultures make a thin line, or no line, between tangible and intangible heritage. Focusing on the intangible as a separate issue had led to an unintended dualism, that of heritage being separated into ‘tangible’ remains and the ‘intangible’ into meaning, values, memories and feelings. As Laurajane Smith (2006) states, there is a decided tendency within the international classification of heritage to define ‘heritage’ and ‘intangible heritage’ as two separate things, on the one hand the instrumental, material artefacts or structures, and on the other hand the cultural values. (Swensen et al., 2013, p. 204) The dichotomy between tangible and intangible aspects of heritage is not always a fixed matter. Scholars have studied different communities and cultures, and their findings show a multitude of relationships between tangible and intangible aspects of heritage. Carman (2009) defined heritage as “… a realm of ideas rather than a collection of things” (p. 545). Marmion et al. (2009) asserted that, despite the dichotomy between tangible and intangible heritage, every tangible cultural heritage has a proportion of intangibility in its nature. Munjeri (2004) made a more specific explanation, stating that the intangible aspect of heritage can be used to understand and interpret the tangible aspect and, therefore, there is an intrinsic link between society and value. Such findings may imply the real nature of heritage, that heritage consists of both the tangible and intangible aspects, and that there is integration of and interplay between those aspects. Perceptions about which aspect is more dominant perhaps depends on the cultural background of the people who perceive heritage. Heritage studies are multidisciplinary in that they can involve or be examined through a variety of disciplines (Albert et al., 2013). The main purpose of this study is to understand how contemporary leaders of heritage-focused community groups in Indonesia perceive of and conduct their work related to heritage. Two aspects of heritage are of particular interest – tangible and intangible representations and characteristics of heritage. Across the world, and emerging from heritage conservation work done primarily in Western countries, is a dominant narrative that heritage conservation is focused on the collection, conservation, and display of 38 physical, or tangible, heritage objects, both structures and artifacts. Yet this narrative and approach to heritage may not be relevant in all countries and all cultures, particularly in Eastern countries whose cultural groups have worldviews and philosophies different from those of many Western cultures – as demonstrated in the relatively recent evolution of international conventions. Across millennia, many parts of the world have been colonized by other nations that have tried to impose their beliefs and practices on those they colonize. These complex and controversial histories impact all aspects of life, including how heritage is perceived, expressed, and conserved. As summarized above, since the early 1990s, increasing attention and more vocal questioning of the relevance of Western heritage perceptions and practices, particularly in parts of the world grounded in Eastern philosophies and worldviews, has been occurring. Two concepts that are particularly challenged are those of the relevance of “permanence” and the focus on physical, concrete heritage representations – those that are “tangible.” In response, scholars and practitioners are beginning to espouse the importance of the meanings, values, and other “intangible” representations of heritage, and they allow for changes in the meanings and expressions over time. As a result, multiple questions arise as related to the perceptions and practices of heritage in Indonesia. • How do heritage leaders in Indonesia perceive and define heritage, and what characteristics or criteria do they use in guiding their work? • How are the tangible and intangible elements of heritage perceived by heritage scholars and practitioners? • How do their perceptions influence the work of heritage scholars and practitioners in Indonesia? • What are their recommendations for the future practice of heritage conservation and interpretation? 39 In addition to exploring concepts potentially related to tangible and intangible aspects of heritage, this study also considers several other conceptual applications, as described in section 2.5. 2.5 Scholarly Concepts Informing the Study Several scholarly concepts are used to provide background and to inform this study, as possible contributors or frameworks to partially explain findings and to frame application of findings to practice. People’s environments and their experiences in the world are believed to influence many of the ways they perceive the world and how they make decisions. Related to this, several areas of scholarly literature provide potential foundations for understanding how key leaders perceive of and define heritage, and how they apply this to their work. Most fundamentally, I assume that heritage is a social construct, in line with my constructivist approach to this research that is based on my belief that knowledge within heritage studies is constructed by subjects (see Chapter Three). Thus, my interviewees’ perspectives about their understanding of heritage and how they make decisions about their heritage work is critical to understanding the findings related to this study’s purpose and research questions. Second, factors that influence formation of those ideas must be considered. Important are the interactions among people and place, and the impacts of those interactions in how people make sense of their worlds. In turn, these interactions may have significance in understanding how people identify and value heritage. Third, and a potential result of the interactions among people and place, is place attachment, a concept prominent in environmental psychology, which posits that people form emotional bonds with places where they live and work, based on their personal experiences. These emotional bonds are likely to influence their perceptions of heritage, and thus, their work. While not explicit in the UNESCO definition, ideas of significance and personal connection (bonds) are implied as related to things that are passed on or inherited: “The legacy of physical artifacts and intangible attributes of a group or society that are inherited from past 40 generations, maintained in the present, and bestowed for the benefit of future generations.” Use of these scholarly concepts to ground my approach to question development is based on my proposal that society’s definitions of heritage can be a result of their relationship with a place and that society constructs meanings associated with or attributed to what they consider to be heritage. While the first three concepts ground the process for developing an understanding of heritage as a social construct, making decisions about which heritage is valuable and worthy of receiving resources in the form of effort, energy, and investment, may be grounded to some degree in social exchange theory. Social exchange theory posits that people exchange their resources based on the relative costs and benefits incurred as a result of that exchange (Ap, 1992; Ozdemir et al., 2015; Deng, 2016; D’Mello et al., 2016). From a psychological perspective, perceived benefits may provide insights into what motivate key actors to engage in heritage work. From a functional perspective, I suggest that benefits are one factor considered by key actors as they choose which heritage artifacts and attributes are worthy of their attention, effort, and investment for heritage conservation and interpretation. This may, in turn, influence how they practice their heritage work. Another factor related to choices people make about what is meaningful and valuable as heritage, and that may help explain these choices, is the collective memory of a community or society. While this study does not explicitly explore the process or results of collective memory, and because heritage is a social construct, the collective memory of a social group may help explain what is considered as heritage, and what choices heritage practitioners make in allocating time and resources to their work. Memory sites may be the visual representatives of those collective memories, and the focus of some of the conscious heritage work. From a more instrumental perspective, I have selected one cultural heritage management model to frame questions and discussion about key actors’ choices and how they practice their work, and as a foundation for recommendations for heritage policy and practice. 41 This management model for heritage work, presented by McKercher and DuCross (2002), is a five-phase process that can be followed to achieve goals of heritage conservation. Brief explanations of each concept are presented in the following subsections. 2.5.1 Heritage as a Social Construct The process for how a society perceives and defines heritage is a social construct (Ashworth & Larkham, 1994; Gonzales, 2014). A society attaches meaning to specific objects to make them valued as heritage resources, and often take varied actions to enhance those meanings, as stated by Kirshenblatt-Gimblett in Gonzales (2014): “It [heritage] is a social construction and a metacultural process of selection, as there is no ‘heritage’ before somebody starts to preserve, remember, reclaim, enhance or celebrate something” (p. 360). Heritage also involves individual and collective decisions and choices, as Novelo (2005) states when defining heritage: Something that somebody or some people consider to be worthy of being valued, preserved, catalogued, exhibited, restored, admired (etc.); … others share that election – freely or by various mechanisms of imposition – so that an identification takes place and that ‘something’ is considered ours. (p. 86) Thus, heritage involves a conscious decision to select and enhance the meaning of an object, and that meaning is given and imbued rather than inherent to an object. Several factors influence a society’s perceptions and attitudes toward heritage, such as worldviews, beliefs, practices, needs, aspirations (Chapagain, 2013), values, emotions, attachment, and identification with a place (Gu & Ryan, 2008). Worldviews in particular, defined as “the ways and means a people order and structure the world around them in a meaningful way to respond to their needs and aspirations” (Awienagua, 2017, pp. 583-584), are dynamic, in that they can evolve or change depending on a society’s religious principles or other non- religious moral philosophies (Abdulah & Navi, 2011). Furthermore, Abdulah and Navi (2011) explain: 42 The different spiritual and material aspects of social and individual lives determine the shape their worldview takes. Although all individuals have their own principles, they essentially accord with the behavioral standards agreed upon by society. This process includes its own dynamics, which are identified as “evolutionary and architectonic.” In reality, social phenomena are always transforming and in motion. Interactions occur continually, and as such, individual and group perceptions have temporal dimensions (p. 270). This perhaps helps explain why global perceptions, definitions, and scopes of heritage evolve over time (Ahmad, 2006; Albert et al., 2013; Yudhisthir et al., 2011). Development of individuals’ and societies’ worldviews and ideas about heritage are both social constructs. Because the process of creating worldviews involves people’s interactions with place, this process is worthy of consideration as a foundation for exploring perceptions of heritage. Because people’s interactions with place, particularly if perceived positively, can lead to people’s emotional bonds with those places, place attachment is considered a potential outcome. Thus, place attachment may influence how key actors in this study build their perceptions of heritage. In her study, for example, Lewicka (2008) hypothesized that place attachment can be used to predict people’s attitudes about various places, including toward the history of their residence places. 2.5.2 Interactions among People and Place The relationship between people and the place where they live influences both the heritage passed to them from their ancestors and their current lives. People’s perspectives and uses of place are influenced by characteristics of the place, and how people design their built environment within that space reflects what is important to them. In other words, people and their places simultaneously influence and impact each other, as conveyed by Swensen et al. (2013): The philosopher Martin Heidegger is often used as a starting point when the idea of a place is discussed as he represents a phenomenological perspective on places. He studies the relation between to be, to live and to build (Heidegger, 1975). We build to live, but we already live by our building, is his standpoint. We are human beings through our practices in places. (p. 206) 43 People live within landscapes, and modify those landscapes by constructing material objects, such as buildings and other kinds of structures. Duncan and Duncan (2003) define landscape as “[s]omething that is produced and lived in an everyday, practical, very material and repetitively reaffirming sense” (p. 7). Their concept of landscape seems to be materialistic at first glance, but it actually implies the manifestation of its inhabitants’ meanings and values. Through material objects, people manifest their values and give meanings to the objects. In the reverse, landscape affects how people build their particular cultures as a way to adapt to the local natural landforms and conditions. A landscape having distinct characteristics will influence development of a particular culture, affecting how people who live in it build their culture, including their perceptions of the world around them and their relationships with it. Thus, a landscape implicates both tangible and intangible aspects of human relationships with its space, as illustrated by Mitchell (2008): ‘‘Landscape is important because it really is everything we see when we go outside. But it is also everything we do not see” (p. 47). The unique characteristics of a landscape, particularly those having historic value, result from a process of living in and modifying that place over time. A series of human interventions contribute to its character, and can be valued as either positive or negative. The meaning and values people attribute to a landscape is an ongoing process that eventually determines its importance to the people who live with it. The process of meaning-making about heritage can be accumulating and evolving at the same time. Accumulating means ongoing addition of meanings and values attributed to an object over a period of time, whereas evolving is a process that enables changes to occur over a period of time with regard to meanings and values that people attribute to an object. Thus, a heritage object in the future will embody this process, either as an accumulation or an evolution of meanings and values. An additional characteristic of cultural landscapes may have relevance to understanding varied geographic scales of heritage identification and significance. A place or a local landscape 44 reflects what is considered important to local people rather than to people in a nation as a whole. Hence, what is considered as heritage by a local community does not necessarily represent national heritage, as stated by Fairclough et al in Swensen et al. (2013): What matters to someone is what is around them in their daily life, but that many individuals’ historic landscapes are common features that will seldom appear on national or regional lists. Heritage values are therefore about definition and how values are attributed rather than a matter of essential unquestionable values as such. They argue that the role of the experts is to find a good balance between handing down wisdom or helping people find ‘their’ heritage. (p. 205) Because people’s interactions with place, especially their local places – collectively resulting in cultural landscapes –can, particularly when perceived positively, lead to people’s emotional bonds with those places. The result of this process often is labelled as place attachment. Thus, place attachment may influence how key actors in this study build their perceptions of heritage. 2.5.3 Place Attachment Place attachment refers to emotional bonds people develop for a place (Giuliani, 2003; Hidalgo & Hernandez, 2001; Low & Altman, 1992; Manzo, 2003; Pretty et al., 2003; Williams et al., 1992). Oh et al. (2012) refer to place attachment as “… an emotional or affective bond between an individual and a particular place as well as the functional bonds that occur repeatedly in interactions between people and place” (p. 74). Low (1992) explains: Place attachment is the symbolic relationship formed by people giving culturally shared emotional/affective meanings to a particular space or piece of land that provides the basis for the individual’s and group’s understanding of and relation to the environment. (p. 165) According to Oh et al. (2012), place attachment develops as a result of a series of people’s interactions with a place. This suggests that the series of interactions can either solidify or diminish people’s bonds with a place. People’s bonds for a place develop because of extra-personal factors, such as elements that exist in a place. Nora (1989) coined the term “memory sites” to refer to particular objects with which people have encounters that, in turn, contribute to building impressions of the 45 objects. Ballinger (2003) refers to “tangible components of a geographic space,” with which people develop physical and emotional attachments, to represent the particular objects in a place. In her study, Lewicka (2008) specifically used the term “historical elements of a place” as a reference to the particular objects with which people build a strong attachment. Eventually, this strong attachment to a place or the objects therein can affect how people perceive the place: … it was predicted that people inhabiting city districts that are endowed with more historical traces (historical sites, pre-war architecture) or pre-war houses will show stronger place attachment to their neighborhood, city district and to the city in general than those living in modern city quarters and modern post-war houses (Lewicka, 2008, p. 211) In addition, historical sites within a place can bridge personal connections among its residents with the past, which eventually can build place attachment (Devine-Wright & Lyons, 1997; Hay, 1998; Hayden, 1997; Low, 1992). I suggest that key actors’ perceptions of a place and its historical elements are affected by their worldviews, including as influenced by their interactions with their places. Key actors’ attachment to a place determines their attitudes toward the place and its historical elements, and contributes to giving meaning to these elements, potentially leading to assessment of those objects as representing heritage. Consequently, it is assumed that the characteristics of each locus in this study, Bandung and Yogyakarta, may influence key actors’ perceptions and attitudes toward those specific places and the cultural and historical elements therein, and be the sources for interviewees’ attachments to those places. Just as several scholarly concepts may have relevance for understanding perceptions of heritage, other concepts may ground and illuminate potential factors that affect how key leaders make decisions about which heritage is valuable and worthy of receiving resources in the form of effort, energy, and investment. As introduced previously, two potentially relevant concepts include social exchange theory and collective memory. 46 2.5.4 Social Exchange Theory Society’s perceptions and attitudes toward heritage embody their attitudes and behaviors toward heritage protection (McKercher et al., 2005). Previous studies have used social exchange theory (SET) to examine a society’s willingness to exchange their resources with what they perceive as benefits of heritage conservation (Gursoy et al., 2019). SET, introduced in Homans’ study about social exchange (1958), examines people’s willingness to exchange their resources through estimating the costs and benefits incurred as a result of the exchange. If a society assumes that the benefits of an exchange will exceed the costs, they are willing to exchange their resources. However, if a society assumes that the costs of an exchange will exceed the benefits, they will reconsider exchanging their resources. Based on this relationship, SET may partially explain how key actors perceive the benefits of heritage conservation and interpretation. Ultimately, key actors’ and their communities’ perceptions of the benefits of heritage work will impact their decisions about their selection of heritage resources to receive their time, attention, and investments, and the associated practices applied to conserve, interpret, and/or otherwise utilize that heritage. Investment of “resources” includes various things, such as time, energy, talents, knowledge, skills, and money. Benefits also are expressed in different forms, including intrinsic and extrinsic benefits. Corral and Domínguez (2011) explained that intrinsic benefits are generated by a person through the practice of behaviors and are associated with pleasant and/or positive psychological states, such as happiness, satisfaction, and pride, usually through an individual’s engagement in an activity. Extrinsic benefits are mainly in tangible forms, including financial, even though some extrinsic benefits are intangible, such as social approval, and usually these benefits are provided by sources external to the individual (Corral, 2012; Corral & Domínguez, 2011). In developed Western economies, societies conserve heritage to receive varied benefits, such as comfort, familiarity, and identity (Lowenthal, 1979); bittersweet yearnings of the glorious 47 past (Baker & Kennedy, 1994); high-value information as a consequence of research on heritage properties with potential values (Hall & McArthur, 1993); job creation, increased tax bases, regional economies, and local entrepreneurship activity (Timothy & Boyd, 2003); conservation of an object or structure for its “scarcity value” (Lynch, 1972); protection of environmental diversity (Pearson & Sullivan, 1995); and revitalization of functions of heritage for purposes other than their original, in many contexts labeled as adaptive re-use (Timothy & Boyd, 2003). This study explores how key actors in Indonesia, having environmental, economic, and socio-cultural conditions different from the Western world, perceive the benefits of heritage. I also suggest that there is a relationship between the benefits key actors seek from heritage and the practices they use in their heritage work. Decisions about which heritage resources are most valued, and thus are prioritized for this heritage work, may be influenced in part by a community’s collective memory and meanings associated with specific heritage objects, attributes, and landscapes. 2.5.5 Collective Memory and Memory Sites Based on the interrelationships among people and place, the landscapes, built structures, objects, and sites in which they are located all can contribute to the formation of memories. Memories can be individual or collective. In the context of this study, in which heritage is presented as representing a group of people within specific communities, collective memories may have relevance in key actors’ decisions about which heritage to prioritize in their work. Sites, and the experiences therein, that have meaning to people will contribute to humans’ formation of memories. People develop particular cognitions, attitudes, and practices based on their past encounters with a site. Thus, a site may become a “memory site,” a concept introduced in the place attachment section of this chapter. The relationships between a community’s collective memory and its memory sites may contribute to how cultural leaders in Indonesia have developed their particular cognitions, attitudes, and practices related to heritage. 48 The cornerstone of collective memory studies probably can be traced back to Émile Durkheim’s book, The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life (1915), about commemorative rituals. In 1950, Maurice Halbwachs, a French philosopher and sociologist, published a book, La Mémoire Collective, in which he elucidated that memory exists not only at an individual level, but also at a societal level. Collective memory, according to Halbwachs, is inextricable from the influences of a wider society within which a group lives. Since Halbwachs’ original description of collective memory, the concept has been reconceptualized and defined by numerous scholars, including from the disciplines of sociology, anthropology, and psychology. Connerton (1989) described it as an interpretation of the past through a presentist perspective. Savelsberg and King (2007) incorporated the collective context into their definition, suggesting that collective memory is “knowledge about the past that is shared, mutually acknowledged, and reinforced by a collectivity” (p. 191). Similarly, Anastasio et al. (2012) defined collective memory as more than the sum of the memories of the individuals that comprise the collective. Another definition was offered by French (2012), who studied collective memory using a semiotic approach10, suggesting that collective memory is “a social construction constituted through a multiplicity of circulating forms, with interpretation shared by some social actors and institutions and contested by others in response to heterogeneous positions in a hierarchical social field in which representations of the past are mediated through concerns of the present” (p. 340). In other words, French implied that meanings of the past, embodied by a society within a multitude of objects, both tangible and intangible, are created variably by different contemporary societal groups. The tangible and intangible objects refer to material, symbolic, and functional ones (Nora, 1989). Furthermore, some groups within a 10 The study of signs and symbols and their use or interpretation 49 society have more authority than others, and are able to suggest which objects and meanings will best cater to either their own group’s needs or the general society’s. Based on the four collective memory definitions above, the following are key characteristics of the collective memory concept: the past, its interpretation, collectivity, and present use of the past. The past refers to former times. This is the moment when an event occurred and a group of individuals began to acquire pieces of information related to the event and save them in their memories. Interpretation refers to meanings of the event that the group creates. This interpretation-building is affected by numerous factors, including internal and external factors, situational demands, and agents of memory. Every individual in a group can build a different interpretation of a similar event, depending on these factors. Collectivity means a group of more than one individual. A collective memory requires sharing of pieces of information and interpretations about an event among individuals in a group. Pieces of information and interpretation about a similar event that overlap among different individuals in the group build a shared memory. Present use of the past means that information and interpretation about a past event is recollected and utilized by the group, based on a need at the present time. Retrieval of a memory will neither occur nor be meaningful if there is no need for doing so in the present day. While the process of collective memory is not being explored specifically, this concept may help guide interview discussions, and help provide context to interviewees’ perceptions of heritage and its values, their understanding of individual and social benefits, and how they choose to practice their heritage work, including how they develop their work over time to meet their goals for heritage conservation, interpretation, utilization and management. 2.5.6 Cultural Heritage Management Heritage stakeholders develop and apply cultural heritage management practices to help achieve the goals of heritage-related work. One model, as presented by McKercher and DuCross (2002), describes cultural heritage management as a process that consists of five 50 phases: 1) inventorying heritage resources, 2) building of legislation to protect heritage, 3) increasing professionalism in heritage resource work, 4) consulting with and engaging stakeholders in heritage conservation, and 5) integrating professional and state responsibilities in heritage conservation work. However, the management process is contextual to the locations in which heritage practices occur (Poria et al., 2003; Park, 2010; Butler et al., 2014; Winter, 2014). This suggests that heritage practices in one place have the potential to differ, or be engaged in at different levels or in different orders, from those applied in other places. In other words, heritage practice is adjusted to the specific, unique environments of a place. McKercher and DuCross’ cultural heritage management model simply illustrates key elements of the practice of heritage management. 2.6 Recent Studies about Heritage in Indonesia Because conscious heritage and heritage work by Indonesians are relatively recent developments, limited scholarly attention had been paid to this concept in the early years of community engagement with heritage, beginning in the mid-1980s. Thus, there has been a need to explore heritage-related concepts and processes in the Indonesian context. However, since 2015, publication of academic articles about Indonesia’s heritage written by Indonesian scholars has increased in frequency. To illustrate, based on scholarly source searches on MSU’s e- library resource11, and limited to Indonesia heritage-related academic articles published in accredited international academic journals, 38 of the total 50 Indonesia heritage-themed academic articles found were written by Indonesians since 2015 (one of the 38 articles was co- authored with international scholars). By mid-2014, when I began my Doctoral program, there were extremely limited heritage-related scholarly articles written by Indonesian scholars, which 11 The searches were conducted during June 2021. 51 became my motivator to pursue a Doctoral program and contribute to this area of research. search, I used the keywords “heritage tourism Indonesia” and selected only the first 50 published academic articles that appeared on the MSU e-library search engine. Topics discussed in the heritage-related articles published since 2015 varied, and included digital technology (e.g., Meilani et al., 2019), earth and environment (e.g., Nagari et al., 2020), heritage and post-disaster work (e.g., Meutia, 2018), soundscapes (e.g., Martokusumo et al., 2019), and virtual archaeology (e.g., Permatasari et al., 2020). The increasing frequency of heritage-related studies written by Indonesian scholars probably is associated with increasing and emerging studies conducted in Indonesia. Potential contributing factors include transformation of university governance, marketization of higher education, and designation of universities as recipients of specific local orders12 in Indonesia (Achwan et al, 2020). These three factors, which Achwan et al. call the foundation of university reform, was implemented in three waves – in the late 1980s, the late 1990s, and around 2005. This effort was made as part of the global university reform through which policymakers worldwide encouraged university administrators and academics to reform university governance and for scholars to publish their work in credible, high-impact international scientific journals (Achwan et al., 2020; Horta, 2018). Based on Achwan et al.’s document analysis (2020), conducted by analyzing journal articles, books, book chapters, and conference proceedings produced by Indonesian academics from 2008 through 2018, the total number of journal articles of all types in social and political sciences from seven universities in Indonesia steadily increased from four articles in 2008 to 79 in 2017, from zero to 44 for papers in international conference proceedings, and from five to eight for book chapter publications during the same period. 12 Local orders mean the authority that each university holds, as a response to university reform in Indonesia, to set their own mission based on their unique conditions rather than applying a common mission that apply to all universities (Achwan et al., 2020; Paradeise & Thoenig, 2013) 52 Prior to 2015, heritage-related journal articles were published in multiple disciplines. A key discipline was anthropology (e.g., Sastramidjaja, 2014), which includes sub-disciplines and scholarly foci such as social anthropology (e.g., Rico, 2014), shared heritage between Indonesia and the Netherlands (e.g., Scott, 2014), and cultural property (e.g., Aragon, 2012). Other disciplines represented are landscape and urban planning (e.g., Abendroth et al., 2012) and Asian studies (e.g., Bloembergen & Eickhoff, 2011), which includes Asian theater (e.g., Lis, 2014). Between 2015 and 2020, the academic articles published represent more disciplines as well as topics than those published prior to 2015. Examples of topics explored in articles about Indonesian heritage published since 2015 include heritage conservation, place attachment, tourism, and community. Specific themes of the articles include benefits and distortions of colonial buildings (Lukito & Rizky, 2017), heritage conservation in an Islamic society (Meutia, 2017), and use of traditional conservation methods in Javanese traditional philosophies (Rachman, 2017). Articles exploring the role of place attachment include the relationship between popularity of an object and level of attachment (Felasari et al., 2017) and place attachment in the perceptions of natives, newcomers, and tourists (Sari et al., 2018). Within the context of tourism, themes include the relationship between heritage conservation and tourism (Kausar & Gunawan, 2018), similarities and differences in the use of narratives using national identity and tourism imaginaries in Japan and Indonesia (Murti, 2020), development of tourist destinations using heritage as attractions (Permana et al., 2020), and tourist perceptions of cultural heritage tourism (Wijayanti & Damanik, 2019). One community-focused article explores a community’s roles in mediating local heritage disputes (Kubontubuh & Martokusumo, 2020). Of all the aforementioned studies published between 2015 and 2021, I found no research on Indonesian perspectives about heritage. Specifically, there has been no study about how Indonesian heritage leaders define heritage, how they perceive the importance of heritage work, what motivated them to practice their heritage work, how heritage benefits 53 individuals and societies, or how heritage leaders practice their heritage work. While recent studies about Indonesia’s heritage have been conducted and contribute to the advancement of heritage knowledge, particularly within the Indonesian context, a gap exists as related to foundational knowledge of Indonesian heritage. This study seeks to fill this gap. 54 Chapter Three Methods 3.1 Research Approach My epistemological view, constructionism, is based on my perception of heritage studies as a social science. I believe that knowledge within heritage studies is constructed by subjects. I believe that communities, their culture, their structures, and their histories are all social constructs. It follows that heritage, as a representation of the combination of all these, also is a social construct. Therefore, I chose an inductive approach based on my epistemological view and the research questions. Constructionism involves inductive forms of research because it searches for patterns based on information provided by those who have experienced the phenomenon of interest. Using an inductive approach, I explored the phenomenon of conscious heritage conservation and interpretation through the lens of key actors in emerging heritage groups in Indonesia and looked for patterns in interviewees’ perceptions and practices of heritage. Specifically, I explored how interviewees developed subjective meanings of their experiences toward heritage, which reflects interviewees’ construction of heritage definitions. As Creswell & Creswell (2018) say, the goal of constructivist research is to rely as much as possible on respondents’ views of the phenomenon being studied. As a constructivist researcher, I attempt to make sense of the meanings others have about the world. An inductive research approach usually involves qualitative inquiry. I chose a qualitative study for two reasons. First, the research questions are exploratory in nature, and, second, interviews are used to understand the research subjects’ opinions, beliefs, values, experiences, and heritage-related phenomena associated with their work. This study does not intend to investigate relationships between any pre-identified variables, which typically requires a hypothesis-testing approach. As a result, the data are analyzed to provide a basis for 55 understanding a particular phenomenon – in this case, the concept of heritage and the resulting conscious heritage work, as demonstrated by the emergence of heritage groups in Indonesia. Through this study, I wanted to understand how key actors describe and structure their world as it relates to their heritage work. Using guided in-depth interviews, I explored how Indonesian heritage groups’ key actors defined heritage, what had motivated and influenced them to intentionally conserve, promote, and interpret heritage in their communities, what they perceived to be benefits of heritage for individuals and society, how they practiced their heritage-related undertakings, and what they recommended for the future of heritage conservation and interpretation work in Indonesia. I borrowed some principles from ethnography to explore the research questions. A fully applied ethnographic study is “a qualitative strategy in which the researcher studies an intact cultural group in a natural setting over a prolonged period of time by collecting primarily observational and interview data” (Creswell & Creswell, 2018, p. 247). An ethnographic study attempts to capture the whole picture, which reveals how people describe and structure their world (Fraenkel & Wallen, 1990). Thus, it includes in-depth interviewing and continual and ongoing participant observation of a situation (Jacob, 1987). However, for this study, I restricted my data collection to conducting in-depth interviews with respondents as a way to gather information to answer my research questions. Although I have worked in the field of heritage tourism and am familiar with its practice in these sites, I was not engaged in continual and ongoing observation of this situation for my research, as described by Jacob. 3.2 Study Context As introduced in Chapter One, there is a need for understanding heritage in the context of Eastern cultures, and a specific need for understanding heritage in the Indonesian context, particularly because heritage is at the core of much of the country’s tourism development. To be able to study practices and impacts of heritage tourism on Indonesian communities, it is 56 important first to understand how heritage is perceived and practiced in Indonesia, and how it is used as a tool for other processes such as community development and tourism. The broad geographical context of this study is Indonesia (see Figure 2 for Indonesia’s location in relation to the world and the United States of America). Figure 2 Locator Map of Indonesia and the United States of America Note. Indonesia spans a distance of 3,275 mi, or 5,271 km, from east to west and 1,373 mi, or 2,210 km, from north to south. Source of base map: www.freepik.com. Indonesia is an archipelagic nation comprising thousands of islands, variably reported to total between 13,466 and 17,506 islands13 according to research conducted by several institutions. Its population comprises over 1,300 ethnic groups – 90% of those are of Native 13 Varied numbers for the number of the islands that make up Indonesia have been derived by different institutions, often based on different criteria (such as size, population), and fluctuating sea levels that can impact the counts. For example, the Gazetteer, a global geographical dictionary, or directory, documented 13,466 islands and the Indonesian Agency for Geospatial Information (BIG) identified 17,506 islands (Martha, 2017). 57 Indonesian ancestry (Central Bureau of Statistic, 2015). Indonesia’s five largest islands include Java, Sumatera, Kalimantan, Sulawesi, and West Papua (part of the larger Papua island, which shares a border with Papua New Guinea). Despite being the smallest of the five largest islands, Java is where the nation’s capital, Jakarta, is situated and is home to 151.59 million people (56.1% of the Indonesian population). Since the arrival of the Dutch trading company, Verenigde Oost-Indische Compagnie (VOC), or the Dutch East Indies Company, in 1602, followed by the colonial Dutch East Indies administration in 1799, and continuing through the birth of the Republic of Indonesia in 1945, Java has been more developed than other islands in many respects, such as its economic system and infrastructure development. This development was due in part to the founding and geographic position of Batavia (now Jakarta) as the trading hub for VOC in Southeast Asia as well as the existence of lucrative plantations spread across the island. In addition, Java also was the home base for numerous local kingdoms – a few of which once ruled over some part of the Southeast Asian region. To facilitate their enterprises and political purposes in Java, the Dutch merged their bases with the existing local kingdom centers or built new colonial towns during the 350 years of their colonization in Java (Hannigan, 2015). Java was selected as the target island for this study due to its diverse heritage resulting from its dynamic history. The existence of local Indigenous kingdoms, and the presence of non- Indigenous ethnic groups such as the Chinese, Indians, Arabs, and Dutch, have contributed to the diverse intangible heritage and its tangible manifestations in its towns and cities. In addition, each town and city in Java is characterized by a dominant Indigenous, dominant non- Indigenous, or an eclectic cultural heritage. For example, despite the fact that both Bandung and Yogyakarta have been melting pots for diverse ethnic groups, each of these cities has a dominant representation of its cultural heritage. Bandung has been associated with tangible heritage from its Dutch colonial period whereas Yogyakarta has been maintaining a Javanese monarchy and the associated traditional Javanese heritage, both intangible and tangible. See Figure 3 for a map of Indonesia with Java Island identified. 58 Figure 3 Indonesia with the Island of Java Identified Note. Source of base map: www.freepik.com 3.3 Overview of Study Design The purpose of this study is to understand the perceptions of heritage conservation and interpretation among leaders in these fields in Indonesia. However, Indonesia, as a result of its long and complex history, comprises regions and cities having diverse characteristics. Because of this diversity I chose to focus on two contrasting locations, Bandung and Yogyakarta, where some of the pioneering heritage groups in Indonesia first emerged (see Figure 4). 59 Figure 4 Java Island and Its Six Provinces, with Two Study Cities Identified: Bandung and Yogyakarta Note. Source of base map: www.freepik.com Within each of these cities, I endeavored to speak with leaders who have been engaged in conscious heritage conservation or heritage interpretation since its beginning or have practiced it in new ways. Since 1987, Indonesian heritage groups have been multiplying in this highly multicultural nation whose cultures are influenced heavily by the immaterial values and cultural perspectives that predominate in the Eastern world (more pointedly, of South, East, and Southeast Asia). I therefore identified organizations within each city that were among the first to undertake conscious heritage conservation or interpretation work in that locale, and sampled individuals from those organizations. 60 3.4 Sampling Plan 3.4.1 Case Study Cities Two case study cities were chosen for this study – Bandung and Yogyakarta. The two cities are important because of the role they have played in conscious heritage conservation and interpretation in Indonesia. Bandung, for example, is the birthplace of Bandung Heritage Society (BH), the first predominantly Indonesian-led community group working in conscious heritage conservation. By contrast, Yogyakarta is the base for Jogja Heritage Society (JHS), the first to initiate heritage trails (tours) in the country and the first conscious heritage conservation group in that city. Moreover, Bandung and Yogyakarta offer contrasting influences on Indonesian culture. Bandung was extensively influenced by the Dutch, and, as the proposed DEI capital, remains strongly representative of Indonesia’s Dutch colonial history. By contrast, Yogyakarta is the one remaining early traditional kingdom in Indonesia and, therefore, features heritage assets representing an Indigenous ethnic group that has inherited and maintains a monarchy system. Hence, selection of these two cities highlights distinct forms of cultural heritage, primarily as visible from the built environment. Bandung. Bandung remains strongly representative of Indonesia’s Dutch colonial history. The physical environment of Bandung (total area of city: ~65 sq. mi, or ~168 sq. km; population in 2020: ~2,580,00014), the capital of West Java Province, still is characterized physically by Dutch-designed heritage structures and a cityscape built in the DEI period. The city was founded in 1810 as a Dutch garrison post in the heartland of Western Java and experienced intensive physical development in the 1920s and 1930s, following a plan to relocate the capital of the DEI from Batavia (now Jakarta) to Bandung in 1917. This 14 Source: United Nations – World Population Prospects (https://www.macrotrends.net/cities/21447/bandung/population) 61 development resulted in the presence of a large number of Dutch-designed and built landscapes and structures, particularly in the Art Deco architectural style that still characterizes the central and northern parts of the city. To many Indonesians and some international visitors, Bandung has been synonymous with a cool climate, greenery, and “Dutch buildings.” The cool climate is a consequence of Bandung’s situation at a high altitude (760 m, or 2,067 feet, above sea level) whereas the greenery is due to the many parks built by the DEI administration during Bandung’s Golden Age (the 1920s – 1930s) as part of its preparation to develop the new capital. To Indonesians, all buildings that were built by the Dutch before Indonesia’s independence represent the existence of Dutch colonization in Indonesia. Thus, most Indonesians use the terms “bangunan Belanda” (Dutch buildings) or “gedung kolonial” (colonial buildings) as references to Dutch designed and built buildings. The Dutch-designed buildings in Bandung were built starting in the mid-19th century, and can be classified into three groups: those built in the mid-1800s (mostly designed in the Indische Empijre Stijl (Indies Empire Style), and incorporating the Neo-Greek style columns on their façades); those built during the turn of the 20 th century (designed in Neo- Classic styles that adapted and simplified architectural styles rooted in Europe, such as Gothic and Baroque); and Art Deco styles15 (Ardiyanto et al., 2015; Wallach, 2013). Although not all these styles reflect traditional Dutch architecture, the buildings mostly were designed by Dutch architects and built during the Dutch rule of Indonesia. To date, Art Deco architecture represents 15 Art Deco was a design born and introduced in Paris, France, in the 1920s. It was inspired by advances in the technology and industry of the era, and quickly spread across many parts of the world, also known as Art Deco Movement. The Art Deco Movement is “a concept of architectural development that refers to various styles of traditional decorative arts as well as modern decorations that affect all aspects of design, such as architecture, interior, fashion, etc.” (Solikhah & Kurnia, 2017, p. 1). As an illustration from the field of architecture, US cities that are known to have a large number of Art Deco buildings include New York City, Miami, and Los Angeles, whereas Bandung has the largest number of Art Deco buildings in Indonesia. 62 the highest number of buildings colonial buildings in Bandung compared with those of other architectural styles. (See Figure 5 for images of some of Bandung’s heritage buildings.) Figure 5 Examples of Heritage Buildings in Bandung 1 2 3 0 / 2 1 4 5 6 ) 7 8 9 Note. Some well-known Art Deco buildings in Bandung include: 1) The Preanger Hotel, one of Bandung’s earliest hotels, and 2) its Museum of Schoemaker, honoring an architect who built many Art Deco buildings in Bandung, including the Preanger Hotel, 3) Gedung Merdeka, or the Liberty Building, originally a clubhouse building, 4) ex-Majestic Building, originally an opera house, 5) the Bethel Church, 6) Gedung Sate, originally built as the capitol building for the Dutch East Indies, and 7) Vila Isola, originally built as a villa for a wealthy person. Examples of Neo Classic buildings include 8) ex-De Vries building, initially the first grocery store in Bandung, and 9) Bank Indonesia building. Photos taken in 2017 and 2018 by T.A. Patria. According to Peraturan Daerah Kota Bandung Nomor 7 Tahun 2018 tentang Pengelolaan Cagar Budaya (the Local Government Regulation of the Bandung Municipality 63 Number 7 Year 2018 on Cultural Heritage Management), 1,770 buildings, 70 sites, and 26 structures were identified, designated, and protected as protected heritage buildings. In the regulation, a “building” is defined as a built composition made of natural and/or manmade objects to meet a need for a walled and roofed and/or an unwalled and unroofed space. A “site” is a location that is on land and/or in water that contains protected cultural goods, protected buildings, and/or protected structures resulted as humans’ activities or proof of the past. A “structure” is a built composition made of natural and/or manmade objects to meet the need for and to accommodate humans’ activities that merge with nature, facilities, and infrastructures. A building or a structure can be a single or multiple entity/ies, and/or stand by itself or be merged with a natural formation. Each heritage property was selected based on meeting one or more of the following criteria: 1) being a minimum of 50 years old; 2) having architectural values; 3) having historical values; 4) having scientific values; and 5) having socio-cultural values. Based on the number of criteria met, a heritage property is given one of three classifications: “A” for properties meeting at least three of the above criteria, “B” for properties meeting two criteria, and “C” for properties meeting one criterion. To date, 254 properties have been classified as “A,” 455 as “B,” and 1,061 as “C.” In addition, heritage properties have been grouped based on their locations. There were 24 location-based groups, such as The Old Town Center (predominantly consisting of buildings that were designed by Dutch architects), Sunda Ethnic (predominantly designed and owned by local Sundanese and other Indigenous ethnic groups in the DEI, such as Javanese), and Chinatown (predominantly owned by Chinese ethnic groups), representing the three ethnic groups and areas that made up the population of Bandung until the early 1940s. (For a list of the other 21 heritage areas, see footnote16). Of the 16 1) City Government Center, 2) Military Center, 3) Kosambi (mostly stores), 4) Astana Anyar (mostly residential houses), 5) Rajawali (mostly small factories), 6) Industrial Ciroyom, 7) Pewayangan (mostly residential houses), 8) Husein Sastranegara Airport, 9) Pasteur (residential houses), 10) Dago (residential houses), 11) Gedung Sate (governmental complex), 12) Industrial Kiaracondong, 13) Cavalry Military, 14) Cipaganti (residential houses), 15) Institut Teknologi Bandung (the Bandung Institute of 64 24 groups, about 80% of them are locations where protected heritage properties were built before 1942, when Bandung was still under DEI governance, or where protected buildings were fully or partially designed by Dutch architects before Indonesia’s independence. The architectural style of the protected heritage properties in Bandung mostly derived from the first half of the 20th century. They outnumber properties that were built in the 19th century as the latter have disappeared for varied reasons, such as having been replaced by newer buildings during the first half of the 20th century. After 1917, following the plan for Bandung development as the new capital of DEI, and after the introduction of Art Deco designs in Paris, France in the early 1920s, architects in Bandung built numerous Art Deco structures in different styles, such as geometric Art Deco, streamline Art Deco, and tropical Art Deco. These pre-Indonesian independence buildings were built for diverse purposes, mostly as governmental buildings, military buildings, factories, stores or other private companies’ buildings, residences, and worship places. Aside from buildings, the DEI administration in Bandung also built a lot of parks and city infrastructure. The extensive presence of Dutch-designed architecture, parks, and infrastructure in Bandung has given the city a few but strong monikers, such as “the most European city in the Dutch East Indies,” “the architectural laboratory in Indonesia,” and “the flower city.” Even though the quantity and quality of Dutch-designed buildings and parks have been decreasing, particularly due to unplanned city development after Indonesia’s declaration of independence, Bandung maintains the image of a city having a large number of “Dutch” or “colonial buildings,” as many Indonesians call them. Today, these buildings are used as governmental buildings, private business buildings, residential houses, public facilities, or are abandoned and not used. Even though the ongoing development of Bandung has diminished Technology, a campus area), 16) Isola (residential houses), 17) Ciumbuleuit (residential houses), 18) Pindad (arsenal complex), 19) Pussenif (residential houses), 20) the Cultural Village of Rancabayak, 21) Trowongan Cai Ciraten (underwater tunnel), and other locations that are not included in any of the previous 24 groups. 65 the quantity of heritage buildings, thus also affecting the atmosphere of each of Bandung’s heritage areas, the general ambiance of heritage areas is still present, such as the European ambiance in northern areas, Chinese ambiance in western areas, and Sundanese ambiance in southern areas of the city. The image of Bandung as a city inheriting “Dutch” or “colonial buildings” actually does not connote negative sentiment among contemporary Indonesians, particularly those who were born after Indonesian independence and did not personally experience colonization or wars for independence. In fact, Bandung residents generally are proud of their city and enjoy the atmosphere of Bandung, with its Dutch-designed buildings and parks, temperate climate, and vibrant atmosphere of its creative youth. Bandung also is a university city, with dozens of higher learning institutions and a large number of college students. The combination of these traits has created a distinct atmosphere, resulting in pride among Bandung’s residents and attracting visitors to experience its abundant culinary and shopping opportunities, particularly in its factory outlets17. In summary, Bandung’s image is strongly associated with its relatively “Western” and “modern” influences and lifestyle (referring to its image from the 1920s and 1930s when Bandung was in its Golden Age and considered the most advanced and fashionable city in the DEI), and with youth and trendy energy. In essence, the image of Bandung today (early 2020s) is strong with its vibrant, creative youth atmosphere set in its colonial charm. The Bandung community mostly depends on industrial and service economies, with major reliance on garment and textile, tourism, and education industries. Such economic reliance results in extensive and diverse shopping 17 Textile and garment factories dot the western and southern conurbations of Bandung, making the city one of the largest textile and garment industry centers in Indonesia. Many of the factories produce garments for international brand companies based in developed economies. Those that do not meet the companies’ standards are sold – with discounted prices – in many Bandung’s factory outlets. The textile and garment industries in Bandung, in fact, originated in the first half of the 20 th century, when Bandung was still under the DEI administration, from which Bandung also gained its moniker as a “fashionable city” among peoples in the DEI and nowadays Indonesia (Kunto, 1996; Patria, 2014). 66 opportunities – particularly with regard to garments and food and beverages – for both locals and visitors. Bandung residents have been known nationally as hospitable and fashionable. The presence of numerous higher learning institutions and students, combined with the relatively cool mountainous climate, have contributed to a slower pace of living compared to that of the nation’s capital, Jakarta, and of other industrial cities in Indonesia. (See Figure 6 for an image of one of Bandung’s many park areas.) Figure 6 Bandung’s City Hall Park Note. The image of Bandung as a city with a cool climate, greenery, large number of “Dutch” buildings, and youthful energy and creativity has resulted in pride among its residents and attracted visitors. Photo taken in 2017 by T.A. Patria. 67 Yogyakarta. By contrast, Yogyakarta (~18 sq. mi, or ~46 sq. km; population in 2020: 440,00018) is the capital of the Special Region of Yogyakarta and the only region within the Republic of Indonesia that still maintains its special status as a monarchy. Since 1587 the city has been the site of a local monarchy, the Mataram Sultanate, whose material evidence and ambiance are still apparent today, particularly in the old town of Kotagede and the areas near the royal palace (Kraton or Keraton – either spelling or pronunciation is correct and common among the Indonesian society). It therefore exudes the cultural heritage of a local native ethnic group, the Javanese. The name Yogyakarta originated from the Indian name Ayodhya, meaning “suitable/fit/proper,” and Karta, a Sanskrit word meaning “prosperous/flourishing.” Together, Yogyakarta means “[a city that is] fit to prosper.” Yogyakarta has maintained its prominent image as a city with strong traditional Javanese culture for centuries. The image is reflected in both Yogyakarta’s tangible and intangible cultural elements. Within the municipality of Yogyakarta are six protected tangible heritage areas, including: 1) Malioboro (with its Indische- (Indies-) and Chinese-style architecture), 2) Kraton, or “palace” (grand traditional Javanese architecture and/or commoners’/profane architecture19), 3) Pakualaman (traditional Javanese and Indische architecture), 4) Kotabaru, or “new town” (Indische and colonial architecture), 5) Kotagede (traditional Javanese and classic architecture), and 6) Imogiri (traditional Javanese and classic architecture). In addition to protected heritage areas, Yogyakarta has 123 protected objects, buildings, and structures included in the local regional regulation (Peraturan Daerah Provinsi Daerah Istimewa Yogyakarta Nomor 6 Tahun 2012 tentang Pelestarian Warisan Budaya dan 18 Source: United Nations – World Population Prospects (https://www.macrotrends.net/cities/21480/yogyakarta/population) 19 This area includes the palatial compound and its surrounding neighborhoods. Royal properties in ancient Indonesia usually were built to embody spiritual values or to reflect local religion. The surrounding neighborhoods, with the lands still owned by the kingdom, are usually inhabited by commoners and do not necessarily embody the spiritual aspect applied to the royal properties. 68 Cagar Budaya, or the Local Government Regulation of the Special Region of Yogyakarta Number 6 Year 2012 on Conservation of Cultural Heritage). The word Indische in the regulation refers to the architectural styles similar to those in Bandung: the Indische Empijre Stijl; “classic” and Neo-Classic; and “colonial” and Art Deco. Of the six areas included in the regulation, two have inherited and maintain remnants of the original Mataram Kingdom from the 16 th and 17th centuries, namely Kotagede and Imogiri. The other four are home to objects, buildings, and sites that are relatively and predominantly more recent – from the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries that reflect local Javanese, Dutch, and Chinese cultures. The objects, buildings, and sites identified in the Keputusan Walikota Yogyakarta Nomor 297 Tahun 2019 tentang Daftar Warisan Budaya Daerah Kota Yogyakarta (the Decree of Yogyakarta Mayor Number 297 Year 2019 on the List of Cultural Heritage of the Yogyakarta Municipality) are predominantly Dutch-designed buildings from the first half of the 20th century, with some architecture combining Dutch and Javanese designs. Similar to those in Bandung, heritage buildings in Yogyakarta originally were built as government buildings, private business buildings, residences, and worship places. The presence of a sultan, the palace, and all the periodic royal ceremonies has given Yogyakarta a special identity. The traditional Javanese culture and embodied spiritual aspects still practiced by local communities also contribute to Yogyakarta’s distinctiveness. As a result, Yogyakarta has attracted visitors – both domestic and international – with its culture, and has become the second most visited tourist destination in Indonesia after Bali. To visitors, the culture and associated activities of local people, such as reflected in traditional markets, are as attractive as the sultan’s palace and ceremonies. In Yogyakarta, markets from bygone eras and daily community lifeways that have been present for many previous centuries are still strong, evoking typical Javanese and other traditional cultures from the past (see pages 70-73 for a glimpse of community lifeways in Yogyakarta, in images [Figures 7 & 8] and descriptions). 69 Figure 7 Examples of Tangible and Intangible Heritage in Yogyakarta 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Note. 1) A pendopo, a community gathering place, in Kotagede, the original seat of the Mataram Kingdom, 2) A ceremony that takes place in the oldest mosque of Kotagede, 3) Community- organized Gamelan class for guests, 4) The Palace of Yogyakarta, built in 1755, 5) Taman Sari, the sultan’s bath complex, 6) Batik-making demonstration by women in the palace, 7) A view of the gate into the Kraton (palace) complex with a traditional horse cart entering the gate, 8) A colonial Dutch building now functioning as a bank building, and 9) A gate into Yogyakarta’s Chinatown, Kampung Ketandan, on Malioboro Street. Photos taken in 2019 by T.A. Patria. Four distinct cultural areas reflect the characteristics of Yogyakarta: 1) the area representing the monarchy and its strong Javanese culture and traditions located in the southern part of the city; 2) an area influenced by Dutch and Chinese cultural heritage, forming a commercial district north of the palatial area; 3) an area designed as a Dutch residential quarter during the first half of the 20 th century, located northeast of the commercial district; and 4) an area with more recent development located north of the Dutch quarter, which includes 70 universities, new commercial areas, new housing areas, and other contemporary public facilities, such as shopping malls, hotels, and dining establishments, catering partly to college students. Yogyakarta comprises neighborhoods embodying diverse lifeways and philosophies, all reflected in various ways and contributing to the city’s distinct character in terms of intangible heritage. For example, the city is structured around an imaginary axis that runs from south to north, running through several neighborhoods. This axis plus the connected neighborhoods represent the life of a human and its phases, beginning with birth, then moving through infancy, adulthood, departure to the afterlife realm, and eventually to nirvana. Each life phase is represented by a landmark in one of the neighborhoods, be it natural or human-constructed. Figure 8 provides a glimpse into the imaginary axis of Yogyakarta. Figure 8 A Placard Depicting Yogyakarta’s Imaginary Axis and One of Its Points, Malioboro Street Note. Yogyakarta is rich in intangible heritage, such as philosophies and traditions. 1) An example of intangible heritage in Yogyakarta is the imaginary axis. 2) One of the points located inside the city is Jalan Malioboro (Malioboro Street), that runs south to north, and represents the golden age of adulthood of a human being. The street is a shopping thoroughfare that bustles with pedestrians – including local, domestic and international visitors – as well as local Yogyakartans who engage in economic activities here. Photo taken in 2019 by T.A. Patria. 71 According to the philosophy of the axis, the southern sea is the initiator of life, the palace represents infancy, Malioboro Street represents adulthood and success, the Tugu monument marks the point of departure from worldly life, and Mount Merapi, a volcano north of Yogyakarta, represents nirvana. In 2019, this imaginary axis was proposed to be included in UNESCO’s World Heritage List as intangible heritage. As part of the city of Yogyakarta, Kotagede maintains its special characteristics as the original seat of the Mataram Kingdom. The neighborhood, situated east of the present sultanate, physically consists of two major areas – a fortified area in which the original monarchy was located and a residential neighborhood. The fortified area consists of a complex that includes the original palace, a worship place (mosque), a cemetery for royal family, and other properties belonging to the kingdom since the late 1500s. The more recent neighborhood was developed mainly during the early 1900s when the area thrived based on its silvercraft home industry. The neighborhood now maintains Neo-Classic buildings that spread out along its maze of alleys, interspersed with older, traditional buildings such as Pendopos. Situated in this area also are local residents’ houses, built in different styles and different eras throughout the 20 th century. The old town of Kotagede maintains its own atmosphere as the oldest and most historic area within the city of Yogyakarta. The main economic activity, the Kotagede market, a typical wet Indonesian market, is alive with sellers and buyers making transactions. The market has existed there since the foundation of the Mataram Kingdom in the area in the late 1500s. The neighborhood is normally quiet, with its maze of well-maintained alleys and residences, interspersed with occasional ruins from bygone eras. Hospitality and politeness of local residents, among community members and toward visitors, are publicly evident on a daily basis. On particular days, residents practice arts and cultural activities as part of their periodic community activities. The local close-knit community, with its strong Javanese local wisdom, set in an area having an old and historic town ambiance, gives Kotagede a distinct atmosphere as compared with many other areas in the city of Yogyakarta, where recent and continuing physical 72 development is taking place, resulting in a less traditional Javanese atmosphere than in Yogyakarta. In a nutshell, the city of Yogyakarta as a whole exudes an atmosphere of a Javanese cultural city. Local communities living in the southern part, where the Kraton is located, seem to have enormous pride in and dedication to their sultan, and maintain a harmonious lifestyle and place minimal emphasis on worldly resources. This attitude results in a seemingly more slow- paced, sedate lifestyle relative to that in northern Yogya and other major cities, particularly in Java. As in Bandung, the presence of numerous higher learning institutions and students also contributes to the unhurried living in Yogyakarta. In some areas of the city, some community members still ride their bicycles to their workplaces, a sight that has been synonymous with Yogyakarta for decades, even though the number of bicyclists is now diminishing. In certain areas, particularly in and around the palace and Malioboro, tourism vibes are more prevalent than in other parts of the city due to the presence of visitors – both domestic and international – and local entrepreneurs, including artisans, offering art goods and services targeting primarily visitors. Scenes where locals and tourists sit on the street pavement buying and eatin food from street vendors – called lesehan – are common in Yogyakarta, one characteristic of the city that distinguishes it from the other Indonesian cities. 3.4.2 Key Actors from Select Community Heritage Groups Within each city, key actors were identified from two kinds of community-based heritage groups representing two distinct missions. First, I selected among community-based heritage conservation groups that focused primarily on identifying, protecting, and conserving buildings. Second, I selected from heritage interpretation groups focused on sharing local heritage with both local community members and visitors. Purposive sampling was used to identify pioneering community groups within each category in each city. In addition, to ensure that work on both native and non-native cultural heritage was represented, an additional organization was selected for Bandung. In total, five organizations were selected. 73 Next, a purposive sampling strategy identified interviewees that were key actors within these heritage conservation and interpretation groups. Key actors included founders, a board member, a manager, and a member of heritage groups who were influential or innovative in the field of conscious heritage conservation and interpretation in Indonesia in the past or present. Some were volunteers or members of these groups who moved on to develop other notable Indonesia-oriented heritage groups. Some have remained working for the organization used to identify them while others have gone on to engage in other heritage work in Indonesia. In total, 11 key actors were interviewed about their views on cultural heritage in Indonesia, how heritage-related work is and should be practiced, and the relative roles of tangible and intangible assets. The sample distribution across location and heritage group type is shown in Table 1. Table 1 Distribution of Respondents Across City and Type of Heritage Groups Bandung Yogyakarta Dutch colonial city Traditional Javanese kingdom Heritage Conservation Org A (n=4) Org B (n=4) Heritage Interpretation Native Org C (n=1) Org D (n=1) Non-native Org E (n=1) Number of respondents 6 5 Of the 11 interviewees, seven were female and four were male; eight were connected professionally to fields of architecture and/or urban planning, and three represented other fields. 74 3.5 Instrument Development and Pilot Testing Because I was using in-depth guided interviews, it was necessary to develop, pilot test, then revise the interview guide. The basic interview guide and the goals were the same for all interviewees. However, because interviewees represented different types of heritage work and organizations, and were from two quite different communities, follow-up questions ultimately were tailored to each individual. The initial instrument did require substantial revision as a result of pilot testing. The instrument development process consisted of several steps: developing draft interview guides in English, translating them to the Indonesian language and making sure that the translations were understandable and accurately reflected the intent of the questions, conducting pilot interviews, and revising interview guides. The interview guide contained purpose of the study, information about the consent process, key questions, and potential probing questions. The interview guide then was forward-translated into Indonesian. After major instrument guide revisions, I conducted pilot interviews with people who were involved in heritage groups in Bandung but not included in the sampling plan. I drafted four variations of the interview guide, tailoring each interview guide to the relevant context of each interviewee. The four categories were: 1) leader of pioneer heritage conservation group, 2) leader of pioneer heritage interpretation group, 3) non-leader of pioneer heritage conservation group, and 4) non-leader of pioneer heritage interpretation group. Prior to conducting pilot interviews, the consent form and interview guide were translated into the Indonesian language. I conducted the pilot interviews in August 2018 in Bandung. I audio- recorded the interviews, then transcribed and translated them into English, and shared them with my advisors. Participants of the pilot interviews were given small gifts of appreciation (small food hampers). The pilot interviews also were used to test the equipment, practice and assess my interview techniques, assess interview length, and assure effectiveness of the interview questions and interview length. 75 Based on my experience with the pilot interviews, I revised the interview guides, creating slightly tailored versions of the revised interview guide for each of the 11 study interviewees. After forward-translating the revised interview guides to the Indonesian language, I had the Indonesian version of an interview guide back-translated into English to assure accuracy and clarity of the instructions and questions. After revisions based on back-translation, I had a native Indonesian speaker review the revised, translated interview guides to assess his understanding of the questions and to determine if additional edits and clarifications were needed. 3.6 Data Collection Data collection included in-depth interviews with each of the identified respondents, and then follow-up interviews to gain depth of understanding with each. The interviews were conducted in Indonesian, and involved audio-taped, face-to-face interviews using open-ended questions and follow-up probing questions, as illustrated by an example in Appendices C-1 and C-2. Data collection using the interview process was conducted between September 2018 and October 2019 in Bandung, Yogyakarta, and Jakarta, Indonesia. Procedural steps for data collection, based on Creswell (2013), are described in the following subsections. 3.6.1 Review of Groups’ Online Materials To familiarize myself with the organizations with which the interviewees were involved, I included a request for permission to access and review a group’s documents and visual materials in the Letter of Consent. Prior to each interview, I reviewed each groups’ online materials, such as homepages, e-articles, and other information related to the groups. Information included a group’s mission statement, goals, and visual materials used to promote their activities (e.g., photos, e-posters, and e-brochures shared on groups’ homepage, website, Instagram, Facebook, and WhatsApp groups). Using the information and visual materials as cues, I modified or tailored the standardized interview questions and added relevant questions specific to each group or individual context. Reviewed documents and visual materials were not 76 date-constrained. During some interviews and observations, I continued to receive written materials, such as books and pamphlets, which provided me with more insights about the context of the person’s work. 3.6.2 Gaining Access to and Building Rapport with Potential Initial Respondents As part of building rapport with respondents, I contacted the first five interviewees identified in the sampling plan through email. In the email message, I introduced myself, described the purpose of my study, and invited them to participate in the study. Of the first five interviewees, I already had met four of them, so the introduction and rapport-building process proceeded smoothly. For the fifth person, I made an extra effort by getting his permission to talk with him over the phone, introduce myself, and discuss the purpose of my study. All the original five interviewees accepted my invitation, so I sent the Letter of Consent attached to a follow-up email. In addition to the follow-up emails, I discussed next steps via text messages using WhatsApp or had a telephone conversation with each of them. Upon confirming interviewee participation, I scheduled a meeting with each interviewee, identifying a mutually agreed upon date, time, and location for the interview. Interviews were temporally and spatially clustered by city. After conducting interviews with the original five interviewees, and based upon their recommendations for additional interviewees, I applied the same procedures in contacting additional potential interviewees. Interviews in Bandung occurred in two time blocks; the first time block was September through December 2018 and the second was June through October 2019. Interview sessions in Yogyakarta occurred January through May 2019, between the first set of interviews in Bandung and the interview session with interviewees in Jakarta. The interviews in Jakarta occurred in May and July 2019, and included the interview with the respondent from the Netherlands during a July 2019 visit to Indonesia. 77 3.6.3 In-depth Interviews As the primary data collection method, I used in-depth, face-to-face interviews. Based on the approved and revised basic interview guide, I developed a personalized version for each interviewee based on their organizational and professional roles and type of heritage work in which they engaged (see Appendices C-1 and C-2 for examples of personalized interview guides). The reason for personalized interview guides was to develop relevant interview questions that would maximize exploration of an interviewee’s perceptions and experiences related to heritage and their own heritage practices. For most, a second follow-up interview was conducted. A follow-up interview guide for each was developed based on responses provided in the first interview after identifying missing or unclear data while writing the contact summary for the interviewee. Thus, the second group of interview questions were extensions of and expansions on the first set of interview questions and responses. Each interview guide included key research questions, goals of the interview, interview questions, and potential follow-up probing questions. Notations were included on each tailored interview guide to help remind me of key content I was seeking from each interview. In total, I conducted 21 interviews across 11 interviewees. Face-to-face interviews were conducted in the Indonesian language and were audio-taped (with permission of the interviewee). Wording of questions used lay language and avoided technical and scientific words. During each interview I focused on the conversation between the interviewee and me, and used a pen and notebook to write any piece of information that I found relevant, interesting, or important for further follow-up during the interview. These jottings also were incorporated into my field notes. Additionally, before or after each interview, I took photographs of any location or event that was related to the study, such as the interview location, a group’s monthly discussion, and selected sites mentioned by interviewees during their interviews. 78 3.6.4 Recording, Transcribing, Translating Interview Data Each interview was audio-taped using a voice recorder, then saved on both the recording device and my laptop computer. Files were organized using a systematic, confidential file naming and organization protocol. After I conducted each interview, I transcribed the interview from the audio recording (see “recording” Information immediately below). Most interviews were transcribed in the Indonesian language on the same day as the interview – many times with assistance from a colleague. Quality research using qualitative methods depends heavily on the researcher because the researcher is the primary data collector and because they have direct involvement in data analysis (Creswell, 2009). Therefore, I ensured that the data reflected my interviewees’ views as accurately as possible. One way to reduce my bias in original interview transcriptions (in Indonesian language) was to involve two bilingual colleagues to review them. I translated the transcriptions to English and had two people who were proficient in both Indonesian and English (the same colleagues) read them to double-check and validate my translations. These persons were acquaintances, one of whom was involved in an English language course in Bandung as a course instructor and translator. They received financial compensation for their services. However, despite having the skills to translate between Indonesian and English languages, they had little experience with verifying scholarly transcripts, so I involved them only in the first few translations. Thus, my advisors helped review the English transcriptions for clarity. If, according to my advisors, there was any unclear or missing data, I re-contacted the interviewee for a clarification or follow-up interview, with their consent (addressed on the Letter of Consent), to assure I had sufficient and quality information to address my research questions. The process of sending the translated transcriptions to my advisors and receiving their feedback, as well as re- contacting the respondents, when necessary, was done from September 2018 through December 2019. 79 To clarify any unclear information I found during transcription, I contacted the respondent as soon as possible via WhatsApp, other texting system, or telephone. I also informed each interviewee about future contact possibilities if additional information was required. After each transcription was completed, I translated the original transcription into English. The translated transcriptions and field notes accompanying each interview were sent via email to my advisors for their records and review. Copies of all documents related to the interviews were saved digitally on my laptop computer and two flash disks. They also were printed and organized in binders. To preserve respondent confidentiality, I ensured that all digital files and hard copies related to the study were kept in secure places: files were saved on my password-protected laptop computer, and all flash disks and hard copies were kept in a locked cabinet in my primary workplace in Bandung. 3.7 Data Analysis Data analysis was an iterative process that required going back and forth across all phases of the research process. Thus, the analysis with memos began immediately after the first interview in September 2018 and continued through the last interview in November 2019. After data collection was complete, data analysis using coding and displays continued through January 2021. 3.7.1 Memos For each transcription, I wrote a memo or contact summary (Miles et al., 2019) that identified interview content that met the purposes of the study and identified what information was still needed. The “information needed” became the basis for developing follow-up interview guides, which included a focused follow-up interview purpose and follow-up questions. Then I applied the same procedures as those of the initial interviews to schedule and conduct follow-up 80 interviews. Again, I created accompanying contact summaries, and transcribed and translated each. 3.7.2 Coding After completing the transcriptions and translations, I began the coding process in January 2020. I used thematic coding to analyze the data (Miles et al., 2019; Saldaña, 2021). Rather than using coding software, such as NVivo, I manually coded the transcripts taking the following steps: 3.7.2.1 Development of code book First, I developed a code book that served as a guide for tagging text blocks in transcriptions related to my research questions. The code book identified thematic codes that included code names, code definitions/concepts, code symbols (for data tagging), rules for applying the codes, and examples of code applications. This step was an iterative process, involving discussions with my co-advisors, during which revisions of definitions, additions of necessary codes, and omissions of unnecessary codes were made. 3.7.2.2 Text tagging The next step of the coding process was identifying and tagging all text passages in interview transcripts based on the code book, as they were relevant to answering my research questions. This was done manually by reading through the English-translated transcriptions multiple times (sometimes supplemented by re-reading the original Indonesian transcriptions to make sense in the interviewees’ and my native language) and tagging any sentence or passage that reflected the definition of a code. This also was an iterative process and done in constant consultation with my advisors. 3.7.3 Data Extraction and Condensation After I tagged relevant texts, I extracted the tagged data and grouped the tagged texts by code for each interviewee. Subsequently, I reviewed each block of extracted data by code, by respondent. For each block of extracted text, I wrote a statement that summarized what the block of evidence had to say relative to each research question. I repeated this for each code and each respondent for all research questions for which the codes were relevant. The 81 extracted data and the summary statements were saved into memos that served to condense the data by code, by respondent before it could be integrated using displays (Miles et al., 2019). 3.7.4 Displays I used displays to integrate the findings for each code across all respondents. Displays are essentially matrices that allow the researcher to enter data into a grid for each respondent and then look for patterns across the sample by code that answer some part of a research question. This systematic technique of analysis was developed almost 30 years ago by Miles and Huberman and is flexible to both the study design and the research questions (Miles et al., 2019). Therefore, after I wrote the summary statements for each code for each interviewee, I developed a table for each relevant part of a research question in which the respondents were arrayed in rows and the codes were arrayed in columns. The cells then were used to enter shorthand keywords for the summary statement developed for each respondent and code. The purpose of the displays was to help in condensing and integrating the data and, ultimately, understanding and presenting inferences and summaries, representing ways of organizing, summarizing, simplifying, and transforming the data. 3.7.4.1 Interpretation of summary statements Based on the keywords or entries for each code, and across all interviewees, I wrote a statement that integrated the findings to answer the research question. The purpose of this step was to look for patterns across the sample to answer the research questions for which the codes were developed. 3.7.4.2 Quotations The last step of the process involved identifying quotations (sentences or paragraphs) that best represent each code, responses to research questions, and to illustrate findings and discussions, as presented in Chapter Four. Quotes were taken from the extracted data described above. 82 3.8 Addressing Ethical Issues Prior to collecting data, I needed to ensure that the data collection process would conform to the US regulatory framework of research conduct to protect interviewees’ safety and privacy. I ensured ethical conduct of my research by following guidelines set by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) at Michigan State University. Following are summary descriptions of the main ethical considerations, and what I did during my study to ensure guidelines were met. 3.8.1 Institutional Review Board The Institutional Review Board (IRB) ensures that potential subjects are provided with specific, understandable information about the study prior to data collection. Research protocols and instruments are reviewed and approved by the Michigan State University (MSU) IRB office. Thus, prior to the fieldwork and data collection phase, I submitted my proposal to MSU’s IRB office. Based on its guidelines for research conduct, I developed a consent form and process that included the right of subjects to ask me questions about the study and data collection procedures, procedures to protect their privacy, and assurances about the confidentiality of their individual comments. 3.8.2 Research Participant Information and Consent Form (RPICF) Based on the IRB guidelines, I drafted, edited, and submitted a Research Participant Information and Consent Form (RPICF)20 for IRB review. Upon approval, I sent an email to each of the five initial interviewees (and, subsequently, to the additional recommended interviewees). When a potential interviewee agreed to an interview, I sent a follow-up email containing a copy of the approved RPICF (see Appendix B) that included: 20 The contents of the RPICF written in this Chapter Three are similar to those stipulated in the actual RPICF distributed to the interviewees in 2018 and 2019 (see Appendix B). As this study was iterative, slight modifications were made to the content in the RPIC form and the final study focus, as expressed in the final study purpose. 83 Purpose of the research. This section described the study purpose, which was to explore perceptions of local cultural heritage among heritage groups’ Indonesian key actors in Bandung and Yogyakarta, Indonesia, and how those perceptions influence the heritage work they do. Expected duration of interview. This section contained the anticipated duration of each interview, which averaged two hours each across the 21 interviews, including both initial and follow-up interviews. Description of procedures. This section explained the interview process, including information about audio-recording; transcription of audio recordings; use, review, and examination of samples of each interviewee’s group documents and visual materials prior to the interview; interviewee’s review of the transcription and their opportunity to provide corrections, clarifications, and/or additions and deletions, as needed; interviewee’s approval of the transcript; translation of the transcription from the Indonesian language to English; and review of accuracy of the translated transcripts by a bilingual colleague. Also included was that the translated transcript would be sent to my Michigan State University academic advisors for their records. Voluntary nature of participation. This section stated that the interviewee’s participation in the study was voluntary, and that they had the right to refuse to participate, to respond to specific questions, or to withdraw from the interview at any time without penalty or loss of benefits. Description of costs and compensation for participating in the study. This section explained that the study has no foreseeable risks associated with an interviewee’s participation in the study. As a token of appreciation, the interviewee would receive a non-monetary gift. Statement of confidentiality. This section described how interviewee’s confidentiality would be maintained, including interviewee’s selection of a pseudonym that would be connected with their interview comments during analysis. If a potential respondent agreed to be interviewed, I provided them with two hard copies of the Consent Form to sign prior to the first interview session, with one copy to be kept by the 84 interviewee and one by me. Each interviewee also was asked to create their own pseudonym and write it on the consent form. After each interview, interviewees were advised of their right to review the interview transcripts to ensure that the content accurately reflected their thoughts, feelings, and opinions, and to give each of them an opportunity to add, clarify, or omit any comments that they chose. To protect study participants and their data, each interview transcription, as well as reviews of documents and visual materials, were stored in a Word document file on my password-protected laptop computer and two flash disks. All files related to the study, including both digital and hard copies, were stored in secure places. 85 Chapter Four Findings and Discussion This study was designed to answer the following research questions: How do Indonesian heritage leaders define heritage and describe their practice? Why is cultural heritage important, and what benefits result from conserving and interpreting heritage? What is the relative importance of conserving tangible versus intangible elements of heritage? Study findings provide a current understanding of how key actors connected with Bandung and Yogyakarta regions of Indonesia perceive and work with heritage, as it relates to the Indonesian cultural milieu, and provides a basis for recommendations for how conscious heritage conservation and interpretation can be applied in a culturally appropriate way in Indonesia in the future. Overall, the findings of this study reveal that key actors’ definitions of heritage have evolved in a pattern consistent with the global evolution of heritage understanding, yet within a compressed time frame – from an understanding of heritage focused on tangible heritage resources to an understanding of a more complex system that includes intangible heritage. However, key actors’ understanding of heritage currently reflects differences even from the recent broader and more complex global concept of heritage. Findings also show how key actors perceive the benefits of heritage as motivators for their work, how they practice their heritage work, and their vision for how heritage work should be performed. In their understanding, heritage is not only about the past, but also is oriented toward enhancing a society’s wellbeing and welfare. The findings are presented in this chapter in three main sections: definitions of heritage according to key actors involved with heritage work, benefits of heritage conservation and interpretation, and heritage practices. Each section comprises sub-sections related to the themes that emerged as a result of the analysis. After presenting each section’s findings, I discuss these findings as related to the literature. 86 In attempting to provide insight about how frequently certain ideas were mentioned across the interviewees, I use terms such as “a few” and “most.” However, there is no consensus on terminology for specific numbers or percentages of interviewees when referring to them in narrative terms that approximate the extent of interviewee discussion about a given concept. Therefore, to guide readers in understanding my presentation of findings for this study, I developed a scale and terminology to approximate the extent of discussion of ideas across the 11 interviewees. Terminology selection is based on common dictionary definitions (Merriam- Webster, 2021): A couple of refers to two interviewees; a few refers to three interviewees; several refers to four to six interviewees; many refers to seven to eight interviewees; most refers to nine to 10 interviewees; and all refers to all 11 interviewees. Table 2 can be used as a quick reference for the scale and terminology throughout this discussion: Table 2 Terminology and Scale to Approximate the Extent of Discussion of Ideas across the 11 Interviewees Terminology Number of Interviewees (of N=11) A couple of Two A few Three Several Four to six Many Seven to eight Most Nine to 10 All 11 87 4.1 Definitions of Heritage According to Key Actors Involved with Heritage Work The first section of this chapter presents findings and discussion concerning interviewees’ definitions of heritage, and consists of three sub-sections: evolution of heritage definitions among interviewees, interviewees’ current definitions of heritage, and discussion of the perceived relationships between tangible and intangible elements of heritage. 4.1.1 Key Actors’ Definitions of Heritage Have Evolved Over Time As described by interviewees, they became aware of heritage representations during their childhoods, as a result of personal experiences even if those early experiences did not include a conceptual or academic perspective about heritage, nor any label to attach. As they grew older, their definitions of heritage evolved as they were influenced by formal education, professional development experiences, and their own experiences with the practice of heritage work in their communities. As a result of early awareness, combined with tertiary education and early work experiences – most of which were architecture-centric – the majority of interviewees’ early understandings, definitions, and work concerning heritage were tangible resource-focused. However, their understandings, definitions, and practices evolved over time into broader and more contextually appropriate definitions, which comprise cultural and natural heritage elements as well as cultural relationships between and among humans, nature, and the Creator. For this reason, the broader term of heritage replaces the initial use of cultural heritage in Chapter Four as originally conceived for this study, unless the discussion is specific to cultural heritage. 4.1.1.1 Key actors’ initial definitions of heritage were focused on tangible elements Many interviewees’ initial exposures to heritage occurred during their childhoods, when their parents and surrounding environments contributed to construction of their early conceptions of heritage. During college, numerous interviewees’ interest in heritage solidified as their knowledge and interactions with heritage experts, both within and external to Indonesia, increased. A few other interviewees first learned about heritage and heritage conservation during their college years. Due to the profession of a few interviewees’ parents as professors of 88 architecture, and many interviewees’ educational and professional backgrounds related to architecture and urban planning, most interviewees’ early understandings and definitions of heritage were focused on architectural and other tangible elements of heritage. 4.1.1.1.1 Early exposures from childhood. Many interviewees’ definitions of heritage were sparked by early interest and early exposure during their childhoods, such as the influence of parents and what they saw around them in their environments. Parents, who were the closest and most present people in interviewees’ lives, were some of the most influential people in exposing them to heritage – often unintentionally. Parents’ professions – in these cases, always fathers – as professors of architecture or academic staff in university architecture departments, played major roles in developing interviewees’ insights and interests in architecture and architectural heritage conservation. One key actor recollected: Then my father returned home bringing a book – as a souvenir – about the development of Paris under François Mitterrand [then French president] at that time, when Paris was renovating some of its landmark buildings. He showed me the book after telling the stories. I was only in Middle School – around ’86 or ’87. Well, I already had a book about architecture. Then I looked into the book and I was very excited to see it. As aforementioned, interviewees’ surrounding environments and home cities, where they grew up, were factors contributing to their awareness and interest in heritage. The visual impressions generated from tangible heritage sites in their milieus imprinted lasting images of heritage in their minds. Another interviewee recalled: I lived in Bogor. There were still many good Dutch heritage buildings then. Around my house also were a lot of good buildings, especially the Bogor Palace, which was amazing, in my opinion. … I couldn't help but grow an interest. I used to look at buildings that were nice, comfortable, beautiful, and clean in the 1950s when I was in elementary school. Despite the predominance of architectural influence, not all interviewees’ early images of heritage related to architecture. One interviewee remembered his interest in toys during his childhood – without realizing that toys were part of culture or cultural heritage. He made toys using natural materials he found on his way home on foot from school. He and some of his fellow students used such natural materials to build varied simple toys: 89 Well, there was a time range that allowed me to play. The distance between my home and my school was about 12 kilometers back and forth. There was nothing I could do on those trips [walks]. Reading books was not possible – it was dizzying and dark because we got electricity in our village only when I was a Senior in high school. Then... um... there was nothing I could do except play games to get rid of fatigue, to get rid of boredom, along the long walks. …For example, um... it’s made of grass... you pulled it, then swirled it.... Then... what do you call it? Chicken toys made of grass and you played chicken toy fighting. We played it by the road until we didn’t realize we got home. His awareness of toys as a form of culture developed later, particularly when he decided to inventory traditional toys and games after graduating from college. To summarize, through their parents’ professions and surrounding environments, many interviewees received their first impressions and had early encounters with various representations of heritage during their childhoods. The architecture-centric experiences of most interviewees strongly influenced their tangible-focused early understandings and definitions of heritage. 4.1.1.1.2 Awareness and interest triggered in university. Several interviewees already carried positive impressions of and interests in tangible heritage when they entered college. For a few others, their awareness of heritage was triggered by their university work – often as a result of studies in architecture or urban planning. For these interviewees, their studies reinforced their interest in architecture or urban development or product design. One interviewee described how his interest in heritage conservation began to grow during college: First, I went to a school of architecture. Then I learned about conservation in the school and it made me want to know more about Bandung. There was a course called Urban Morphology, where the professor taught us about the development of cities in Indonesia – one of them was Bandung. It fascinated me because Bandung was my city and, at that time, I wanted to research it. And there was a curiosity about how "modern people’s" [colonial Dutch] technology got into Indonesia – which used to be called the Dutch East Indies – and how to utilize that. That was the start. A few of these interviewees continued their studies in Western or other economically developed countries where they learned about Western philosophies, concepts, and practices of heritage 90 conservation and became increasingly interested in heritage. As experienced by one interviewee: That was when I took my Master’s education in Belgium. Even though the department there was not specifically [related to] conservation, the professors of architecture turned out to be heritage figures. So, there was Andre Loeckx, then, who else? ... Frank de Troyer – names that actually were associated with heritage figures. Well, they talked a lot about heritage while teaching. That’s when I got interested for the first time. Another interviewee found opportunities to work on collegiate projects related to his interest in traditional games: As soon as I had entered college, I chose games for my first assignment. In Product Design, you should choose a theme for assignments. I was inclined to games, children, and so on. My work was more than just assignments – I also wanted my self-existence to be present there. Existence to present my fondness of playing, [and] games. So, because I couldn’t afford modern games, then I came up with the theme of traditional games. His awareness of toys as a form of culture developed as he was growing up, particularly when he decided to inventory traditional toys and games after graduating from college. He made a distinction between toys and games even though they are interrelated and involve playing to make them function. According to him, toys are the tangible forms as media for playing, whereas games are the intangible elements of playing, such as the meanings, values, and rules of engaging in play. His first realization that toys and games – that had been the focus of childhood play as well as college course projects – were associated with heritage occurred during his college years. This shows that an increased awareness and interest in toys and games as a form of culture developed in college. Most interviewees’ awareness of and interest in heritage and heritage conservation intensified during college. At this point in their lives, the strongest influences still derived from fields related to architecture and other tangible-focused heritage. 4.1.1.1.3 First impressions and understandings mostly associated with the built environment and other tangible heritage forms. As a result of early exposure and awareness developed during college, many interviewees’ first impressions and understandings were 91 associated with the built environment, such as heritage buildings and monuments, and other forms that comprise “tangible heritage.” In the later stages of their lives and careers, most of these interviewees pursued a profession related to architecture, urban planning, or product design. Therefore, their definitions of heritage often were reflected in their heritage conservation work, mostly connected with architectural heritage preservation or conservation. As they were working on their built-environment projects, they began to learn that other aspects of heritage were embedded in and external to the physical structures. One interviewee exemplified: Because most of us [as founders of a key heritage organization] had a background in architecture, we first focused on buildings, on architecture. But, at the same time, we also learned that the scope was very broad – not just physical, architectural, but [included] the supporting humans with all their activities, [which] are also heritage. Another interviewee became aware of another form of tangible heritage, artifactual games, that also included intangible elements: “Why? Because they [traditional toys] have meanings, values, right? The values of life embodied in the artifacts [tangible toys] are suitable for the condition of people nowadays. To me, they are important. That’s why I collect artifactual games.” Interviewees’ awareness of and interest in architectural heritage and other forms of tangible heritage, as well as heritage conservation, solidified during college, generating impressions and understandings that were associated mostly with the built environment and tangible heritage. As interviewees worked on their heritage projects, they began to realize that heritage also embodies aspects other than tangible. This also applied to one interviewee with an interest in traditional games during college, who began to broaden his understanding of heritage because traditional games comprise both tangible and intangible heritage elements. 4.1.1.2 Definitions expanded to include significance and meanings of built environments Many interviewees’ definitions of heritage gradually expanded beyond tangible elements as they began to pay attention to the significance and meanings of those buildings 92 and other forms of tangible heritage, including significant events and people associated with them (thereby expanding to include intangible elements). 4.1.1.2.1 Aspects prompting recognition and exploration of the role of intangible elements. Respondents said that informal discussions with heritage experts, professional development (e.g., participation in international conferences), heritage work with communities (that helped identify what was important to community members), and historical research prompted interviewees’ recognition and exploration of the role of intangible elements. For example, one interviewee who worked in heritage interpretation recalled how his understanding about heritage had shifted from architecture to stories behind the buildings as a result of his experiences interpreting architectural heritage to the community at large: “So, frankly speaking, I used to talk about architects – architecture only and such. But after joining Organization E, there were the morals of the story that I thought were good that must be conveyed”. Other interviewees learned about the various meanings and other intangible elements of tangible heritage through their own experiences. Well, through discussions with [a senior Indonesian colleague who studied abroad at the same university], he gave me a lot of enlightenments. We didn’t talk about tangible heritage only – also the intangibles. Then, back in Jogja, we also held a lot of discussions. Then, the discussions also finally led to ... that we can't talk only about architecture, buildings. So, for example, Batik [patterns and cloth]. It is heritage because it was not just made that way, but there are values there. For example, there’s a variety of Batik, right? In Java, it can tell or describe stages in a human’s life. So, there are certain Batiks used for [particular] purposes only, for example during a seventh-month [pregnancy] ceremony. Then, for a wedding ceremony. Then, one that is used to cover dead bodies, for example, and so on. So, there are those varieties. People don’t just make them. But there is a motif that was created and it has a story, and has been passed down from generation to generation. So, in my opinion, the first criterion is it must have an important historical value for a place. So, for example, it turns out that it signifies … an important event or something. But, then, … from the side of socio-cultural development, it has particular values that make a place unique or excellent. 93 Through diverse experiences, interviewees began to recognize and learn about the intangible aspects of tangible heritage. The intangible aspects include stories behind buildings, cultural meanings, and historical values, among others, as exemplified by some interviewees. 4.1.1.2.2 Recognition of the importance of intangible representations. As interviewees were acknowledging the intangible qualities represented in tangible heritage, they also began to recognize the importance of various primarily intangible representations of heritage, such as cooking and the associated cuisine, playing traditional games, and creating traditional crafts, art, music, and dance. While these examples contain tangible elements, they are fundamentally intangible representations of heritage. Many interviewees utilized intangible heritage as representations in their work. One key actor described how local foods can embody particular values: … what we provide in the heritage trails is something with a heritage value, such as traditional foods. We also choose those that are likely old-time foods or foods that contain local wisdom, such as Legomoro, a kind of food that has its own philosophical value within the society. This food is used during a process of solidifying the relationship between a bridegroom and his bride. It symbolizes a bridegroom’s relieved heart after he and his family give this food to his bride and her family when they accept the marriage proposal. It also can symbolize the bride’s happiness after the bridegroom and his family come to her family’s place to propose to her. In the local community’s culture, a bridegroom and his family present Legomoro (sticky rice cake filled with chicken mince, wrapped in banana leaves) to his fiancé in an inter-familial ceremony, when he proposes to his fiancé for marriage. ‘Lego’ in Javanese means ‘relieved’ and ‘moro’ means ‘giving,’ which demonstrates to everyone that the bridegroom feels relieved after he visits his fiancé and his fiancé accepts his proposal. Similarly, another respondent explained how everyday elements of culture, such as children’s games, also reflect local values: 94 … the tangible forms of the games are still ‘available’ to the present day. For example, we don’t just get kids to play Prepet Jengkol but, through the game, they learn to be responsible and be tolerant of others. Those are what we are promoting. It turns out that the values of the game are still relevant for children. So, it’s about the content and the values. Having acknowledged the role of intangible elements in tangible heritage, interviewees began to recognize the importance of highlighting intangible heritage as representations. Such representations include local wisdom and past values, which need to be maintained and introduced to contemporary society through interpretive activities. The importance of intangible elements of heritage is presented in more detail in the third part of this section, Integration of Tangible and Intangible Elements. 4.1.1.3 Definitions expanded to conscious selection of heritage values As time progressed, interviewees’ definitions of heritage expanded to recognize the conscious selection of heritage values, along with both their tangible and intangible representations, that would provide benefits both now and into the future, and that should be passed to future generations. However, interviewees realized that not all heritage beliefs and values should be passed to the next generation. Selection of heritage values should be based on their benefits for future generations, with economic benefits mentioned by many interviewees. In addition to providing future benefits, heritage values also are selected based on present society’s values and norms. 4.1.1.3.1 Values-based selection of heritage. Many interviewees eventually came to understand that values are the essence of tangible heritage in its many forms. As a prerequisite for heritage, the values and any relevant tangible representations of them that are conserved and passed to the next generations should be deliberately and consciously selected. Said one interviewee: “But why do they need to be preserved? It’s because they’re heritage. (But not every single physical heritage object, right?) No. We also [specifically] select heritage buildings and areas to preserve.” Heritage selected for conservation and interpretation today is based on former values deemed still useful and appropriate to today’s society. One interviewee explained: 95 But something bad can only be a thing of the past; we won't “do” [use/apply] it in the future, right? So, the values of the past are actually the beautiful ones; [that’s] heritage. Because that’s our position [what should be]. So, if it's ugly… if its value is bad, we won't pay attention to it; people certainly will destroy it. But, if it's something beautiful, the ambience, people will surely and automatically … [value and conserve it] In general, respondents suggested that society decides which heritage values should be passed to the next generation based on their perceived benefits. 4.1.1.3.2 Important values for future generations. The interview data suggest that societies select heritage values that will be transmitted based on their perceptions that such values will be beneficial for future generations. In other words, not all values of the past need to be passed to future generations. One interviewee gave an example of a reason for selecting or not selecting specific values: “So, of the 2,600 games, of course there are games not in line with today’s life. For example, there are many mystical games – old-time ones – or maybe ones that are dangerous for the present. There are those kinds of things.” To many interviewees, contributions to a community’s economy or an individual’s personal income is one concrete benefit perceived as a basis for selecting heritage values to conserve and carry into the future. One interviewee, an architect, implied that heritage conservation within today’s discipline of architecture allows beneficial utilization of structures into the future. This concept of conservation is different from that of preservation that seeks only to maintain a relic in its original form and discourages its utilization. So, my way of thinking basically wasn’t that of archeologists. Archeologists’ orientation was preservation. Well, that's right. That's fine. But architects must talk about the future. We can also talk about producing future heritage. So we can't just measure… preserve [heritage]. But we also have to think about what we will do [with heritage resources]. Then, if we know what to do, how will we do that? Who will do that? Well, I got those [questions] after reading. One interviewee described his evolved understanding about the economic benefits of heritage, as differentiated from his former architecture-based perspective: 96 My point of view, however, is that of an architect’s. But when I met with tourism people, for example, who know more about economics, I got another perspective. In the past, I thought buildings must be like this or that [strictly conserved without giving a new function, including economic]. But when I met an economist, [I learned that] they [heritage buildings] could be altered to have new functions and so on. So, my thinking has changed. Interviewees eventually came to an understanding that heritage values should be selected deliberately, based on values perceived as beneficial, before they are passed to the next generation. Many interviewees began to learn that economic benefits are one consideration for transmitting heritage values to future societies. Other important values considered important for future generations are presented in the second section of Chapter Four – Benefits of Heritage Conservation and Interpretation. 4.1.1.3.3 Modification of heritage values for future generations. Respondents indicated that heritage values selected and conserved (whether represented by tangible or intangible characteristics) may be modified to meet the needs and context of today and into the future. Selecting values of the past is a continuous process that occurs in every generation. Each generation can build a different perception about one particular value than in previous or ensuing generations. This may result in one generation modifying or adapting values before passing them to the next generation. A few interviewees implied that one impetus for such modification was changing religious values. As exemplified by one interviewee: … once there was a grave of Nyai Melati. Nyai Melati used to be a court servant in the palace who made up the king’s bed. And there was a tomb of her. Well, if we look at its age, we can put it in the category of a protected cultural site, right? But, then, people sacralized it. (So, it's actually more related to religion?) Yes, you could say that. And then, in terms of history, it also had something to do with Hinduism, because of the shift from the Hindu kingdom to Islamic kingdom, even though Demak [name of one kingdom in central Java from the same era], then Pajang [name of another kingdom in central Java from the same era], and Kotagede still incorporated Hindu values, which sometimes contradict the teachings of Islam. But back to that tolerance. We just respect one another. There are Javanese Muslims, some are Muhammadiyah Muslims, because here the Muhammadiyah movement is very strong. 97 In other words, inappropriate heritage is discarded in some cases21, and it is respected and tolerated in other cases, even if different from a current group’s beliefs. The influence of current religious values can result in omission or less intensity of practices related to some particular values for transmission to the next generation 4.1.1.4 Definitions expanded to view heritage as a complex system Since the beginning of the twenty-first century, interviewees’ personal understanding of definitions of heritage expanded beyond individual representations of human-created buildings, monuments, cuisine, games, crafts, music, and dances. Heritage that is not human-built includes the natural environment in which numerous of the elements form a whole in which social interactions occur (Saujana, or cultural landscapes), and that include the spiritual elements that underlie values. Thus, interviewees’ views of heritage became more comprehensive, in that heritage is not represented by single heritage objects but the totality of natural, cultural, and spiritual elements, as well as the interrelationships among all these tangible and intangible elements. Some interviewees described their new understanding of heritage, as illustrated by the following quotes from two interviewees: Well, in my own understanding, heritage is not only limited to … um, what do you call it … buildings, or … um … Heritage [thinking] … what else? But nature also is heritage, in my opinion. And heritage also can signify human creations – for example, rice fields. That’s … that’s heritage. Then, I saw that nowadays the priority is how ... well, as I said, ‘area-based conservation’ is done. We don’t talk about “this monument, this object, this building” anymore. That is one [object]. Or “this dance, that dance.” But how the two [tangible and intangible] can be in one place, in one space. So, now that’s how I also see heritage. One interviewee exemplified the comprehensive and integrated nature of heritage based on his work on Saujana, with a spiritual element attached to it: 21 According to the common belief in Indonesia, religions and cultures are two different things. Most Indonesians believe religions are not considered as part of cultures, which are created by humans, but were derived from revelations. 98 I researched the Saujana of the Borobudur area. So, the Borobudur area not only consists of a temple, but more than that. It’s the surrounding areas, with the temple in the center, encircled by mountains that make the Saujana attractive. So, it is surrounded by mountains – Mount Merapi, Mount Merbabu, Mount Sundoro, Mount Sumbing, as well as Menoreh Hills. That’s my opinion. Now, how the temple is related to humans. So, in the past, a temple was viewed through the location where it’s built. Oh, it turns out that it was built in the middle of a valley, among the mountains. People back then built temples here because of their macro-cosmos, micro-cosmos beliefs. So, actually, Saujana has existed since a long time ago. Interviewees’ early definitions were influenced strongly by the longer-established Western conception of heritage and the field of architecture, but have evolved to a more Eastern concept of heritage, that is now more often reflected in priorities and practice (introduced in Chapter Two and to be discussed more in the “Practice” section of this chapter). As evident in interviewees’ evolving understanding of heritage over time, numerous factors have influenced their definitions: early exposure to “heritage” from childhood experiences and parental influence, formal university education (and respective disciplines chosen), professional development opportunities (conferences, books and journal articles, interactions with other professionals, research), and work within communities (varied activities to raise awareness, develop support, and access funding and other resources to do heritage work). 4.1.2 Current Definitions of Heritage Interviewees’ current understanding of heritage provides a foundation for more detailed discussion about values perceived as outstanding and valuable enough to be passed on to future generations. At the core of heritage is that it comprises outstanding and important values that are recognized, used, and expressed by one generation, and that are selected to be passed from one generation to the next for their benefits and contributions to society. Heritage also is defined as a complex system of various elements that gives a community an identity and strength due to its distinctiveness. While individual respondents’ definitions are not exactly the same as each other’s, across their comments are some common elements that seem to illustrate a current understanding of heritage that include the following key elements: 1) outstanding values that are passed on and beneficial to the next generation, 2) heritage as a 99 complex system of diverse elements, and 3) heritage as outstanding values that give a community identity and strength. 4.1.2.1 Outstanding values passed and beneficial to the next generation Interviewees defined heritage as outstanding values of daily life and local wisdom that are practiced in daily life and passed down from one generation to the next generation and deemed to be beneficial to future generations. The adjective “outstanding” implies that only heritage with particular values – instead of all – will be passed to the next generations. One interviewee described an outstanding value as: “Something that should be part of daily life, human daily life, and it is the best of the good things inherited from a predecessor with a provision that people use it for their dynamics to move forward.” One interviewee directly associated heritage with local wisdom: I think heritage essentially is wisdom, and that has been my understanding since then through today. Probably based on my experiences – not only based on projects – whether it's tangible or intangible. The intangible is the wisdom itself, which means something abstract within a community, such as spirit of togetherness, mutual assistance, building our town through activities that we have been doing so far. In addition to believing heritage is grounded in “outstanding values,” most interviewees also considered heritage as something that is a reflection of the past and “passed down to the future.” One interviewee elaborated: Heritage is something that has value. It can be physical or non-physical. Any form. … So, yes, something that has added value, special value. Specific characteristics … Or something that has been passed down for generations. Traditions that have been passed down from generation to generation. That is definitely heritage. Furthermore, heritage should be “beneficial to future generations.” The values of heritage should not only be maintained but also contribute to the betterment of future society’s living, such as for “solving future society’s problems utilizing values of the past” and “building a quality living of future societies.” How heritage benefits future societies was explained by one interviewee: 100 Well, in my perception, heritage is how an object or an artifact or a culture give contributions to the thinking of today’s society. So, it’s not only about the ‘saving’ conserving context. If it’s only about ‘saving,’ I think it would be our nature as humans to respect our ancestors [humans’ tendency to appreciate and save what their ancestors pass to them]. I mean, [that’s because] the identity of a nation lies there. That’s our nature [tendency]. But, what’s called heritage is how it gives beneficial contributions to future generations. 4.1.2.2 Heritage as a complex system of various elements Respondents’ views of outstanding heritage values incorporate the integrated system of tangible and intangible heritage representations, as they represent valued cultural, natural, and spiritual elements. Many interviewees included the relations between humans and their environments as a form of heritage. Said one interviewee: “Then, what we conserve is not a single object, but it is something related to human interactions with the environment.” Furthermore, some interviewees recognized the spiritual element as a strong part of heritage in Indonesia. This spiritual element reflects the interactions between humans and the spiritual world, and are practiced as part of humans’ living, sometimes in a primarily symbolic rather than functional way: In fact, in Indonesia, especially in Java, the spirituality is stronger [than in the West]. (In Indonesia or the East?) In the East. Sometimes things that don’t make sense are still implemented, such as people giving food [as offerings] to trees … In Kotagede, there are still people who give offerings, such as incense and flowers. Some interviewees further explained that the root of the spiritual element of heritage in Indonesia, particularly as related to Saujana or cultural landscapes, is the Tri Hita Karana philosophy. This philosophy emphasizes the importance of building and maintaining relations between humans and humans, humans and nature, and humans and the Creator, to achieve a balanced and harmonious life. This philosophy is manifested through various kinds of daily and cultural practices. One interviewee gave an example of Tri Hita Karana implementation: Well, in the end, it [spiritual element] is functional, but the one in Indonesia is rooted in Tri Hita Karana. The Jati Luwih [terraced rice fields] in Bali, are connected to this ... to the way of life, such as the water regulation of Subak [a traditional Balinese irrigation system]. So, that shows people’s intention to take care of the earth. 101 Thus, interviewees defined heritage as a complex and interrelated system of varied elements rather than as any single object. This system consists of natural, cultural, and spiritual elements, including the interrelationships among these elements. 4.1.2.3 Outstanding values as identity and strength Outstanding values also represent significant elements of the past that give identity to and are a source of strength for a community. Intentionally selected outstanding values of heritage can distinguish a community from other communities as well as become a strength for the community that holds its people together. Every community has its own values and local wisdom that are inherited from their predecessors, which give it an identity that distinguishes it from other communities. Some interviewees explained their concept of identity: The key word is only one, identity. (Identity in? ...) And that is a basic need, the essence of all people in the world, whatever that is. (What do you mean? Identity is like ...) Imagine, that’s what distinguishes humans from inanimate objects – identity. So, if a human has no identity, he is an inanimate object. Therefore, heritage is important because it is the essence of the life of every individual in the world. A few interviewees opined that such distinctiveness can be utilized as a community’s strength. One interviewee said: So, that’s what I thought [about heritage] and it contains, like I said, that values have their physical manifestations. So, um … a physical manifestation we conserve is a sort of … um … symbol or form that has meanings; like I said: values that are important and become strengths for a community’s identity and they need to be passed on as a continuous strength into the future. These few interviewees also explained that distinctiveness can be used as a strength, and can be applied to practical purposes, such as architectural heritage that gives a special character to a city; thus, it can be utilized as a city branding as well as marketing tool to attract investors and tourists. 4.1.3 Integration of Tangible and Intangible Elements Despite their early focus on tangible heritage – e.g., architectural styles represented by historic buildings – both in their early understandings of heritage and in early stages of this 102 study’s interviews, the more interviewees talked, it became clear that most of them believed that cultural values, local wisdom, traditional practices, spiritual beliefs, and other intangible elements really are the most important elements of heritage. And they recognized that tangible heritage elements represent these intangible elements in visible and concrete ways. Even though the original research design included a specific question about the relative roles of tangible and intangible heritage, interviewees tended to incorporate these ideas as they discussed their definitions and practice. Thus, the integration of tangible and intangible elements of heritage was conveyed and embedded throughout the interview conversations. Through this process, two themes emerged, reflecting interviewees’ view of integrated tangible and intangible heritage, including their perception of heritage as a holism, and that the holism creates values and identities for a community. 4.1.3.1 A holistic view of heritage Interviewees’ descriptions indicate their holistic view of heritage, whereby tangible and intangible heritage are interrelated, and that the tangible elements are concrete representations of the intangible values. This holistic view of tangible and intangible heritage is described by one interviewee based on her practice: “If we use the term ‘focus,’ everything becomes a focus. Then it doesn’t mean Organization B focuses only on buildings. It [heritage] really must be holistic, right?” As previously described in this chapter, such a view has been the result of an evolutionary process, beginning with a focus on tangible heritage objects or structures and morphing into an understanding that simultaneously includes both tangible and intangible heritage. Some interviewees explained that the intangible aspects of heritage, such as values, meanings, and functions, are embodied in the tangible form and that both intangible and tangible aspects complement each other. One key actor exemplified the embodiment of the intangible within tangible heritage based on her work experience: Well, human activities are contained in forms, right? Buildings will not be alive without living, activities, souls. So, it takes two. That’s why the project in Kotagede in ’98 used a socio-cultural approach first – rather than [working only on] its [physical] forms. Well, that 103 [socio-cultural approach] affected the forms - when conserving the arts, and so on. Then they thought, “What would it be [used] for after they [local community members] kept on rehearsing? Let’s perform.” To perform, you need a place. “Which place is suitable? Here is the right one.” The original Kotagede was like that [referring to a habit of Kotagede people, mutual cooperation]. Then they [some local community members] worked on the building, and others were supportive – like [providing] food. “Let's make it!” We reintroduced traditional food in the present, and so on. So, they [local community members] participated in the event because they wanted to – not for “no reason.” They’re connected to one another [they worked together to support each other]. Actually automatically [spontaneously]. Several interviewees added that the holistic view of heritage actually is the foundation of Indonesians’ perceptions of heritage. One interviewee asserted the following notion: But I want to precisely counter the [direction of the heritage] movement [the idea that prioritizes tangible heritage] because it would actually take the Indonesian heritage movement in a wrong direction. Wrong is relative. In my opinion, that is wrong. Wrong, in my opinion, is what’s said earlier, that we focus on one thing instead of holism, so to speak. I see the heritage of Indonesia as a holistic thing, whereas we professionals in this [heritage conservation] field focus on the partial parts, in my opinion. Another characteristic of the Indonesian view of heritage is the spiritual element. As previously described in this chapter, spirituality is a significant aspect of Indonesian heritage: Indonesian cultures actually do not differentiate between tangible and intangible. We always see that in the tangible aspect there must always be the spiritual element, and we also strongly believe that there is life after death, for example, a cycle. Interviewees have developed a holistic view of heritage, in that both tangible and intangible heritage are interrelated and viewed as a whole. In addition, spirituality is an integral part of this holism, and represents an essential intangible aspect of heritage (e.g., relations with the Creator or the spiritual realm). 4.1.3.2 Tangible and intangible heritage together create unique values and identity for communities Collectively, the combination and integration of tangible and intangible heritage creates unique values and identities for communities. Interviewees described illustrative combinations and integration as a building and its ambiance, a building and its function, a city and its soul. One interviewee gave an example of the combination of a building and its ambiance that generates a unique value: 104 So, this [her parents’ house] must be retained because there is so much uniqueness, and we bring many parties together here, right? On a space where there is an old building, where they look for traditional foods – those are all here. Feel the atmosphere. Another interviewee exemplified the relationship between a place’s identity and tangible sites as manifestations of intangible elements, such as the living cultures of people who build and use the sites. The intangible aspects of heritage, which are manifested in tangible forms, eventually build an identity of a place: A city must have a spirit, a soul. A soul can exist if a city has an identity. That identity distinguishes one city from the others. Now, what is Yogya’s identity? Some say, “Oh, it’s the high culture – that’s the cultural identity.” Then, what is the manifestation of the cultural identity? So, an identity must have its form. Well, there is the Palace, there is Malioboro. What if the palace is gone, for example? What would Yogya be if it has no identity? 4.1.3.3 Differences in findings between Bandung and Yogyakarta interviewees Two key differences are evident in findings from Bandung and Yogyakarta. Interviewees in Yogyakarta placed more emphasis on the importance of intangible heritage, such as values, concepts and life philosophies, local wisdom, symbols, and identity, when describing heritage than did interviewees associated with Bandung, who often focused on, or at least started with, descriptions of conserving heritage buildings and other structures. One interviewee from Yogyakarta, for example, elaborated on the importance of local wisdom as expressed in the daily lives and activities of Kotagede residents (as previously described on p. 93). This was one of many examples she described during her interviews. This reliance on conserving and sharing local wisdom, behaviors, and values reflects the importance of intangible heritage within the daily lives of people in Kotagede. Interviewees in Yogyakarta also indicated the strong influence of spiritual values on heritage in Yogyakarta. They implied it through examples related to Saujana heritage. As aforementioned, Saujana heritage comprises elements of humans, nature, and the Creator, representing the spiritual world, as well as interrelationships among these elements. The concept of Saujana heritage is rooted in the Hindu concept of Tri Hita Karana, which aims at 105 building harmony among humans, between humans and nature, and between humans and God. The importance of spirituality in heritage was conveyed by another interviewee in Yogyakarta: Well, in the East, what I know is that spirituality, or beliefs, give more color to local community living. Maybe, in the West, there must also be spirits, but they’re not … what do you call it … sort of expressed [widely believed or openly admitted]. Here, spirituality is a foundation. Well, actually, the goal of spirituality is the harmony of life, the balance of life. So, we must live in balance, the relationship between humans and humans, humans and nature, and humans with their God – they must be balanced. Then, spirituality comes in various forms – here, in Java, for example, in Kotagede, there’s a banyan tree that is still worshipped, given incense, flowers. Well, it’s actually spiritual, right? Intended for people to live in harmony, and there is still a lot more. In addition to expressing a stronger influence of spirituality in their definitions of heritage, Yogyakarta interviewees stressed the importance of the idea that intangible heritage is incorporated into a community’s daily life. As described by one interviewee, local wisdom applied in Kotagede is rooted in spiritual values, rooted in Javanese Indigenous beliefs, and influenced also by various religions, including Hindu and Islamic beliefs. Even though Islam is the predominant religion of the Kotagede people today, practices that reflect Kejawan are still evident to some extent. Kejawen is a fusion of local Javanese spiritual beliefs with Hinduism and Islam, that has diffused into Javanese culture and is still practiced by many Javanese today (Al Amin et al., 2020). As Chapagain suggests (2013), Asian cultural landscapes are influenced by multiple religions and associated traditional practices. The practice of Kejawen by some community members in Yogyakarta – in this case, specifically in Kotagede – has become an antithesis of the rising concern and practice of pure Islamic religious values by other Javanese today (Al Amin et al., 2020; Arifin et al., 2019). This is because there is growing awareness among some puritan Javanese Muslims today that practicing Islamic values should not be mixed up with other religious practices. As described in this dissertation’s preceding Definitions section, a community tends to discard past values that it considers incompatible with its currently held values. This also applies to intentional or conscious selection of values that are passed to future generations. Discourse about how varied religions have affected today’s perceptions of heritage among communities – in this case, 106 specifically related to Kotagede – is included in the following discussion that reflects on findings related to definitions of heritage, and links the findings with ideas found in published literature. 4.1.4 Discussion: Heritage Definition as Values of the Past that Benefit the Next Generations During the early phases of conscious heritage conservation planning and implementation, as experienced by interviewees (in the 1980s and early 1990s), the focus of conservation revolved around tangible heritage, particularly of architecturally significant structures. In the ensuing decades, interviewees’ definitions of heritage evolved from tangible- centric, through incorporation of intangible values, to more holistic views of integrated elements. The holistic approach encompasses tangible and intangible aspects, integrates cultural, natural, and spiritual elements, and acknowledges the interrelationships among them. I suggest that this evolution has been affected by two factors: 1) evolving global perceptions of heritage, and 2) expanding personal experiences. First, this evolution is consistent with the global evolution of the understanding of heritage, previously dominated by Western concepts and practices that prioritized material- focused heritage conservation based on representing authentic and accurate physical representations of a specific time period or cultural influence. Beginning in the mid-1990s and evolving through the first decade of the 21 st century, the global heritage community began to recognize the value of contributions of non-Western concepts and practices, thereby shifting from tangible-centric concepts and practices to include intangible heritage as important elements in both heritage conservation and interpretation (Forster et al., 2019; Aygen, 2012; Ahmad, 2006). The global view of heritage as a complex and integrated system emerged in formal conventions only in the first decade of the 21 st millennium. Second, this evolution in ideas by individuals has been a result of the accumulation of knowledge and experiences of interviewees through their own Indonesia-based heritage work. In practice, they faced practical, social, economic, political, and environmental challenges that 107 influenced the way they viewed heritage, how they worked with communities around the idea of celebrating and conserving heritage, and how they funded and applied their work. In the process, they learned lessons and developed best practices that featured Indonesian values and localities. For example, some interviewees in Yogyakarta developed heritage-related projects as one strategy to address disaster-related destruction of homes, communities, and livelihoods. Examining what interviewees conveyed, evolution of Indonesians’ understanding of heritage, even if introduced as a concept from outside of Indonesia, suggests that a context- appropriate definition is developed over time as a result of multiple factors. These factors include practitioners’ and leaders’ values, educational and professional backgrounds, interactions with their communities, political and economic realities and priorities, local needs, environmental challenges such as natural disasters (Dewi, 2017), and research and experimentation with adaptations to local situations. Despite being influenced initially by predominantly Western-based concepts and practices of heritage conservation and interpretation, interviewees’ understanding and practices concerning heritage expanded gradually, and evolved to a concept more suitable to local beliefs, values, situations and conditions. All the aforementioned factors contributed to the shift in their understanding of heritage, which affects how they think about and practice heritage-related work. Interestingly, this evolution is similar to the evolution of global definitions, which have only recently expanded to include more Eastern perspectives and philosophies and whose evolution took many decades, even centuries, to occur. It is relevant to review how awareness of and interest in heritage among some interviewees began to develop before or during the early phase of active heritage awareness in Indonesia in the 1980s and early 1990s. Such awareness and interest were often a result of interviewees’ first impressions gained and encounters made with heritage during their childhoods, with parents and their surrounding neighborhoods as two major influencing factors. 108 This process is understandable because humans attach physically and emotionally to tangible components of a geographic space (Ballinger, 2003). Oftentimes, such impressions also were built through their encounters with particular objects, often termed “memory sites” (Nora, 1989). It is common that children imprint what they observe and learn during childhood from their family members, their first and closest social circle, and from their surrounding environments. One result is development of an emotional connection, described as follows: “The emotional connection between individual to a place forms a place attachment. Place attachment is a symbol of relationship with a place where it is generated by giving emotional and common sense meaning to a specific place or boundary and explaining how people perceive and relate to them” (Altman & Low in Felasari et al., 2017, p. 2). Place attachment also refers to “… an emotional or affective bond between an individual and a particular place as well as the functional bonds that occur repeatedly in interactions between people and place” (Oh et al., 2012, p. 74). Findings from the interviews suggest that the impressions, emotional connections, and memories brought from their childhood throughout their adolescence led interviewees to enter a profession that reminds them of or accommodates their interest in heritage, consciously or unconsciously. Thus, many interviewees chose and built a career within a profession similar to those of their parents. Explicitly, based on their childhood experiences, many interviewees received their early impressions of heritage from their fathers, which led them to their current professions as professors of architecture or other positions in the academic domain. In addition, I suggest that interviewees’ awareness of and interest in heritage would not have solidified if not followed and reinforced by further engagements with heritage. This is termed solidification within the collective memory literature (Anastasio et al., 2012). Such engagements occurred during interviewees’ college experiences, during which they had opportunities to learn more about heritage and heritage conservation, as well as to work on heritage-related projects. Some interviewees received Western educations, from which they learned about Western philosophies, concepts, approaches, and practices of heritage and 109 conscious heritage conservation. As a consequence, ideas that proliferated during the early phase of conscious heritage conservation work in Indonesia were inclined toward Western concepts. These interviewees studied during the 1980s and 1990s, when global ideas, strongly influenced by Western philosophies of and approaches to heritage and conscious heritage conservation, focused predominantly on tangible heritage. As time progressed, interviewees’ understanding of heritage expanded to include other aspects of heritage, including intangible elements of heritage and nature, which is in line with the growing understanding about heritage globally (Byrne et al., 2013; Vecco, 2010). Interviewees also learned that not all global concepts or understandings about heritage are applicable to local situations. Thus, interviewees eventually felt the need to explore and use new and more culturally appropriate concepts and approaches to heritage and conscious heritage conservation that truly reflect or are aligned with their specific localities. Many interviewees seemed to emphasize the spiritual element when describing heritage. The significance of spirituality among many interviewees was evident particularly in their descriptions of Saujana heritage. Saujana heritage is the Indonesian term and concept resembling the Western-developed concept of cultural landscape, but with the addition of the relationship between humans and the Creator. Geographer Otto Schlüter, in 1908, was credited with having first formally used “cultural landscape” as an academic term. As defined by the U.S. National Park Service, a “cultural landscape” is a geographic area, including both cultural and natural resources and the wildlife and domestic animals therein, associated with a historic event, activity, or person, or that exhibits other cultural or aesthetic values. What makes the cultural landscape concept in Indonesia, particularly in Java, different from that in western cultures is the incorporation of a spiritual element, the Tri Hita Karana philosophy. Tri Hita Karana, originally rooted in Hinduism, seeks balance in relationships among humans, humans and nature, and humans and the Creator. The association of heritage with spirituality is consistent with what Chapagain (2013) suggests: “Asian heritage draws more from spiritual or 110 intangible beliefs and worldviews than tangible or material aesthetic principles. Also, in general, Asian heritage encompasses people, nature and culture as integral parts of a holistic concept of heritage” (p. 3). This notion also is in line with Chung (2005), who emphasized that East Asian societies determine their heritage values in relation to spiritual and naturalistic sensibilities. Even though the majority of Yogyakartans today are Muslims, the region has been home to several different religions, including Hinduism, that had been predominant in the region for much longer than Islam (Werdiningsih & Umaya, 2017). Thus, whether realized or not, Hindu values have permeated many aspects of local daily life and are practiced in a variety of Yogyakartan cultural practices. The selection of values made by previous generations indicates the process of intentionally transmitting what is considered beneficial or meaningful to be inherited by future generations (King, 2016; Thompson, 1979), such as history, physical design or architecture, and cultural, spiritual, scientific, and social life (Fitri et al., 2019). Based on evidence in the literature and ideas expressed by interviewees, selection of values is a continuous process. This selection process for relevant and beneficial values is not owned exclusively by a single generation; rather, each generation makes decisions about whether or not specific inherited values are compatible with currently held beliefs and values, and are deemed appropriate for the current social, cultural, and political context. For example, some community members in Kotagede opposed the practices of Kejawen despite knowing that such practices are passed down by their predecessors. The opposition between some members of the two communities in Kotagede, specifically, and Yogyakarta, in general – those who still practice Kejawen and those who strictly follow and apply pure Islamic teaching – often creates conflicts (Arifin et al., 2019). The respect and tolerance that have become the local wisdom of these two communities do not mean that puritan views of a small group within each community do not exist. The pure Islam followers deemed that such practices are contradictory to Islamic values by which they currently live, for example sacralising a dead figure who is not related to Islamic teaching, as in the case 111 of Nyai Melati as mentioned by one interviewee. As a consequence, some values of the past may discontinue in practice within a certain generation, then cease to exist in the future. Thus, I suggest that longevity of any specific heritage value and its representations depends on the perceptions of a particular generation, and these perceptions are affected by religious and other values. Additionally, people coming from one place to a new place can bring with them new religious and other values that effect changes in values of a local cultural group of people. It is also possible that the meanings and values associated with a specific tangible heritage representation may change as the people who use it change. I suggest that, because values evolve, with some being discarded across generations, and because many of them are held and practiced only as intangible values, it can be challenging for an outsider to learn completely what a specific Indonesian community’s perceptions of its heritage values are. This is due partly to the diverse ethnicities, histories, and cultural and religious backgrounds of Indonesians. Individual communities will maintain and pass down what they consider worthy of transmitting (Smith et al., 2003), and a community’s decisions are affected by many factors, as conveyed by Chapagain (2013): “… anything can become heritage when it matters to people. What matters to people is a cultural process, drawing from their worldviews, beliefs, practices, needs and aspirations” (p. 4). As illustrative, religions in Indonesia arrived one after another, creating layers of religions within Indonesian history. The acceptance of different religions among the broader Indonesian society reflects what Welty (1966) stated about Asian people, who have been viewed by scholars as versatile in nature. This characteristic grounds Asians in long-held traditions, and allows them also to be receptive and adaptable to new ideas and institutions while simultaneously maintaining their traditions. This suggests that values change depending on the perceptions of societies (Harrison, 2013), and that the criteria determined by a community are subjective (Zhao et al., 2016). 112 The emphasis on intangible heritage by Yogyakarta interviewees, even though they recognize the interactions among tangible and intangible elements, may be influenced by the strong presence of a local system of monarchy. Duncan and Duncan (2004) state that a local community creates and lives within a landscape through everyday living, and that the living practices are practical, material, and involve repetitive use of senses. As applied and expressed in Yogakarta, the monarchy is symbolized not only by existence of a royal palace and other tangible forms representing itself, but also and more importantly by local traditional philosophies, values, and practices that have been deeply ingrained in the local lives of Yogyakarta’s society. I suggest that a related factor may be the pride of local Yogyakartans in the monarchy and their deep respect for their Sultan, which encourages the people to conserve their Javanese culture, which strongly reflects the importance of intangible heritage. Alternatively, Bandung lacks the presence of a local, traditional monarch system whose values and practices remain evident in daily life. Bandung no longer is influenced by the presence of the colonial Dutch, whose earlier presence strongly influenced the tangible evidence of their former presence, visible primarily in the city’s tangible architecture. Therefore, I suggest that Bandung has benefited from the physical development undertaken by the colonial Dutch administration, particularly during its Golden Age in the first half of the 20th century. This has created strong visible evidence via those tangible resources, but the related intangible values. It also is possible that another factor affecting Bandung interviewees’ lesser emphasis on intangible elements of heritage is that Bandung always has been multiracial and multi-ethnic. Because it is challenging to select a single set of heritage objects and values that represent the entire contemporary population, Bandung is more easily identified by and associated with the existence of colonial Dutch architecture. However, this speaks to a need to explore and identify contemporary population groups in order to celebrate and represent their multiple cultural backgrounds. 113 Despite the differences in perspectives expressed by interviewees in the two cities, all interviewees now have holistic views of heritage that seem to reflect Asian concepts of and approaches to heritage. In most Asian cultures, heritage is not viewed as a single object but a collection of tangible and intangible, natural and cultural, and sometimes spiritual elements. Inclusion of the spiritual element reflects the Asian approach, particularly when lifeways and heritage are perceived as a cyclical process (Karlström, 2005), as commonly practiced in Japan (Suprapti, 2017). This is true even in the approach for conserving tangible heritage representations. In Japan, conservation of heritage means to periodically – about every 20 years – reconstruct a building with new materials using the same techniques as used originally (Aygen, 2012) as opposed to maintaining the authenticity of materials applied at a specific point in time, as is more prevalent in western cultures (see Aristoteles’ entelecheia in Chapter 2). Interviewees’ expanding understanding of heritage reflects their need for locality-specific concepts and applications of heritage rather than practices strictly following early Western approaches, which they had found to be contradictory to local philosophy, concepts, approaches, and practices (Winter, 2014; Winter, 2014; McRae, 2017; Nursanty et al., 2017; Jones, 2018; Siregar, 2019; Kubontubuh & Martokusumo, 2020; Permana et al., 2020; You & Hardwick, 2020; Gao & Jones, 2021). Heritage is not perceived as a finished product, as viewed from the linear perspective of Western cultures, but a cyclic process, as rooted in the Hindu jjimnoddharana (see Chapter 2). Despite the long and strong roots of Hinduism in many Indonesian cultures, heritage conservation concepts and practices seem to have followed those of Western cultures, at least initially. For example, the restoration and conservation of the Borobudur Temple (see Figure 9), the world’s largest Buddhist temple located northwest of Yogyakarta, applied Western concepts and approaches (Nagaoka, 2015). I suspect this has a connection with the presence of the colonial Dutch in the archipelago, who initiated and implemented Western approaches and practices of heritage conservation. This leads to another question about the true foundation of 114 heritage conservation in Indonesia – whether or not intentional, or conscious, heritage conservation existed in Indonesian cultures prior to being actively and overtly acknowledged as a result of Western influences. If it did, what heritage would Indonesian people predominantly conserve – tangible or intangible? How would Indonesian people conserve their heritage? Figure 9 Borobudur Temple Note. Built between the 8th and the 9th century, Borobudur, the world’s largest Buddhist temple, was found by the British in the early 19 th century after it had been abandoned by its builders for approximately 800 years. In the early 20th century, the Dutch restored Borobudur by applying the Western concept of conservation, emphasizing authenticity and history of the temple. The Western focus of heritage conservation on a single object is in juxtaposition to that of the East, where the surrounding natural and cultural elements, as well as spirituality aspect of the people living around the object, are taken into account as a holism. Photo taken in May 2019 by Patria. Reflecting on cases of heritage conservation in Japan, which often is compared with and has similarities to heritage conservation in Indonesia, further questions arise as to whether the two Asian countries share similar backgrounds that affect their approaches to heritage 115 conservation. Interviewees did not identify any evidence of the Japanese cyclic view of heritage conservation in their places. Thus, the question is, what is the original practice of heritage conservation that truly represents Indonesian cultures, particularly in their respective areas? How are such practices different from that cyclic concept implemented in Japan? Additionally, as Islam reached the Indonesian archipelago in the 16 th century and has become the religion of the majority of Indonesian people today, what are Islamic concepts of heritage conservation, and has there been any Islamic influence on heritage conservation practices in Indonesia? In summary, interviewees in this study defined heritage generally as values of the past and their tangible and intangible manifestations that are passed down to benefit future generations. Their definitions place emphasis on the intangible aspects of heritage, which is similar to more recent academic definitions that include cultural practices rather than being limited solely to sites, places, and intangible performances and events (Smith & Akagawa, 2009). Examples of intangible aspects include traditional culture, oral traditions, and folklore (Ruggles & Silverman, 2009), and the practices, representations, expressions, knowledge, and skills, along with the cultural spaces in which these living heritage traditions are played out (Arrunnapaporn, 2009). The tangible can be understood and interpreted through the intangible; thus, societies and values are linked (Munjeri, 2004). In Indonesia, particularly in Yogyakarta, the intangible element represented by values and spirituality is strong, as is the view of heritage as a system, or totality. I suggest that interviewees’ definitions of heritage are a result of a dynamic process affected by continuous convergence and divergence of values. I use and define “convergence of values” as adoption of new values by an individual or a group of people that is affected by various factors, including religious values, beliefs, and practices. For example, Yogyakartans began to embrace Islamic values when Islam arrived in the region in the early 17th century. “Divergence of values” is to decline or discard old values, a process also affected by various factors. For example, some Yogyakartans began to discontinue the practice of Kejawen as they considered it incompatible with their currently held religious values. On the 116 other hand, probably there will be values that have longevity in the future – values that manage to exist throughout multiple eras and generations, and that continue to exist into the future. Interviewees’ early awareness of, interest in, and understanding about heritage has been affected by various factors, such as family, their surrounding environments, socio-cultural values, education, professions, trends, and religions. In this specific study, their early perceptions tended to be consistent with Western mainstream ideas focusing on tangible heritage. However, interviewees’ understanding about heritage has been modified over time due to an accumulation of experiences and multiple other factors. This has resulted in an expansion of their concepts beyond foundational western concepts, with an aim to find concepts and practices more consistent with beliefs and values of their specific localities. 4.2 Motivations for Conscious Heritage Conservation and Interpretation This section presents the motivations for conscious heritage conservation and interpretation, as identified and described by interviewees. For this discussion, these motivations are represented by two categories of perceived benefits: first, benefits for individuals, and, second, benefits for the society at large. Benefits for individuals refer to the benefits of heritage conservation and interpretation that accrue to an individual. Benefits for the society at large refer to benefits that accrue to society as a collective, whereby those benefits can accrue to many people without reducing benefits to others. Explanations about benefits as they apply to an individual or a society are presented in separate sub-sections: 1) Benefits of Heritage Conservation and Interpretation for Individuals and 2) Benefits of Heritage Conservation and Interpretation to Societies. As illustrative of the differentiation, income from a heritage-based business or activity that is received by one individual or a small group of specific individuals is in contrast with heritage knowledge being distributed to and appreciated by the society at large. Some types of benefits can be received by both individuals and society as a 117 whole – for example, knowledge about heritage can benefit both an individual person as well as contribute to societal awareness and pride. 4.2.1 Benefits of Heritage Conservation and Interpretation for Individuals The most obvious motivations for heritage work, and the most frequently identified first by interviewees, have been benefits to individuals, primarily financial. Sometimes these benefits have served as motives for individuals to engage in heritage conservation and interpretation work. However, some intangible benefits also accrue to individuals. Thus, benefits of conscious heritage conservation and interpretation to individuals are categorized into financial and non- financial benefits. Financial benefits include: 1) increased value of a personal or family heritage property as a result of adaptive reuse, 2) income generated through utilization of local traditional arts and cultural demonstrations or programs, and 3) income generated through use of personally owned heritage sites for tourism-related experiences. Non-financial benefits include: 1) the sense of pleasure and/or pride felt by individuals who are involved in local tourism-related activities, and 2) the acquisition of personal knowledge gained as a foundation for engaging in heritage work. 4.2.1.1 Financial benefits of heritage conservation and interpretation to individuals Financial benefits of heritage conservation and interpretation to individuals refer to the income and other financial benefits individuals can receive. When one individual, family, or small business reaps financial benefits from a heritage-related enterprise or project, those benefits are not available directly to other individuals. For purposes of this discussion, economic principles such as multiplier effects and ripple effects are not considered. 4.2.1.1.1 Increased value of heritage properties as a result of adaptive reuse. Many interviewees stated that adaptive reuse of a heritage property can increase the property’s value. The owner of that property can receive related financial benefits, either when selling the property or when using the property for some business or other function that contributes to their income. Adaptive reuse is aimed at enhancing the tangible heritage-related aspects of a historic 118 building while increasing value and opportunities for income generation by giving a new function to the building. In turn, some portion of the income can be used to maintain the heritage building. Because adaptive reuse enhances the tangible heritage-related elements of such buildings, the improvements usually increase awareness of and improve the perceived image of these buildings by the public. In this way, buildings previously perceived as unattractive, abandoned ruins are converted to attractive, useful structures. One interviewee exemplified her experience with applying adaptive reuse to her family’s heritage property: We are trying to conserve them [house and compound] and, in doing so, we really have to think that we – people who live today – have the right to develop, have the right to utilize what previously existed, have the right to renew what was there. Now, such utilization must not only be considered as giving a function, a use, but also [bringing] economic values that can be used later to finance [the property’s] own [existence]. So, like that house [pointing at the house], we finance it so we can use it as a hotel. We can use it as a café, we can use it for exhibitions, souvenir shops, can use it as special co- working spaces, for art, for example. One non-architect interviewee also indicated that adaptive reuse can provide opportunities for new functions to a revitalized building, which in turn can increase the building’s income- generating opportunities: “After the earthquake, the owner of this house could build an eating place, which could also be used for meetings and many other [functions].” Adaptive reuse of a heritage building or property, which typically involves building stabilization, historic preservation (usually external façades of the buildings), and renovations to accommodate new uses (usually internal modifications), often will improve the physical appearance of a building or property and, as a result, increase public awareness and improve public perceptions of the building or property. This can attract people – local and non-locals – to visit, invest, or otherwise engage with the building or property. One interviewee observed: So, people today are also back to the past [nowadays people are attracted to things of the past], that suddenly [an old building or property] is becoming a very important place, an expensive place. Well, that means we also think it's expensive, that it has a value. It’s valuable, right? It's really valuable – people want to be here. That’s actually about it. 119 This increased value and subsequent uses of heritage buildings and properties can result in income generation for owners and business operators using those properties. Income generation results not only from heritage property revitalization and use for contemporary purposes, but also from their use in association with intangible heritage activities. 4.2.1.1.2 Income generation using local traditional arts and culture. Income generation also can result from utilization of communities’ traditional arts and culture. Based on many interviewees’ experiences, local communities can use local art and cultural resources as bases for income-generating opportunities, either in tangible forms, such as production of handicrafts, or in intangible forms, such as provision of cultural experiences. One interviewee shared her observation of a community’s utilization of local art, in this case, a Batik-making course: If you visit Imogiri and see the gazebo, you’ll see a gallery there, which is used to sell Batik. Then you’ll see the place is [also] utilized to make Batik. Then there is the Joglo [used] for meetings. Nowadays, almost every day, many people go there, especially school children, to practice [making] Batik. Only on [using] a piece of cloth. There can be up to 40 people per bus. If you have three buses, you’ll have [more than] a hundred students. She further added an example in which a local community generated income from the Batik they produced: If you go to Imogiri, their Batik now has very different designs. But the prices are high. Selling it is expensive. Millions [in IDR]. (Expensive because of the rising demand or quality?) Quality. Another interviewee explained her experience with organizing group visits for children to experience local culture in her neighborhood: For example, in a five-day program – not like a homestay program – they carry their own mattresses but sleep in local residents’ houses with the houseowners’ permission. One house accommodates about eight to ten people. The participants will be split into villages. Then, the five-day activity will be adjusted to their vision and mission, which is to provide activities for children aged between 13 and 19 years. What do they look for here? Well, as I said, it’s the local wisdom, such as joining the recitation after ”tarawih.” 120 Within the context of heritage groups in this study, one interviewee began with producing art and cultural products that catered to the public at large rather than used as an activity for a specific purpose, such as rebuilding post-disaster livelihoods. Other projects were conceived and implemented during post-disaster recovery efforts as strategies to help local communities rebuild their livelihoods, which includes income generation, while also conserving their heritage. Moving into the future, income generated through use of these local art and cultural resources, and expansion of such enterprises, can be maximized by formalizing the structure and operation of organizations that assist individuals and their communities in their post-disaster recovery. One interviewee recalled her experience with helping a local community, and its individual residents, rebuild their livelihoods after a devastating earthquake in May 2006: Finally, we encouraged people to identify which traditions they had that could make money. Finally, they started making Batik. They made crafts – I mean in Kotagede – they had begun to abandon the silver handicrafts at the refugee camps. They made them (Batik) during the emergency [situation]. They designed them, and they sold them, and that was fast enough to make them earn money. In a non-post-disaster-recovery circumstance, one interviewee found it necessary to formalize his programs and activities related to promotion of heritage values. By forming a legal business structure, he had the legal basis to expand his activities to both meet the organization’s mission and increase opportunities to generate income and earn profits. Said the interviewee: It was only legalized in 2009-2010. (As what?) Legalized as a yayasan ... um … what’s the English word for yayasan? (Foundation) Foundation. So... it only became a foundation in 2009-2010 … about 2010. (About 2010. So, what happened between 2003 and 2005?) 2003-2005 was sort of test case – sort of test case within myself. (For example?) I wanted to make sure about what I wanted to find. There were doubts caused by limitations of ideas and my knowledge. “Are there [values of traditional games] compatible with today’s life?” [I asked myself] when I was promoting games. It turned out that, on the journey, there were very many people who felt the benefits [from the group’s activities]. So, it [the organization using traditional toys and games as the focus of his work] was ... launched in 2005. I held firm on traditional games. Through the above quote, he explained that he already had the idea of creating a foundation between the years of 2005 and 2009. However, he wanted to learn his resources first before 121 acting formally on his intention. He then registered his foundation with the notary as a formal institution in 2010. He further gave an example of the financial benefits generated by the foundation’s, or community group’s (he used both terms interchangeably), programs that accrued to organizing committee members: Yes, for example we play Mini Gatrik on the table. It can be in line with the needs of today’s society. Secondly, it can be in line with the needs of the community group [yayasan] itself. So, we can generate profits and use them to improve the welfare of the community group members. Based on their individual experiences, interviewees described diverse examples of using local arts and cultural resources to generate income, often while also achieving other goals, such as rebuilding livelihoods, rebuilding communities after natural disasters such as earthquakes and volcanic eruptions, promoting local wisdom to guests in their neighborhoods, and meeting organizational missions. Even though income generation seemed to be a main goal, there is an implication that interviewees also believed that arts and cultural activities could help maintain their cultural heritage, which was even more fundamental than generating profits. However, generating income became a necessity in post-disaster efforts to help local community members rebuild their livelihoods, and to reinvigorate the communities themselves. 4.2.1.1.3 Income generation using heritage sites as tourist attractions or facilities. As described by a few interviewees, income has been generated by some community members using local heritage sites to attract visitors and provide locations and attractions for heritage- based programs and experiences within tourism-related contexts. However, only one interviewee had been managing tourism directly in her neighborhood, which included utilizing local heritage sites as tourist attractions in their own right and as facilities supporting other tourism-related functions. Based on her experiences, owners of heritage buildings and sites were particularly inclined to benefit financially by using their heritage resources to support tourism functions. She provided an example: “After the earthquake, the owner of this house 122 could build an eating place [for tourists], which [also] is used for meetings and many other [purposes].” She further gave examples related to the financial benefits that local residents in her neighborhood received from tourism-related activities, such as through providing guide services and traditional foods: “First, in terms of material, for example, when the local community [members] are involved as guides, they receive a guiding fee. Then local people who provide foods also receive compensation for the culinary services they provide.” Further, regarding provision of traditional foods: …[h]eritage trails during this time can be an example. They involve many people, starting with guides [licensed, professional guides employed by tour operators] as well as guides from local residents, local friends, then local residents who provide food. We also order from local traditional food producers. However, interviewees who recognized the benefits of heritage used for tourism purposes said that some local community members believed tourism-related income was simply an added value resulting from heritage conservation. Some community members considered conservation of a heritage property as more important than generating income through tourism. Said one interviewee: Many of them didn't think about the economy. Well, it’s because there were ... [pause] the connections between [their] inner self and socio-culture and that “something” [a particular art or cultural form]. And that, that [connection] can be strong. … So, talking about economics, for example in tourism, financial gain is a bonus for conservation [of the “something”]. In addition, involvement of some community members in local tourism-related activities was simply based on the personal pleasure they received as a result of welcoming and hosting guests in their neighborhood (explained in the “Non-financial benefits of heritage interpretation to individuals” section). Nevertheless, income generated by using heritage properties and resources has provided the financial resources for doing the heritage conservation work. In summary, based on their experiences, some interviewees recognized the potential to generate income by using heritage sites as tourism attractions or support facilities. However, 123 they also learned that some community members perceived heritage conservation as more important than using heritage sites for income-generating, tourism-related purposes (discussed more fully in the “Benefits of Heritage Conservation and Interpretation to Societies” section). 4.2.1.2 Non-financial benefits of heritage interpretation to individuals The second category of heritage benefits to individuals focuses on non-financial benefits. However, non- financial benefits apply primarily to heritage interpretation experiences rather than to heritage conservation efforts. The primary example is the sense of pleasure felt by some community members as a result of their interactions with visitors in their neighborhoods. In addition to this personal sense of pleasure, other non-financial benefits of heritage interpretation and conservation include knowledge acquisition, pleasure from the heritage ambiance of their community, and pride in their community and culture. These non-financial benefits of heritage overlap with benefits of heritage to societies at large (discussed in the “Benefits of Heritage Conservation and Interpretation to Societies” section). One interviewee identified one non-financial individual benefit as the sense of pleasure that some local community members gained from meeting and interacting with visitors in their neighborhoods. A spontaneous encounter with guests – experienced by local community members who are not members of a heritage or tourism-based organization – is a chance meeting between local community members and visitors who are on a guided tour of a local neighborhood. One interviewee explained this benefit based on her experiences: But, aside from that – especially with foreigners [international guests] - it usually occurred when we [she and her guests] spontaneously visited a house. For example, the homeowner was standing in front of his/her house, and we knew them. He/she simply would be excited to interact with the guests. So, it is not only a matter of material, but immaterial – they [local community members] can interact with people who are truly foreign, who have different skin colors, and so on. They were just excited. As the interviewee described, these individuals felt joy from merely meeting and interacting with guests in their own living environments; they did not have to join a tourism- related organization to interact with tourists, or to gain these personal emotional benefits. 124 4.2.2 Benefits of Heritage Conservation and Interpretation to Societies Aside from individual benefits, the interviewees stated that there are benefits of heritage conservation and interpretation work that accrue to society at large. These include: 1) raising society’s awareness of their heritage and its values, 2) generating knowledge about local history and local wisdom, 3) teaching social skills, 4) building local ambiance, place identity, and community pride, 5) maintaining living traditions and cultural aspects of social life, and 6) improving society’s wellbeing. 4.2.2.1 Raising society’s awareness of their heritage value A few interviewees believed that conserved tangible heritage can help raise society’s awareness of the importance of and cultural meanings associated with its heritage. Reconstruction or renovation of heritage structures and sites, including individual buildings, illustrates to society that heritage structures have value to the community. In other words, society’s raised awareness of heritage values is a benefit of heritage conservation to societies, as conveyed by one interviewee: Then, there’s the benefit for the community [of giving community-based heritage tours], which slowly would grow their awareness about cultural heritage. For example, we would choose a traditional house over a modern one as the lunch setting. We’d choose a traditional house so they would reconsider it if they intend to sell [their traditional house] and things like that, "Oh, my place has got more value, such as ‘among tamu’ [local form of hospitality], than my neighbor’s ordinary place.” In the interviewee’s interpretation, among tamu, which is part of local wisdom and a local form of hospitality, is more suitably presented within traditional buildings than in new, modern buildings. In this context, among tamu is well suited to any service that is delivered to guests in a local traditional building regardless of the kind of service provided by community members to their guests. A few interviewees believed that a conserved heritage structure can provide visible and tangible evidence of the importance of heritage conservation to the society, both for its own values and for facilitating community-wide economic enhancement. Conserved heritage also can generate knowledge about local history and local wisdom. 125 4.2.2.2 Generating knowledge about local history and local wisdom Conserving intangible and tangible heritage also can build broad knowledge about local heritage and culture within a society, including among its children and young people. The range of knowledge identified across several interviewees includes local history, local architecture, local wisdom, and social skills needed for civility and cultural maintenance. Raised awareness of local heritage should lead to a community’s collective interest in learning about local history. One interviewee opined: In my opinion, the community clearly must know that there is a historical correlation. Don't let history disappear. We must understand that first. It is for the community itself, and for the outsiders in general, that Kotagede has an important position in the historical plot of Indonesia. The “historical correlation” mentioned by the interviewee above refers to what the interviewee believed to be important for the present society at large. She implied that, to understand the present socio-cultural milieu of the Kotagede community, local residents, visitors, and society as a whole need to know about Kotagede’s past. The same interviewee also gave a specific example, indicating that focused heritage activities conducted within the fabric of daily community life can build knowledge about local wisdom. The related benefits from these activities accrue to the community at large. While focusing on local residents, the lessons also can extend to visitors. This interviewee reflected on her experiences: In Kotagede, there are enclaves for Quran study for children and teenagers. They are taught much about local wisdom and local virtues, such as cooperation, gotong royong [mutual cooperation], and focus toward the Takbiran Eid eve race for which teenagers work together every night to make lanterns. That reflects gotong royong. And [visitors] want to experience it; maybe it cannot be found elsewhere. That's why the local community has relatively clean alleys compared to what the guests see elsewhere. That’s one real example. That, for us, in my view, is local wisdom that can be shared. Maybe that can be emulated by guests. A virtue that can be shared and, hopefully, inspires. That’s our hope. 126 Still in relation to local wisdom, one interviewee referred to a benefit of conserved vernacular houses that often were built in accordance with local geographic conditions. For example, vernacular houses in some regions in Indonesia were built to anticipate natural disasters, such as earthquakes. By having these traditional houses conserved, societies have evidence of how buildings in Indonesia should be built to anticipate natural disasters as well as to learn about local wisdom related to building design. Said the interviewee: Yes, besides raising identity, the identity of uniqueness, there are also two others I saw. One, from the physical point of view, to avoid unplanned physical development. But it should take into account um … one, in terms of culture. What tradition influences the design. Secondly, there is also local wisdom related to our location in the Ring of Fire – Indonesia. (That’s what’s unique for Indonesia?) Uh huh. What should the buildings be? We cannot build skyscrapers just like that [pointing at a skyscraper outside the window]. 4.2.2.3 Teaching social skills Another knowledge-based benefit is that heritage can be used to teach about social structure and skills. Through the upkeep of intangible heritage, including those heritage values that are sometimes linked with artifacts, community members can learn about themselves as individuals and their positions in the society. Also, community members can learn how to build relations within the society and with the surrounding environment. One interviewee illustrated this benefit based on his experiences promoting local values and social norms through teaching others, particularly youth, about traditional games: Artifacts are… goods, and goods are products of human cultures that have values. We’ll be able to learn about our true selves through artifacts. Let’s say, we are a Keris [traditional dagger] holder, a machete holder, a spear holder, a Tetenong [rice basket] holder. Through our interactions with Tetenong, we will know what people's lives are like, what the value is, what the benefits are, what the purpose is. So, in my opinion, artifacts are important. (Those were examples, right?) Yes. We’re not letting artifacts [disappear] because [interacting with them is] a way for people to know about themselves through existing artifacts. Well, we hope that after playing that game, children will understand that they are part of everything, human beings, and they will have to give contributions. They also will need others, and the others also will need him, so to speak. 127 Describing learning about humans’ relations with their surrounding environments, he added: “That’s within the context of learning about himself, learning about himself while interacting with his natural environment, or whatever, around himself, right?” 4.2.2.4 Building local ambiance, place identity, and community pride Many interviewees stated a belief that conservation of tangible and intangible heritage combined can create an ambiance or atmosphere unique to that place, which in turn creates place identity for residents, and that identity can result in community pride. One interviewee described the ambiance created by their community’s heritage buildings: Well, Bandung has 1,700 protected heritage buildings – which is a large number. Well, when the [buildings] are damaged, or extinguished [allowed to deteriorate or be demolished], well, the feeling, the ambience will not be the same – the ambience, so to speak. That’s how we feel about a place. Another interviewee explained the relationship between tangible heritage and what he considered the very important identity of a place: A city must have a spirit, a soul. A soul can exist if a city has got an identity. That identity distinguishes one city from the others. Now, what is Yogya's identity? Some say, “Oh, it’s the high culture – that’s the cultural identity.” Then, what is the manifestation of the cultural identity? So, an identity must have its form. Well, there is the Palace, there is Malioboro. What if the palace is gone, for example? What would Yogya be if it has no identity? In addition to place identity, conserved tangible heritage also gives social identity to the community that lives in a place: “It [conservation] must always continue because heritage shows our true identity. If the heritage is lost, we don't have any handle on who we are anymore because the history is lost.” Some believe that identity of a place and community eventually will build pride among its residents. This benefit is explained by one interviewee: Yes, I think it's important for the people of Yogya. People who are native to Yogya also should … what do you call it … hold on to their identity as Yogyakartans. If he’s a Batak [another ethnic group in Indonesia] person, he should hold on to his Bataknese [culture]. So, we actually must be proud of the identity of our city. So, for example, if I’m a Yogyakartan, I should behave like a Yogyakartan. 128 Thus, many interviewees observed that conservation of tangible and intangible heritage can contribute to a place’s ambiance and identity, which together eventually can lead to community pride. 4.2.2.5 Maintaining living traditions and cultural aspects of social life A couple of interviewees observed that conservation of heritage enables a community to maintain its living traditions and cultural aspects of social life. One interviewee described this concept generally: “Conserving cultural heritage is one of the ways – it’s not everything – of how humans maintain their lives. Then what? Through symbols, through pride, right?” Another interviewee contextualized the benefit of conserving heritage in contemporary society, particularly amid growing multiculturalism. Interviewees expressed that traditions and socio-cultural expressions help the community achieve a balanced and harmonious life over the long term. One interviewee exemplified the importance of maintaining a community’s traditions amid increasing multiculturalism that she perceives to threaten traditional values and behaviors. She contrasted the characteristics of her neighborhood, the old town of Kotagede, and the newer part of Yogyakarta, which is situated in the north of the city. Kotagede still maintains and exudes a traditional Javanese ambiance whereas northern Yogyakarta is more contemporary compared to Kotagede. She was unimpressed by the lack of Javanese character of northern Yogyakarta, which has resulted from development, modernization, and the influx of multicultural immigrants that she perceives as threatening to traditional culture: Yogya is a student city. There have been already many migrants since a long time ago. So cultural acculturation undeniably has taken place, generating a variety of [social] characteristics. Now, Kotagede [the southern part of Yogya] still retains many of its original Javanese [characteristics], but not in the northern part of the city, where café culture and other varieties of hedonism, in my opinion, are taking place. But the quality [of traditional food] isn't... Let’s talk about food, for example. The people of Kotagede never eat in the North [part of Yogya] – rarely. Only when we have meetings with friends like this [while doing the interview]. Why? Because we feel the food there doesn’t taste right to us. Because it’s probably made by non-Javanese investors. They could be non-Javanese or those who understand less about the expected Javanese taste, so to speak. Now, people who 129 come to Kotagede and see its physical aspects or [taste its] food, they can still feel the difference between those inside and outside Kotagede. Acknowledging the importance of achieving a balanced and harmonious life, the same interviewee continued: “Well, as I said, it [conservation of tangible and intangible heritage] were for harmony or mutual cooperation. It is very important for us in all aspects. For us. And maybe it [particularly intangible heritage, such as local wisdom] can also be transmitted to other people.” Some interviewees stated their belief that conservation of heritage helps a society maintain its traditions and local wisdom that, in the long term, will help them maintain their identity and achieve balanced and harmonious community living. 4.2.2.6 Improving society’s wellbeing Related to a community’s balanced and harmonious living, a few interviewees stated that heritage conservation can improve society’s wellbeing. Van Hoorn (2008) said that the term wellbeing often is used interchangeably with the term welfare, which is one of its synonyms. However, the latter term often is associated with governmental programs to improve society’s living. Thus, I use the term “wellbeing” in this study to reflect the happiness to which a few interviewees frequently referred. Based on her learning, one interviewee conveyed her idea of how heritage can be used to measure the quality of an urban community’s life: Well, when I read a lot of books, made a lot of contacts with my senior heritage activists at Bandung Heritage, I realized that heritage can be an entry point to create a quality of life in a city. ... (Okay, so that was the entry point?) The entry point was that heritage is a barometer for the quality of a city. Quality of life. Quality of life. Furthermore, she explained that, in the context of today’s urban development in Indonesia, urban societies have been going through cultural uprooting. Nowadays societies tend to forget local cultural values and, instead, adopt foreign ones, many of which may not be suitable for Indonesians. Thus, in her opinion, reintroducing local wisdom and values is necessary to return 130 Indonesians to their true selves. By doing so, Indonesians will likely achieve a quality life based on their own local wisdom and values. Another interviewee referred to the heritage cityscape, infrastructure, and facilities – some as represented by buildings – that provide a conducive living environment for its present residents. He also opined that such an environment is conducive to quality community life. Said this interviewee: But the point is, especially for the community, that Bandung actually is a nice city, and then... um, I think its facilities have been sound from earlier eras. Bandung is not only a nice city, but also was designed as a park city. Actually, it has a good quality of environment, is beautiful, cool. Well, basically it’s cool [in terms of temperature], then, also, having very many trees. Then ... so the quality of life is good. He continued with his opinion regarding the relations between a conducive environment for living and a quality community life: In my opinion, we need to raise [the idea] that heritage values are also present in things that are probably not too symbolic in nature, or heritage values actually create a good community life. As I said, in residential neighborhoods, there were already many things that have also become heritage and, actually, the values we tried to raise were spaces where social interactions were accommodated, or the inspirational spaces that brought people closer to nature – because [a] garden city’s themes are usually like that. Well, maybe that's what we need to raise as well. The other interviewee explained his belief that heritage conservation can bring happiness to societies, such as through having societies work on traditional arts projects: In terms of non-physical benefits of heritage, I see that – for conservation – we can actually learn from Bhutan. There’s the index of happiness. (Hmm ... yes ... they have the highest score, right?) Yes, so by paying attention to heritage, we should be happier because there will be many activities related to heritage, to art. There will be many activities that bring up, for example, “wastra” [clothing] products, which make us more beautiful, for instance. Well, that’s something we may not have thought [about] – to have an influence from that aspect. She added that heritage can be used by a community to empower itself, or to give the community something to work on using heritage, that will eventually improve the community’s wellbeing: It’s aimed toward wellbeing, as a matter of fact…Community’s wellbeing….So, this actually is related to trails - not Organization E [laugh] – maybe [to] traces of a national heritage trust [she tried to explain that this was the process of learning about heritage 131 within the context of the Trust]. So, initially, we developed one … um … What is heritage? After we knew about heritage, we learned that heritage can be for community empowerment. Then, community empowerment will be for improvement of wellbeing – the community’s wellbeing. A few interviewees expressed that conservation of heritage can improve society’s wellbeing. Such wellbeing suggests that heritage is not only about the past, but should benefit the lives of present and future societies. This notion is consistent with interviewees’ criteria for heritage, that heritage values from the past should be beneficial for future generations. The continuity of values over generations is one of the core characteristics in their definition of heritage. 4.2.3 Discussion: Benefits of Heritage as Knowledge and Place Identity, Income and Tourism The interviewees’ definitions of heritage as well as their views of the motivations or benefits of heritage work have evolved over time. Consequently, I suggest that discussion of these motivations is inseparable from a discussion about interviewees’ practices associated with heritage, as their practices have provided experiences and insights into the importance of heritage. Based on the data, interviewees’ evolution of perceptions about benefits was influenced by their experiences abroad and their practice of heritage work in their own communities. For this discussion, I associate stages of their evolution in definitions, perceptions, and practice with the time periods when interviewees learned about or recognized each benefit: 1) the period between 1985 and 1993, 2) the period between 1994 and 2005, and 3) the period between 2006 and 2019 (2019 was the last year when interviews for this study were conducted). Because interviewees’ definitions and perceptions of the importance of heritage evolved, each time period reflected its own set of heritage benefits. In general, the first period is characterized by benefits derived from tangible heritage, particularly architectural, whereas the second and third periods expanded benefits to include those resulting from conservation of 132 intangible heritage. Additionally, and in concert with the evolution of heritage definitions, during the first time period, interviewees focused on the practice of conservation of architectural heritage rather than recognizing and acknowledging the benefits derived from conservation. 4.2.3.1 Period between 1985 and 1993 Based on my observation of the findings, this period denotes the initial phase of the formalization of heritage conservation efforts in Indonesia, during which the first generation of interviewees began to build their own awareness, knowledge, and experiences related to heritage conservation. As aforementioned, some interviewees still viewed the benefits of heritage predominantly derived from architectural heritage as they still learned and focused on the preservation of tangible heritage. See Figure 10 for an example of tangible architectural heritage. The first generation of interviewees was involved as founders of the first heritage conservation community groups in Indonesia, including Organization A and Organization B. They first became aware of intentional heritage conservation through ideas shared by a colleague who returned from overseas study, as well as by attending post-graduate studies in architecture supplemented by heritage-related seminars and conferences overseas. During this period, interviewees’ conception of heritage still revolved around architectural heritage and its conservation. Their views of the importance of heritage conservation were driven by historical, aesthetic, and rarity values of the buildings. Such views resembled those originating from Western concepts and practices of conscious heritage conservation, which also emphasized the historical, aesthetic, and rarity aspects of the buildings conserved to maintain their authentic structures and materials (Chapagain, 2013; Tom, 2013). At that time, benefits derived primarily from the existence of these structures and were the architectural knowledge and study opportunities available as a result of their existence. 133 Figure 10 Braga Street Bandung Note. Braga Street in downtown Bandung, one of the city’s historic areas having many Art Deco buildings from the 1920s-30s, is protected by the local government. Many people have inventoried and conducted research on the Braga Street buildings. In addition to serving as a case study to generate knowledge, such as about heritage conservation and heritage tourism, Braga Street also has become one of Bandung’s heritage icons that gives the city an identity. Photo taken in July 2017 by Patria. Based on my interpretation of the data, I suggest two primary reasons for the predominance of Western views of the importance of conscious heritage conservation among the first generation of interviewees. First, the interviewees’ views of conscious heritage conservation and its importance at that time were influenced predominantly by universally held and applied principles, concepts, and practices within the heritage conservation field. Until 1993, universal conventions of heritage and intentional heritage conservation focused primarily on tangible heritage, such as monuments and sites (ICCROM, 2005). This focus reflected Western philosophies, concepts, and practices of conscious heritage conservation, which aim to maintain the authenticity of the 134 tangible object – including the material and the form – of the monuments and sites. As illustrative, encounters of one interviewee with some colleagues who returned from their studies abroad and with others who immigrated to Indonesia from Western countries in the mid-1980s influenced her early awareness of heritage conservation. Second, interviewees’ professions – all of the first generation of interviewees were professors of architecture – played a major role in determining their interest in architectural heritage. Two of the three interviewees in the first-generation group had an opportunity to continue their studies overseas, from which they received new insights and knowledge about conscious heritage conservation – particularly of architecture and other tangible forms of heritage. Consequently, through encounters with their professors and colleagues overseas, these interviewees were exposed to the knowledge about heritage conservation applied universally at that time. Because architecture was their professional background, it followed that their interest in architectural heritage was solidified during their own academic studies and after, as they engaged in professional development opportunities such as conferences and seminars related to heritage conservation, which ultimately also impacted their beliefs about benefits. The predominant focus on built heritage in the early years of heritage management was rooted in 18th century Western Europe (Aygen, 2012; Ballart Hernàndez & Tresserras, 2001; Gonzaléz-Varas, 2006). Heritage management from this era generated two approaches to conservation: first, keeping historic buildings in their existing states, and, second, returning them to their original states (Smith & Luque-Azcona, 2012). Aygen (2012) touted this type of management as the conceptual framework for archaeological conservation. Philosophies, concepts, and practices of archaeological conservation originally followed the conventions of Western archaeologists, whereby archaeological sites and objects were preserved in their original states, as when they were discovered. In addition, early archaeological conservation concepts discouraged development and utilization of relics, similar to the archaeological 135 conservation concepts practiced in some places today. Archaeological conservation was aimed solely at preserving the tangible relics for the sake of their heritage values (Chapagain, 2013). In Indonesia, the early national regulations on protected cultural heritage, described in UU RI Nomor 5 Tahun 1992 (the Laws of the Republic of Indonesia Number 5 Year 1992), referred to these universal conventions. Regulations were concerned only with the general notion of the country’s tangible heritage conservation, with no guidelines about how the heritage should be preserved, developed, and utilized (as regulated in the later UU RI Nomor 11 Tahun 2010, or the Laws of the Republic of Indonesia Number 11 Year 2010). The earlier UU RI Nomor 5 Tahun 1992 was generated from the Monument Act passed during the colonial Dutch era in Indonesia, which adopted Western philosophies, concepts, and practices of heritage conservation (Nagaoka, 2015). During this early phase, benefits of conscious heritage conservation were perceived as revolving around knowledge and identity. As the first generation of interviewees continued their work between 1985 and 1993, their recognition of the importance of heritage conservation still was confined to that related to generating academic knowledge and building place identity for their respective home communities. This means their interests in conserving heritage were motivated by: 1) providing objects for academic case studies and research that would contribute to knowledge building about intentional heritage conservation in their regions of study, and 2) maintaining identity of their home cities as represented by the built heritage. This importance is reflected through their practices, which are described in the next major section of this chapter, “Heritage Practices.” 4.2.3.2 Period between 1994 and 2005 The second time period denotes the emergence of a second generation of interviewees. These interviewees – many of whom were college students during this period and were inspired by the work of the first generation – entered the heritage field between the mid-1990s and 2005. Contemporaneous with the emergence of the second generation, the first generation continued to play major roles in development of the heritage domain – locally, nationally, and internationally. At the international 136 level, this period also became the temporal landmark for inclusion of intangible heritage in universal heritage conventions, beginning with the Nara Document on Authenticity produced by ICOMOS in 1994 in Kyoto, Japan (Ahmad, 2006) and the 2003 UNESCO Convention on Intangible Heritage. Such inclusion contributed to the paradigm shift among most interviewees, from a focus on architectural heritage to the inclusion of intangible heritage. In 2003, the concept of cultural landscapes, or Saujana heritage in Indonesia, was included in the 2003 declaration of Badan Pelestarian Pusaka Indonesia (the Indonesian Heritage Trust) held in Jakarta, which also marked the foundation of the Trust. A more expansive recognition of the importance of heritage conservation than that in the first period arose as interviewees gained more knowledge and had more personal experiences with heritage conservation. Some of the second generation interviewees made a breakthrough by initiating heritage interpretive programs and activities, which aimed to spread awareness of heritage to the public at large through not-for-profit educational and recreational heritage-related activities. As time progressed, these heritage interpretation activities eventually developed into tourism-related entities – be they organized casually by a community-based tourism group, formalized through a foundation, or managed as a small enterprise. While organizing these activities, these interviewees began to realize the financial benefits from organizing such activities, in addition to the other benefits (e.g., knowledge and identify) they learned about from the former generation. I suggest that recognition of the financial benefits generated from heritage-based tourism paralleled the intensive growth of domestic tourism as both an industry and a knowledge discipline in Indonesia, beginning in the first decade of the 21 st century. I also suggest that provision of heritage-based tourism activities by some of the interviewees, combined with increased opportunities for local communities to make time for leisure, contributed to growth of heritage-based tourism in Indonesia. As Sastramidjaja (2014) noted: 137 This kind of heritage event has become all the rage in Jakarta and other Indonesian cities, where youthful communities of history enthusiasts have mushroomed in recent years. Relocating their leisure space from air-conditioned malls to historic streetscapes, they follow heritage trails to explore the hidden stories of the past, sometimes dressed up in carnivalesque fashion in the costume of a “Javanese princess,” “Dutch colonial master,” or other tempo doeloe [bygone era] character. (p. 444) In addition to providing financial benefits, the second phase also recognized the creation of pleasure for individuals as a result of their interactions with tourists, raised society’s awareness of their community’s heritage values, and education about social skills for children. As previously described, during the second period, interviewees’ paradigm as related to benefits of conscious heritage conservation in Indonesia expanded from a focus on archaeology- and architecture-related knowledge benefits to financial benefits. Based on what interviewees conveyed, two of the most common practices for developing and utilizing heritage – both of which imply the idea of financial benefits generation – are adaptive reuse of heritage structures and use of heritage resources, both tangible and intangible, for tourism-related attractions and experiences. These practices are aimed at enhancing the physical condition of tangible heritage sites, structures, and objects while also increasing opportunities for income generation. In turn, some of the profits can be used to maintain the heritage sites and objects, particularly structures having architectural significance. Study results indicate that economic benefits are the concrete benefits most easily recognized by communities. While some individuals receive financial benefits personally, community-wide heritage enhancement contributes also to overall economic improvement of a community (Hanafiah et al., 2016; Zhou et al., 1997). Thus, monetary benefits often become a priority motive for a community to conserve, develop, and utilize its heritage assets. Communities tend to maintain things that provide real contributions to the lives of their residents and to the community as a whole. Tourism commonly utilizes heritage objects to generate economic benefits for individuals and the entire community (Timothy & Boyd, 2003; Fladmark, 1994). From the supply side, heritage usually offers something with a unique value to tourists; 138 thus, heritage resources often are used as a core product in tourism. From the demand side, tourists are attracted by unique experiences and attractions. As has been common practice, particularly among the Western, developed world, heritage has been capitalized upon as a means for helping a community conserve its heritage and develop its economy, based in part upon its heritage resources. This means that heritage not only has been conserved for its core significance, but also incorporated into experiences to attract tourists, generate income for individuals, and expand a community’s overall economy (Timothy, 2021). However, it is important to note the importance of balancing heritage-based tourism and conscious heritage conservation (Poria et al., 2003). Income that can be generated from tourism should be able to support heritage conservation and heritage conservation should be able to provide heritage resources that can be enjoyed by visitors. As aforementioned, conscious heritage conservation in Indonesia initially arose within the field of archaeology, which had as its main purpose to preserve past values and their tangible manifestations. Careless planning and management of heritage resources, coupled with excessive use of heritage resources, can lead to diminution of heritage, either in terms of quantity or quality. When heritage resources are damaged or destroyed, their benefits also are diminished. With today’s increasing demand for visiting heritage resources as attractions, the concerns about negative impacts of tourism- motivated use and commodified experiences raise questions about authenticity and long-term conservation of the heritage resources: With globalization, local monuments have not only become the experts’ domain, but also sites for popular consumption. Despite the economic lure that tourism and globalization bring, serious concerns are being raised about the truthfulness of what is presented: unwanted over-commercialization of rituals as opposed to ‘rituals’ for rituals’ sake, interference in everyday activities of the local community, and so on. (Chapagain, 2013, p. 21) I believe that economic benefits, such as those derived from tourism, should be considered a supplemental benefit rather than serving as the key reason for conserving heritage. This suggests that conserving heritage values should be prioritized and, when heritage tourism is 139 developed, part of the income through tourism can be used to help conserve heritage. Preserving the values of heritage and their tangible manifestations, if any, should be the primary purpose of heritage conservation to ensure their longevity and value to local communities. If the values of heritage and their manifestations are destroyed, there is nothing left to offer – as traces of past civilizations, as support for current cultural grounding of communities, for income generation, as tourism attractions, or for any other benefits that might result from heritage conservation. In addition to the financial benefits resulting from adaptive reuse, tourism, and using local traditional arts and culture during the 1994-2005 period, other benefits of heritage work were non-economic, including building personal sense of pleasure as a result of individuals’ interactions with visitors, raising society’s awareness of their community’s heritage values, and teaching social skills, particularly for children. Some of these benefits are interrelated and symbiotic. For example, as conveyed by interviewees, adaptive reuse can provide places for tourism-related activities and for arts and cultural workshops that cater to both local residents and visitors. In turn, tourism-related activities can create a sense of pleasure among participating local residents through their interactions with visitors. Another example is that adaptive reuse provides tangible and visible evidence that can help raise a society’s awareness of its heritage values as well as drive research about local history and local wisdom. Conservation of intangible heritage, such as values expressed in traditional games, can teach children about social skills. 4.2.3.3 Period between 2006 and 2019 In the most recent time period, heritage conservation and interpretation in Bandung and Yogyakarta began to develop their local distinctiveness, adapting to their local geographic conditions, challenges, and cultural beliefs. As I learned from the findings, distinctiveness was more significant in Yogyakarta than in Bandung, as early work directed toward disaster relief was preceded by a magnitude 6.4 earthquake in May 2006. This earthquake was perhaps the most intense one that had occurred in Yogyakarta 140 between 1985 and 2006. (Since 2006, a series of natural disasters, mainly earthquakes and volcanic eruptions, have occurred quite frequently in the region.) The earthquake affected local communities’ livelihoods and caused immense destruction to local properties, including heritage relics. This disastrous event provided opportunities, particularly for those who lived in Yogyakarta, to be creative with their use of heritage to address immediate social needs, in this case, to help with disaster relief. Consequently, an innovative program – Heritage Emergency Response (HER) – was funded and developed to explore use of heritage as a way to help communities re-build – structurally, emotionally, and economically – after the disaster. The project, along with others, expanded interviewees’ views of the benefits of heritage to include maintaining living traditions and cultural aspects of social life as well as improving wellbeing of communities at large. As a result of this creative application of heritage conservation, along with other projects, experiences, and work with communities, a paradigm shift was occurring. The early sole focus on conscious heritage conservation as a way to maintain relics in their original state for their own sakes expanded to developing and utilizing archaeological sites, structures, and objects for a variety of purposes. These expanded uses were geared toward benefiting individuals and communities in various ways. This shift in paradigm and practices eventually occurred also in the intangible heritage domain, particularly with the inclusion of intangible heritage in international heritage conservation conventions in 1994. In Indonesia, preservation, development, and utilization of protected cultural heritage are guided by the national regulation on protected cultural heritage, UU RI Nomor 11 Tahun 2010, which was a revision of the previous UU RI Nomor 5 Tahun 1992. According to 2010 regulations, protected cultural sites can be developed and utilized to generate benefits for the society at large. Based on the issuance of the revised national act in 2010 and interviewees’ expanding understanding about the benefits of heritage, some interviewees recognized that heritage conservation could help communities maintain their traditions, cultural practices, knowledge and wisdom as well as 141 improve a community’s wellbeing. This idea is supported by Maeer (2014), who stated that society’s wellbeing is one of the benefits of heritage conservation. As interviewees’ perceptions, understandings, and definitions of heritage are affected by geographic conditions where they live, so are their experiences and practices with managing heritage (Swensen et al., 2013). For example, geographic conditions in Yogyakarta, which is more prone to natural disasters than Bandung, have generated a benefit that was not discussed by interviewees in Bandung. Frequent natural disasters, such as earthquakes and volcanic eruptions, have provided valuable experiences for interviewees in Yogyakarta and also for heritage academicians and practitioners in Indonesia. Anticipative, preventive, and post-disaster recovery programs that incorporate heritage resources and their conservation seem to be more prevalent and relevant in Yogyakarta than in Bandung. Based on the data provided by the Yogya interviewees, natural disasters in Yogyakarta intensified the Yogyakarta interviewees’ efforts at maximizing benefits of heritage for local communities that were impacted by the disasters. Interviewees facilitated the multiple facets of the aid process, including obtaining funding, facilitating community group discussions to determine post-disaster actions, and building community capacity in varied skills and knowledge. Interviewees usually sought funding from international organizations or foreign governments, as these parties usually had and offered their aid resources and schemes for various purposes. Interviewees also helped local communities with recognizing communities’ human and other resources and determining the appropriate actions to help communities rebuild their livelihoods. Also, interviewees facilitated capacity building for the impacted community members, with a main purpose to help them rebuild their livelihoods during the post- emergency period. For example, interviewees offered a Batik-making course for local communities so residents could develop the skills to both produce Batik and to market their products. Through this practice, local communities were able to generate income using local 142 traditional arts and culture – not only temporarily during the emergency period, but also as part of sustainable businesses operating into the future. Yogyakarta also was distinct from Bandung concerning implementation of community- based tourism initiatives. First, even though some Bandung interviewees operated tourism- related community groups, these interviewees tended to make decisions for the organization rather than to involve local community members in the heritage conservation and interpretation process. In Yogyakarta, one interviewee took leadership in involving local community members in planning, implementing, and gaining the benefits from community-based tourism initiatives and activities. Benefits have included generating income through local community members’ involvement in local tourism-related activities. Community members’ involvement in local tourism activities is voluntary. This means community members’ involvement is based on their availability and consent without any obligation to get involved in every task assigned, as is the case with formal full-time jobs. Community members who are involved in a tourism-related activity will receive some financial compensation. Even with financial benefits, oftentimes community members’ involvement is motivated by their sense of pleasure resulting from their interactions with guests. One interviewee, acting as a community leader, applied traditional local wisdom in leading and facilitating local tourism-related activities, known as sak madyo or “sufficient.” This philosophy or attitude relates to individual contentment with obtaining compensation in return for his or her efforts, regardless of the amount of the compensation; even if the compensation is minimal, it is sufficient. Industrialized nations have posited various reasons for conserving their heritage – all of which can be viewed as benefits: to provide comfort, familiarity, and a grounded sense of identity (Lowenthal, 1979) in a fast-changing world; to evoke bittersweet yearnings of the perceived-as-glorious past (Baker and Kennedy, 1994), known as collective nostalgia; to provide high-value information resulting from research on properties believed to have scientific and conservation significance (Hall and McArthur, 1993); to create jobs, increase tax bases, 143 increase regional economies, and stimulate local entrepreneurship activity (Timothy and Boyd, 2003); to conserve an object’s or structure’s “scarcity value” (Lynch, 1972); to protect environmental diversity because of the non-renewable natural resources associated with heritage (Pearson and Sullivan, 1995); and to revitalize functions of heritage for purposes other than their original (Timothy and Boyd, 2003). Of these reasons to conserve heritage, identity-, knowledge-, income-, and diversity-related reasons are the ones most reflected in the benefits conveyed by interviewees in this study. This study’s results suggest additional reasons for conserving heritage that include development of a sense of individual pleasure and community pride, creation and maintenance of unique local ambiance and identity, maintenance of living traditions and societal behaviors that help maintain balanced and harmonious lives, and improvement of a society’s wellbeing. Benefits of heritage conservation and interpretation became strong motivators for the interviewees to work in the field. These benefits can serve as both motivations for or outcomes of interviewees’ practice of heritage. The next section, Heritage Practices, presents and discusses the findings related to how interviewees have practiced heritage conservation and interpretation, how those practices have changed over time, and their recommendations for future practice. 4.3 Heritage Practices The third section of this chapter discusses how interviewees actually practiced heritage conservation and interpretation (collectively termed “heritage work” in this dissertation) as well as what their vision was for how heritage work should be practiced. 4.3.1 Key Actors’ Actual Practice of Heritage Work As a foundation for all their work, several interviewees strived to raise public awareness of heritage and its importance, and develop policies and structures to support this awareness. In achieving that goal, interviewees actually practiced their heritage work by serving and/or 144 involving numerous stakeholder groups. Their early heritage work can be grouped into four categories: 1) raising public awareness of heritage; disseminating heritage information to the public; organizing outreach programs for the public, 2) conducting inventories of heritage resources; 3) helping governments prepare policies vis-à-vis heritage conservation, and 4) developing local heritage-themed, community-based tour opportunities. 4.3.1.1 Raising public awareness/disseminating information/organizing outreach programs on heritage The earliest public-facing heritage work by interviewees, deemed essential as a foundation for all other heritage work, was to make the public aware and supportive of their own heritage, then consequently the work of the interviewees. To raise public awareness about heritage and heritage resources, interviewees practiced the following five types of heritage work: 4.3.1.1.1 Organized public discussions about heritage. Some interviewees said that they had organized public discussions about heritage, which they had been doing prior to and since the founding of their heritage conservation groups. Periodic discussions were open not only to members of their heritage groups, but also to the public at large, attracting those who had interest in heritage matters (see Figure 11). Discussion topics included fundamental descriptive and informative information about heritage and heritage conservation, current issues related to heritage, particularly in their home cities, and trends in heritage practices. Such discussions were held to raise public awareness, increase knowledge, raise concerns and issues about heritage, and to develop creative solutions to address heritage-related issues. One interviewee recalled public discussions from her community group’s early years, when she and her group were focused on raising public awareness of heritage: At that time we were still at the stage of building awareness. We ourselves were still learning [about heritage conservation] back then. Then we saw that heritage in Yogyakarta was very extraordinary, but many people were not yet aware or did not realize that what we had was valuable. So, it [a discussion] was a means of developing or giving awareness to people – an awareness about something valuable that we’ve got. From a very large scope – the city itself – and everything that became an element of the 145 city, including its [community’s] living [lifeways]. So, that’s where we were in the early years. Then she gave an example of an issue that became a topic of discussion, which was about the impacts of demolishing heritage properties and replacing them with modern ones, and proposing alternative strategies such as making renovations to heritage buildings so they could be used for modern functions without losing the structures’ significance: Well, we often do [a variety of heritage-related] activities. Even in the [early] 2000s, we held a series of discussions. So, for example, there was a new building on Malioboro Street, the ‘R’ Shopping Mall or something like that [trying to recall]. Then, we brought up the topic in a discussion. It originally was a three-lot Chinese house. [It was] renovated into one [lot]. Well, that’s what we discussed. One interviewee added that problem solving related to specific heritage issues also was essential, and this function became a goal of many discussions. Thus, discussions and actions to seek solutions to problems were interrelated. As she said: “Conservation matters cannot be done [solved] only with discussions, so there must be action. Actions [of others] also already provoked [our] discussions”. As illustrated above, some interviewees organized public discussions to raise public awareness of heritage and its importance as well as to discuss current issues pertaining to heritage, mostly in their home cities (as illustrated in Figure 11). In addition, interviewees organized various community art and cultural events as another way to raise awareness. 146 Figure 11 Monthly Meeting of A Heritage Conservation Group in Yogyakarta Note. An example of monthly meeting held by Organization B in Yogyakarta. A monthly meeting brings up a particular topic related to heritage conservation – presented by a speaker (can be an organization member or an external expert) and led by a moderator – as a medium to disseminate knowledge and information with organization members and the public at large. Some meetings discuss the latest issues related to local heritage conservation and tries to find possible solutions. Photo taken in January 2019 by Patria. 4.3.1.1.2 Organized community art and cultural events. Several interviewees helped organize different kinds of art and cultural events, done by and for local communities. Such events included exhibitions, art and cultural festivals, heritage trails (tours), and art and cultural classes – all of which were conducted to raise the local community’s awareness of heritage and the importance of heritage conservation, and to provide opportunities for community members to express their art and cultural talents and nurture their creativity. One of the first-generation interviewees recalled organizing a heritage-themed exhibition in the early years, following the foundation of community groups. The exhibition was held in collaboration with a local university as a way to raise public awareness of heritage. She 147 recollected the effort required to convince some parties to collaborate in organizing the exhibition because heritage was not widely known or appreciated at that time: That was our difficulty back then with convincing everyone, so we held an exhibition at the ITB Scientific Meeting Hall, among others, in 1989. Two days, but packed with attendees. There were seminars, photo exhibitions, including the photos I produced at UNPAR at that time. Another interviewee organized some art and cultural festivals in collaboration with community members in her neighborhood. They initially used such festivals as a means for the local community to express their artistic and cultural talents, and as a way to raise public awareness of the tourism potential of the local neighborhood. In the following years, they continued running art and cultural classes, which were organized by and for community members themselves. The selection of and decisions about which art and cultural forms to teach often happened as a result of informal discussions among small groups of community members. These local activities sometimes expanded to tourism-related activities as community members participating in the classes also performed for visiting guests: Coincidentally, we have a Kotagede dance festival, from which we could build a team. We could build Youth Gamelan Class – a Gamelan class on Saturday afternoons, especially for youth. We could use that because sometimes we – well, we have no idea ourselves – didn’t plan for what the concept would be [implied here that sometimes they used the class as a performance for visitors]. But they [the opportunities] always come out of the blue and just developed, and are interrelated. It's often like that. She continued by explaining that transfer of knowledge can occur between members of one art and cultural class to those of other groups: So, even though it’s Gamelan class, for example, we go through a “guyub rukun” process in providing the Gamelan class. This is only the second year. We still involved the “among tamu” team in the first year, which included some youth in Kotagede and their friends from a Gamelan community. Well, from local residents, from fellow guides, there are friends [a friendly term to substitute “other people”] who usually join it. We still haven’t got any idea of the pattern for this activity, right? Well, they [Gamelan community members] taught the Kotagede team. So, there is a transfer of knowledge. One interviewee used heritage-themed walking tours as a means to introduce historic buildings to the community at large, including locals as well as visitors to the city. These tours were presented in an educational and recreational way, whereby participants had opportunities 148 to learn by having direct, personal encounters with the buildings as opposed to reading books or exploring them via other kinds of media. He said: As I mentioned earlier, when we talk about Organization E, we have direct access to the buildings. We’ll learn more closely about them when we’re in the field – not through books or films, etc. Well, that actually makes it more interesting. Meeting with the objects firsthand. That's more interesting. (Can you explain further?) We can see the buildings directly, the character of the buildings, their textures, and what they are used for nowadays. They’re obvious, right? The above interviewee and his community group also made a further effort by organizing a public exhibition in collaboration with the Dutch Embassy. Through a display of photographs, which were positioned lower than attendees’ upper bodies, they could have a closer look at details of the buildings than they could observe from simply standing in front of large buildings (as depicted in Figure 12). Figure 12 Displays at A Heritage Exhibition in Bandung Note. An illustration of how displays were positioned in an atypical perspective at an exhibition. Rather than placing displays on walls at the same level with that of average adults’ eyes, displays were positioned lower than the average height of adults’ heads. This position allowed people to have a different vantage point than looking at the actual buildings. Through these displays, people could view a full building in a small space, and be able to look more closely at building details while also being able to read some interpretive information. These photos were 149 taken at a heritage exhibition at a shopping mall in Bandung, organized by Organization E in collaboration with the Dutch Embassy for Indonesia. Photo taken in December 2009 and owned by Organization E (used with permission). This helped them learn even more about the buildings: But with the turn of the year, we could see it becoming important and we were willing to pay a lot for the campaign. So, it spread the image of the many historical buildings in Bandung. Lots of historical content. There were poster contests and discussions. That was an extraordinary project. (What content was brought up in Let’s Go Heritage?) We had perspectives of Bandung not only through photographs. We invited some photographers as well. There were also architects who decorated the display so that heritage did not always have to be seen from the sides of the feet, body, and head [in English, at eye level; he was indicating that, alternatively, photos were laid out showing creative and atypical perspectives of the buildings], but there are some angles that were also good. The heritage itself has an extraordinary story. At that time, there were several buildings that we started re-publicizing. This interviewee also was aware of the effectiveness of using tangible heritage as part of heritage conservation campaigns. Tangible heritage is concrete and can serve as tangible evidence of the past: “Yes, buildings are the easiest to conserve or campaign for. They are what we want to show to people through the campaigns. The physical aspect of the building is the easiest.” Several interviewees used multiple strategies to create and organize various public activities to raise broad community awareness of heritage. Following awareness development, further steps were taken to disseminate more specific content and significant knowledge about heritage. 4.3.1.1.3 Disseminated heritage information to the community at large. Another strategy that interviewees employed to increase public knowledge about heritage was disseminating heritage information in various ways: inviting guest lecturers to university classes to share insights with their students (many of the interviewees were university professors), creating specific heritage-based programs for children, and offering art and cultural classes to local community members. One interviewee enlisted a variety of activities to disseminate heritage-related knowledge to the community at large: 150 Yes, so public education is ultimately, um ... its way is informal, um ... I mean not informal … (Not held in class?) And the method is unlike study. Well, we do it through, for example, um ... monthly discussions, monthly meetings. Then, we held workshops sometimes. The workshops already have focus, but also [were targeted] specifically toward college students. Or, we also held seminars, and sometimes rather specific. [We also offered] a more general one [event], more widespread, like a photo contest. Then, um ... tours. Heritage tours, even though we're not … [pause] very intense at all [in the frequency of our tours], we offer them occasionally. Well, our homework was actually creating publications in the form of writing for the media … or, um ... what ... our website. That might actually be homework that we needed to work on quite seriously because, um … if we want to achieve a wider audience, we will need a more suitable medium. … So it has been writing, occasionally – like once or twice a year; [the frequency] is uncertain. One interviewee created and offered art and cultural classes as a way to transfer knowledge from the senior residents to junior residents and from the junior residents to visiting guests: Then we also have one community group that already existed, but it still needed to be developed, which was a Karawitan musical studio. Long before the earthquake, there were actually routine rehearsals that involved elderly people – the elders – who did so in the evenings after they returned from work. Then we developed them [the rehearsals] so that the elderly taught the young. Then, when there were guests, the young welcomed the guest groups. Another interviewee, a professor, disseminated knowledge about culture, specifically the values associated with traditional games, through the classes he taught. He added that, to understand and be able to share those cultural values with others, he had to study the games first: For example, I now teach Sundanese People and Culture. I used games as an approach and it made me understand the structure of Sundanese people’s houses because children play on the terrace. Then I came to know about Sundanese weapons. What’s the connection? There is the game aspect in the weapons. I came to know what kinds of plants grow in the Sunda region because people used a lot of plants for toys. I came to know about the Sundanese sarong culture because there are many sarong-[related] games. I know about the soil system and so on in Sunda, because of what? It turns out that there are many games that are based on soils and the rules of “adat” [custom] that support game patterns. Games are even a big picture of society's lives. So, it expands everywhere. Games are very universal. Basically, games are very, very universal. Some interviewees had disseminated specific heritage content and values-based knowledge as a way to increase public knowledge about their heritage. Moving into the first 151 decade of the 21st century, heritage workers expanded from awareness-raising and knowledge dissemination activities to capacity building for various heritage stakeholders. 4.3.1.1.4 Organized capacity-building programs for the community at large. A couple of the interviewees, in their desire to build capacity to support heritage work, identified stakeholders relevant to heritage work as local governments, local cultural leaders, and local community members. One interviewee organized capacity-building programs through a national heritage trust for whom she worked, and one used her own organization. The purpose of these capacity-building programs was to build heritage stakeholders’ skills and expertise needed to improve heritage work in their own places and based on specific local needs. One interviewee recalled the founding of her organization and the purpose of her own efforts in building community capacity during the first decade of the 21 st century: Yes. My focus is on increasing capacity in the field of cultural heritage conservation, “capacity building to empower cultural heritage movements,” in English. So, capacity building to empower the movement to conserve cultural heritage because I saw that the practices of conserving cultural heritage, especially in Indonesia, still needed input of knowledge and experience. So, the level has risen. So, in the ‘90s, I was still working on raising awareness level. But, when we entered the 2000s, the 21st century, we already entered the need-for-capacity-building [stage]. So, in the initial stage, it was raising awareness, and now it is increasing capacity, within the Indonesian scope, based on my observations. Another interviewee, through the Indonesian Heritage Trust, initiated a capacity-building program focused on urban heritage for regional leaders. She exemplified one of the activities in the program, through which some regional leaders were invited to participate in a comparative field visit overseas to learn about how heritage is managed in another country: I think, for us and our organization, we function as a facilitator. So we’ve provided this capacity building for regional leaders and their teams, and that can be in the form of training to get them involved. For example, we once invited regional leaders from three cities to the Netherlands – it’s not to make them impressed by what’s there in the Netherlands, but to make them realize that some things were not suitable to be implemented in Indonesia. Additionally, according to one interviewee, capacity building needs to be expanded to places outside Java, because Java, according to a common perception among Indonesians, is 152 considered to be more advanced than other islands in Indonesia, and already has received enough attention related to its heritage conservation. Thus, she believed there was a need to expand heritage knowledge to people living in other parts of Indonesia. Capacity building was a strategy for some interviewees to build stakeholders’ heritage expertise, and those programs took varied forms. At least one unique capacity-building program was associated with post-disaster recovery programs, as described next. 4.3.1.1.5 Organized post-disaster recovery programs for affected communities. Based on the findings, I observed that natural disasters have provided opportunities for several interviewees to build new knowledge and skills, as well as experiences, related to heritage- based post-disaster recovery programs. With their interest and involvement in heritage work, combined with their concern about rebuilding local people’s lives and the related physical community structures – often historical and other heritage-related structures – that had been impacted by natural disasters, several interviewees developed innovative strategies to achieve multiple goals simultaneously. They took advantage of available funding opportunities to organize post-disaster recovery programs that used heritage as a modality for several aspects of community recovery. One interviewee described the goal of the post-disaster recovery program in which she was involved, which was in response to the 2006 massive earthquake in the Yogyakarta region: The goal was to help the areas that were affected by the earthquake. We worked on the physical aspect. (Specifically, what aspect?) In Kotagede … So many of the old Joglo structures collapsed. Then, we could get funding to rebuild four buildings at that time. So, we worked with an assistant who oversaw [the program] every day. She continued by describing how they acquired additional funding from overseas donors and aid institutions to fund their programs: The major one (program) was after the earthquake. The earthquake occurred in 2006 and we focused on Imogiri and Kotagede back then. (Why was the focus on those two areas?) Because they were most heavily affected. And those were heritage areas. So, we definitely helped them. How? Laras had an extensive network. She finally got funds from Prince Claus from the Netherlands. Then the Australian one – Sangopi and I 153 searched and got it (funding) from Australia. Then we also got [funding] from – but it was in 2010 – from the UN Habitat as well as UNESCO Bangkok. Another interviewee shared her experience with deciding the target of the post-disaster recovery programs. Even though she had a professional professorial background in architecture, she and her colleagues decided to prioritize the livelihoods of residents of communities affected by disasters. They utilized local arts and cultural forms as a means to rebuild their livelihoods. She explained: Because the core, or the “corridor,” of the project was livelihoods - because of the earthquake, right? So that's the relation to livelihoods. Then I asked, what’s the potential in Giriloyo, the Batik village? And indeed the “livelihoods [development]” was related to the earthquake. So, the place was hit by an earthquake; its potential was Batik; then it (recovery effort) could be connected to their livelihoods. That's what I thought at that time. In decision-making processes about how to rebuild livelihoods, interviewees functioned as facilitators for local communities. Interviewees would encourage some local community members to emerge as leaders of discussions and, under interviewees’ guidance, let these leaders decide with their community what they wanted to do. Interviewees left the decisions about what and how to local communities because local residents know their resources, including heritage, and how they would prefer to rebuild their livelihoods. Funds received from donors and aid institutions could be used to implement their plans: Well, that was discussed with the community. Incidentally, I was not directly involved because I was in Brayut. Well, at that time, I only attended a number of meetings – meetings with the community. They were made aware that it – their area – had the potential. Because, historically speaking, it [Kotagede] was the former capital of the first Islamic Mataram Kingdom. That's amazing to have a history like that. Then the potential of the architecture, the environment, and so on. And that continued to be discussed, meaning that if we want to conserve it - they realized that it must be conserved. Now, if you conserve it, what should you do first? It was difficult to figure out. Now, that was constantly discussed. Finally, we found the folk art; the village art was firstly brought up. But that was the start. So, it's made alive. They remember once there were many Keroncong groups, many Shalawatan, and such. They retried it [reorganizing folk art]. Could it be done again or not? So, they felt its [folk art was] closed for many years, maybe for political reasons or whatever. Now its [folk art is] revived. It [the idea to reorganize folk art] raised from discussions in the community. … Actually, it’s not like what it seemed, which means we always have been accommodating [of local residents] – we have not always imposed our principles. No. In fact, we looked for [suggestions for] what we would develop from them. 154 Ultimately, interviewees’ heritage and community knowledge and skills expanded as a result of their involvement in post-disaster recovery programs. One interviewee reflected: Well, from there, we finally learned a lot and we were able to influence local people, starting from how to recover [and to include] preparedness. Also, to provide guidelines for heritage emergencies, we produced a book. Now, that's what people didn't think about before. Natural disasters expanded interviewees’ heritage knowledge, skills, and experiences, in this case, as related to post-disaster recovery programs, and helped them recognize that heritage work could be applied in various contexts and to achieve additional simultaneous goals. In any heritage conservation project, including for disaster recovery, knowing what heritage resources exist is essential. Thus, it became clear that conducting inventories of heritage resources was essential as a foundation for their work. 4.3.1.2 Conducting inventories of heritage I suggest that deciding which tangible and intangible heritage to conserve requires an understanding of what exists, and this requires research and heritage resource inventories. Consequently, several interviewees created heritage indicators, then used them to identify and list heritage sites and associated values in their own cities. Initially, this activity was conducted as part of their academic work, much of it done by professors of architecture. As the heritage conservation field in Indonesia developed, some interviewees eventually were recruited by governments to help work on the government heritage projects. One interviewee explained how she conducted inventories of old buildings in her city, researching the history and values of old buildings, identifying which old buildings to conserve, designing a map of heritage buildings, and preparing a data base of the inventories, with identification of buildings recommended for conservation: Then, after that, we conducted research. Identification. Identification, oh it must be detailed. We learned from several good examples. And for us, that’s phenomenal. But it was not continued even though we hoped all parts of Jogja would be like that [be researched]. Inventoried. Building by building. Now Jokowi [current Indonesian president] is asking for one map. From one map, you should be able to produce – what do you call it – lots of data. 155 Another interviewee recalled the first time he was involved as a college student who volunteered to research one old building that had been identified for demolition. That was the beginning of his heritage involvement, which led to engagement in more inventories of and research about old buildings: So, at that time, for example, Mr. X said, "Oh, one building will be demolished". Then he said, "Come and help me." Coincidentally, Mr. X approached the owner. "Well, then, I will help restore it.” So I just came along with him. Mr. X, for example, said "Can you get some students to help?" So I invited my college mates. Then we took pictures, made sketches, those kinds of things… So that's the field I really liked, architecture. Mr. X also did the same thing during a study about Braga: "Let's map it." We surveyed buildings, one by one, took photographs of them, made an inventory. Another interviewee, who studied the values of traditional games, also began with research about values associated with many games before determining which traditional games and toys to conserve. His main consideration was the compatibility of values associated with contemporary society’s values and needs: Well, I traced back the games – finding ones that are compatible with today. So, if it’s not a game … [pause] if it’s a game that is not compatible [with today’s values] anymore, then we don’t play anymore. It’s not that one. But we choose compatibility with people’s needs nowadays. That’s when we started to trace back [the games]. Conducting inventory projects has been part of a few interviewees’ practice. Such activity was done not only for their community groups, but also as part of their academic work and for local government projects. Working with various units of government, they were able to expand the reach of their heritage efforts and to influence the content of government heritage guidelines. 4.3.1.3 Helping governments prepare policies vis-à-vis heritage conservation A few interviewees were involved with policy making, mostly at the local level. To these interviewees, working as heritage advocates – initially and mostly pro bono – for local governments has been a component of their heritage conservation work. Their involvement included providing feedback on government drafts of heritage regulations and helping create regional heritage regulations. 156 One interviewee described his experience with providing feedback on a draft of local heritage regulations: I didn't get much involved in the drafting, but, for example, when the team wanted feedback, input, then we were invited to participate in discussions several times. But we didn’t draft piece by piece. (Ok, so it's more like consultancy or advisory?) Well, it’s more like providing feedback to a colleague ... So we weren’t like an expert or something like that. Just provided feedback. Another interviewee was involved with more than only providing feedback. In collaboration with other local government board members, she helped provide arguments for their proposal related to heritage matters that served as the basis for discussions with the local representative body: And then Mr. W [of a local Tourism and Culture Board] and Mrs. Y agreed to prepare the regulations and we visited DPRD [regional representative] and had discussions with them. That was the argument used to talk with DPRD and they supported us. Then DPRD built a Panitia Khusus [Special Committee] and it was supported by Mr. Z. Several interviewees helped local governments prepare heritage regulations to formalize and provide legal bases for heritage conservation at a local level. Building on the early work of awareness building, education, research and inventory, and creation of legal foundations for heritage conservation, others began to incorporate heritage buildings, stories, and values into outreach experiences by developing and implementing heritage-themed tours. 4.3.1.4 Developing local heritage-themed, community-based tours As part of their heritage practice, another interviewee involved local community members in tourism-related activities. Community members participated in offering tours and other activities based on their availability and their consent – without being bound to or members of any community group. These individuals contributed voluntarily to local tourism activities, with some receiving a service fee as compensation for voluntary activities. The interviewee was mostly responsible for leading the activities. Heritage tours (or trails) were one of the various activities one interviewee organized in her neighborhood, and those tours involved numerous community members: 157 Heritage trails during this time can be an example. They involve many people, starting with guides [licensed, professional guide employed by tour operators] as well as guides from local residents, local friends, then local residents who provide food. We also order from local traditional food producers. Then we also visit traditional houses, which are 100% owned by locals. That’s if you want to talk about community empowerment, like you asked. She also explained how she applied what she termed “community empowerment” – initially and mostly while lacking awareness of this term – in organizing her activities: Initially, it [her community empowerment approach] was not realized as community empowerment because, whether you like it or not, in creating a heritage trail product, you should involve community elements in it – like what I said earlier, we involve the local community, like it or not. So, the initial idea just flowed naturally. Then, maybe in ‘98 when we started it, we already had begun to involve the community but, initially, such involvement might not be acknowledged because we all were locals, so it just occurred. She also identified two factors that helped her and the local community sustain their activities: the community’s interest in learning about their own arts and culture, and the community’s pride in being involved in such activities: One, the interest in the activity itself – the interest of the community. An example would be…[pause] the dance studio. If there’s still a need to give a class for their children, that’s because of interest, right? The second one is we’ve already got the class, but when the spirit [for participating] goes down, we give [financial] ‘injections’ – so to speak. When there’s Batik sold, the women will get a fee even though it cannot be used as daily economy [as their primary income]. But when there are guests, they are just happy. In addition, profits gained through their visitor-targeted activities were used to support the community’s self-organized art and cultural classes: Most of the income will be used [to cover costs] and the rest will be used to support the community. (What do you mean by ‘used’?) Costs. Most of the profits even go to community support, such as for a dance studio. The [tour] costs can be covered by [having] at least 10 guests. But sometimes we had only three, five guests. Now, where do the funds to cover the other five come from? Well, that’s from the profits. One interviewee applied true community involvement principles and practices when organizing local heritage-based, tourism-related activities. This work often was not recognized or labeled as community involvement. However, she involved community members in both planning and executing the tours. In the end, community members who were involved in tour 158 activities received some compensation for their efforts. The profits were used to finance local arts and cultural classes. 4.3.1.5 Point of difference As I learned, what and how interviewees practiced their heritage conservation or interpretation work – in both Bandung and Yogyakarta – began as similar practices. However, the earthquake that hit the Yogyakarta region in 2006 impacted the direction of their work. Thus, I suggest that, because different geographic conditions exist between Yogyakarta and Bandung, geography becomes a factor influencing differences in practice. Natural disasters in Yogyakarta provided opportunities to use heritage in post-disaster outreach programs for Yogyakarta interviewees. The programs were organized with various aims, including identifying disaster-damaged heritage structures, reconstructing these structures, and helping local community members rebuild their livelihoods. These post-disaster activities can be considered as novel practices resulting from opportunities for unique and creative applications of heritage work, situationally specific to Yogyakarta and based on the unique geographic conditions of Yogyakarta, as described in the following paragraphs. Yogyakarta, which lies in close proximity to both Mount Merapi to the north and the Indian Ocean to the south, is prone to natural disasters. Mount Merapi, a continuously active volcano, and the Indian Ocean, where the Indo-Australian and the Eurasian Tectonic Plates meet, creating a horizontal fault off the southern coast of Java, have caused frequent earthquakes and occasional volcanic eruptions. Tsunamis are possible close to the coastal areas. Such natural disasters, including the massive earthquake that occurred in May 2006, have destroyed many heritage sites in Yogyakarta. Nevertheless, these natural disasters have provided lessons for Indonesians, including this study’s interviewees, about anticipative and recovery actions related to disasters. Examples include reconstructing buildings to support regeneration of individual and community livelihoods, and rejuvenating traditional arts. In the Yogyakarta region, natural disasters have provided opportunities for integrating the work of heritage advocates with disaster relief projects. One interviewee elaborated: 159 Finally, while working on those HER activities – we called it HER, Heritage Emergency Response – we found that, for example, when the victims of the disasters were given opportunities related to the intangible practice of … um ... their heritage, their traditions, they got faster with recovery. For example, after the earthquake in Yogya, or for example the tsunami, [local communities] were given the opportunity in Kotagede to organize Macapatan [traditional Javanese song and poetry contests], as well as other art forms. They quickly healed from trauma so ... Some interviewees explained that post-disaster recovery programs provided some targeted and early opportunities to develop and apply traditional knowledge and skills during tangible heritage reconstruction and renovation and for rebuilding livelihoods and healing trauma, particularly among children. Such experiences are particularly prevalent in comments by interviewees in Yogyakarta. Bandung interviewees did not identify such applications of heritage work, likely due to lack of frequent natural disasters in their geographic region. Yogyakarta interviewees believed that, when doing their heritage jobs as part of recovery efforts, they should involve local communities – those who were affected by the disasters – as much as possible. One interviewee conveyed her view based on a post-disaster recovery program for which she facilitated local community members in deciding what they wanted to do: Well, [potential projects were] discussed with the community. Incidentally, I was not directly involved because I was in Brayut. Well, that time, I only attended a number of meetings – meetings with the community. They [the community] were made aware that it – their area – had the potential, because, historically speaking, it [Kotagede] was the former capital of the first Islamic Mataram Kingdom. It’s amazing to have a history like that. Then the [community has] potential in its architecture, environment, and so on. And that [potential] continued to be discussed, meaning that if we [people in general] wanted to conserve it [the community’s potential], they realized that it [the heritage resources providing the potential] must be conserved. Now, if you conserve it [the heritage resources], what should you do first? It was difficult to find out. So it [the potential] was constantly discussed. Finally, we found the folk art, the village art that was firstly brought up. But that was the start. So, [their culture is now] made alive. They [the community] remember once there were many Keroncong groups, many Shalawatan [groups], and such. They retried [organized] them. Could they [art and cultural groups] be redone or not? They felt the community had stopped organizing art and cultural group for many years, maybe for political or whatever [reasons]. Now they’re revived. It [the idea to revive the groups] emerged from discussions within the community. … Actually, it’s not like what it seemed [impression that the interviewees always led the process], which means we always have been accommodating [facilitating the process of community discussions] – we did not always impose our principles. No. In fact, we looked for [suggestions for] what we developed from them. 160 Interviewees talked extensively about their actual practices in heritage conservation and heritage interpretation, collectively over almost 40 years. These efforts were essential to their own understanding of heritage work and for building the nascent field of conscious heritage work. Based on these experiences, interviewees also expressed their recommendations for practicing future heritage conservation and interpretation work – incorporating some of their previous practices, and also recommending other and more culturally relevant approaches. 4.3.2 Key Actors’ Vision for How Heritage Work Should be Practiced This study also investigated what and how interviewees thought heritage conservation and interpretation should be done, now and into the future. Their aspirations for improvement were based on principles and ideals of conscious heritage conservation, and personal experiences working in the heritage field. Collectively, interviewees conveyed that if they had known more about community engagement principles, or they had done more planning rather than just doing, they would have improved their heritage-related work. The principles include using approaches that were comprehensive and culturally appropriate – in that it could have involved all elements of a society, conserved all elements of heritage, and been based on local wisdom and histories. However, their awareness of this occurred as a result of their ongoing experiences and lessons learned as a result. Thus, they now are able to incorporate these ideas into their recommendations for future practice. Nevertheless, some of their recommended approaches to practice deemed essential for successful heritage work, now and into the future, already have been implemented in their current practices. 4.3.2.1 Heritage work should be supported by diverse community stakeholder groups, networks, systems, and regulations Many interviewees opined that successful heritage conservation should involve and be supported by diverse stakeholders in the community. Stakeholder groups include local community members, local government, and the private sector. In addition, heritage conservation should be grounded in formal legal policies, 161 social networks of those involved in heritage work from different perspectives, and formal regulations. One interviewee exemplified the need for such support: Heritage matters cannot be tackled only by conservationists, because it [heritage conservation] includes building owners, who have the right to determine the aspiration and the plan for the building. There is also the government that has the authority to regulate the city and its elements. Also [heritage} enthusiasts [and funders] who want to develop it [heritage] in line with the goal of their investment, and many more to consider. They have concerns [based] on different motivations. The government definitely is one segment of each community that should be involved in heritage conservation. Several interviewees conveyed their perspectives on this matter, as illustrated here: The way I see it, many people naturally already had contributions to conservation. I have met a lot of them – very many. But I always got stuck, because the existing system is not accommodating them. So they need a medium to do it. (Okay). So they have a lot of ideas, but nothing really facilitates them. Look at the government – for example, when there was a demolition of a building, it was done by the people. … So, even the government regulations continue to be about designation of protected heritage – rather than heritage management. … The government is not … the government is the governance. They’re the one [entity] who precisely must manage it [conservation]. But the management didn’t work – it did not work. Because, because there were [not] the legal backups that must be prepared by the legislature, in that they had to issue a system [and that had not yet been done]. This interviewee believed that the government’s role is to govern matters related to heritage conservation. However, she also opined that there still is confusion about what the government should do; thus, professionals in heritage conservation were and are important to helping the government envision what to achieve in the local heritage conservation domain. For the government to function effectively in relation to heritage conservation, she asserted that the government must issue regulations about heritage conservation. The regulations would give the government legal backup in communicating, monitoring, and enforcing regulations with the community at large. She also criticized the government for not being as effective as it could be due to the absence of formal regulations. Another interviewee believed that the government’s approaches to problem solving often have not reflected or considered local culture or local community values when making decisions or taking action. For example, when the local 162 government launched a village cleaning project, the government’s standard was incompatible with the village’s standard. A local village would tolerate its residents drying of clothes in their front yards, which is considered part of local culture. However, the government would not perceive this behavior as consistent with its standard for ideal cleanliness. Said the interviewee: This is an example of cooperation between the private sector and local communities. The government also should participate. But, at that time, it didn’t. The government ran its own work on preserving Kotagede. (Oh, so there was also the government) Yes, up to now. (Why didn’t you work together?) We didn’t connect. So, what the government did was different from what we did. For example, there was a road in one village that was hardened with blocks or something. So, it diminished the atmosphere of the Kotagede village. Or, when the government cleaned the village, it became too clean [local community’s context of ‘cleanliness’ is different from the government’s]. It was a project, right? There should be a context. For example, there was an old mosque – I forget its name. If we worked on the project, we would redesign it without diminishing its identity. But the mosque was totally torn down [by the government] and we protested at that time. Then a new mosque was erected. Yes, a little old fashioned [in the new style]. Interviewees also stated that networks are important elements in increasing the potential for successful heritage conservation. Networks, as described by the following interviewee, provide the resources – including funds and knowledge, to name two – often unavailable from the governments or the heritage community groups themselves: I think a network is a strength. So, we do need funds, but they don’t come first. The important thing is [having a] network. Well, with a network, there are a lot of things we can get. For example, if we have a strong network, when we … um ... we need knowledge about something, we can share it. Or, if we have a good activity at one place, maybe we can influence [another local community] to … adopt it. We are willing to share about it. That’s how I see it. Other aspects that need to be developed are legal bases and a system of regulations and monitoring related to heritage conservation. A legal basis will provide consistency in how practices of conscious heritage conservation are applied, with the government holding the authority for implementation and oversight. The government, rather than the community, should raise issues pertaining to heritage conservation, which interviewees observed as having been the initiators in the past. One interviewee elaborated: The most important thing is, as I said, the legal basis. That is very important and the concept has, more or less, changed the actor map. (What do you mean by that?) It used to be like this – it was more about community’s persuasion to the government, that if the 163 government agreed, it also would be called a collaboration. But if it didn’t work, there was nothing we could do. The same thing also applied to both the community and the private sector. So, the concept was actually more about Organization A’s initiatives. And then we expected that there will be people who already were concerned and they will not damage [buildings]. Now, because we have the Local Regulation, we actually passed the responsibility to the government. The government holds the cards [takes responsibility] now because the government is responsible for implementation of the Local Regulations. So, if there is anything [that is an issue or problem], the government will take the responsibility. Because the Local Regulation says this and that, why wouldn’t the government abide by it? So it has been, how do I say it, our longing. It used to be our burden. Now we can share the burden because it’s actually the government’s obligation. We support them. We still must give input to them, and the government eventually also says, “help us because we can’t” ... But I think the transition was quite significant, that the card [authority] has shifted from us to the government. The government can just do nothing, but there will be questions about why they don’t do anything. Why don’t they enforce the regulations? It’s their obligation. Aside from the legal basis, a system also would be required to ensure smooth operation of heritage conservation programs and projects. One interviewee talked about the reason: So, what matters is that the buildings are legally protected and the owners also get incentives. In my opinion, the government’s obligation is to protect the community and also to make use of protected cultural heritage buildings as much as possible for the community’s welfare. Thus, with these regulations, with the existence of sanctions and compensation, in my opinion, this is a reciprocity. She continued with an example of a condition that could arise if such a system did not exist: If there was no legal umbrella, they [heritage buildings, protected or unprotected] would be easily dismantled. … In my opinion, the important thing was that protected cultural heritage buildings in Bandung were lawfully protected. At least, later, when we had a legal umbrella, we could impose sanctions on those who violate [the regulations]. However, and more importantly, interviewees believed that local communities are key to heritage conservation. This is because local communities know their own resources, including those related to heritage, and should know what they want to do and what they want to achieve as a result of heritage conservation. One interviewee said: That's actually ... um ... a concept of conservation, right? So, conservation also must begin with the community itself. If the community is not aware or does not understand about that [conservation], it will not mean anything. So, for example, it is like top-down [government-led projects], in which a community’s houses are renovated and the community becomes just spectators – [the community is perceived as] just an object [rather than as an actor [the community as observers only]. Uh-huh. So, it begins with the small one ... there is the theory – even a [large] ‘snowball’ begins with the small ones. They understand what should be done to their homes, and then it will bleed over [to] the [rest of the] area.” 164 Interviewees believed that heritage conservation should be supported by different stakeholder groups, networks, an operational heritage conservation system, and regulations. The next subpoint presents the need for considering various elements of heritage when developing a plan and taking action related to heritage conservation and interpretation. 4.3.2.2 Heritage work should consider comprehensive heritage elements Interviewees stated that, based on their evolving understanding of heritage, the practice of conserving heritage should cover diverse elements of heritage, including cultural and natural resources, and both tangible to intangible heritage representations. This view reflects interviewees’ perceptions of heritage as a holistic entity, in which tangible and intangible heritage are inseparable. One interviewee said: “So, when we talk about heritage, it should be comprehensive; tangible and intangible cultural heritage, natural heritage associated with many aspects around us, and a combination of them, Saujana heritage. So that's what we have to discuss together.” The following quotes illustrate interviewees’ views about the various elements of heritage that should be considered when conserving heritage, including history, the hopes and aspirations that derive from heritage and contribute to balanced lives, local knowledge, beliefs, and aesthetics. When conserving heritage, the human aspect of the local community also must be taken into consideration, such as how a heritage building would be useful in accommodating the local community’s needs. One interviewee talked about the historical aspect: Now, to safeguard history, to safeguard … what do you call it … our past, we safeguard the existing forms. The forms plus the mental image [associated beliefs]. That’s the conservation, because nowadays there is a lot of development. If the heritage is not maintained and used, its [heritage building] condition will decline and it won’t be useful at the present and in the future. So, conservation is also about how to place heritage in its era. For today, what could be the issues? Oh, there’s a lot of [them]… commercialism – there are probably other factors [that become issues]. Well, we have to move on [with progress]. Another interviewee expressed his view regarding the need to consider people who live nearby heritage objects when making decisions about how to conserve and use these heritage objects: 165 Then the second question, does the conservation apply only to the temple? No. The living of the people is also conserved. Well, as I said before, they could work. That’s sustainability. We don’t only think to ‘freeze’ [a heritage object in a past condition, with no human interaction], but [rather] to conserve. To conserve means people can still develop and make use of it. But if they ‘freeze’ [the heritage object], it's finished – it can't be touched [it can’t be used for anything in the present]. He added: Now, in sustainable development, there is development, [which means] there are changes. Not just sustained. If you just preserve it, it won’t be useful. The temple will be a dead monument. Now, conserve it. If we preserve it, that’s to “freeze” it. Conservation not only is about the tangibles, which is the temple. The intangibles include humans and their work. It includes knowledge, beliefs, and beauty. Some interviewees asserted that heritage conservation and management should be applied to diverse heritage elements and consider heritage resources as a comprehensive system that includes the inseparable tangible and intangible elements, as also reflected in their current understanding about the definition of heritage. To be able to conserve and interpret heritage comprehensively, the underlying history, culture, and values of each community must be researched. 4.3.2.3 Community should conduct research about local history and heritage Several interviewees realized that any heritage work should be based on accurate sources. The data and information generated through research will build a valid understanding of a community’s heritage that can be used as a reliable basis for active heritage work, such as determining which buildings and objects to conserve, identifying associated heritage values and traditional knowledge, conserving objects, selecting which heritage values to pass on to the next generation, and managing museums. Thus, research about local cultures and the history of a place or a site must be conducted. One interviewee explained the need for researching local history to provide historical and cultural context. Research about local history is an important step for determining which buildings to conserve and for inventorying heritage buildings. One interviewee explained the need for conducting research as one step in the process heritage conservation: 166 So, actually, in my opinion, when we break down [categorize historical events based on chronological periods] the history ... What did the events actually relate to? Or, for example, it’s [history is] a manifestation of thoughts and others. So, we will be able to see later that there was important thinking behind it, there was an important event behind it, where the thinking or the event has meaning, so to speak. That’s how I saw it. (It means the approach could probably be through history, right?) Yes, indeed, everything must have … um, the basis is history. But we still see a factor in history, that there was thinking that was linked to history, the development of history. But there was thinking linked to … um … responses to social issues, to nature management, technology, and so on. Based on the above quote, the interviewee saw the importance of building a historical timeline for an area or city. He suggested that, after a timeline is developed, it should be separated into periods so that heritage resources can be placed in historical context. Selection and designation of a particular heritage site to conserve should be based on the researched information to ensure the appropriateness of conserving particular heritage sites. Another interviewee expressed the need for selecting heritage values that are consistent with current values: Well, I traced back the games – finding ones that are compatible with today. So, if it’s not a game … [pause] if it’s a game that is not compatible [with today’s values] anymore, then we don’t play anymore. It’s not that one. But we choose compatibility with people’s needs nowadays. That’s when we started to trace back [the games]. Another interviewee asserted the need for finding representations of local (Indonesian) history and cultures when determining which collectibles are suitable to display in Indonesia-themed museums: We must find a suitable concept about, about representation of history according to Indonesian cultures and lifestyles. Museums are actually where we present and represent history to ... [the public]. The broad public, right? Ah, maybe, maybe the Western setting matches the concept of the museum as we know it today. But, maybe in Indonesia, the intangible values are very strong – [museums] don't suit that [presentation of intangible heritage]. Several interviewees were certain that it is necessary to base any heritage work on local cultures and historical facts. In doing this work, communities should consider local wisdom in their heritage representations and for achieving quality lives. 4.3.2.4 Community development should be based on local wisdom A few interviewees opined that local wisdom should be the basis for community development. Local 167 wisdom should continue to support the local community to achieve a high quality of life, now and into the future. One interviewee asserted the necessity to use Indonesian-based perspectives of heritage for both community development and heritage conservation. By “Indonesian perspective,” she meant the holistic view of heritage rather than of individual objects, which itself is based on local wisdom: But I want to precisely counter the [direction of the heritage] movement [the idea that prioritizes tangible heritage] because it would actually take the Indonesian heritage movement in a wrong direction. Wrong is relative. In my opinion, that [focusing on individual tangible elements] is wrong. (Okay). Wrong, in my opinion, is what’s said earlier, that we finally focus on one thing instead of holism, so to speak. I see the heritage of Indonesia as a holistic thing, whereas we professionals in this [heritage conservation] field focus on the partial parts, in my opinion. She also gave some examples of local wisdom and values that can be prioritized for use as part of heritage conservation: But this [use of] local wisdom/knowledge to build a system [contemporary society] was finished [not applied anymore], because it was not taught by the older generation to the younger generation. Well, this [implementation of local wisdom, such as the use of the river stones for roads] is actually conservation of natural heritage ... I entered [the field of heritage conservation] through natural heritage conservation. S [her colleague] entered [first got involved with heritage work] through rural economic empowerment, the social aspect, so to speak. Then I’ll give you another example, food. We revived special foods of each village that were no longer produced because villagers feel inferior [to urbanites], right. Believing that food [made] from cassavas, from bananas, were rural food [and local people didn’t want to eat it anymore], they wanted all kinds of instant food. Well, we encouraged them to produce local foods, as local as possible, using local ingredients, as naturally as possible, and we promoted them through the so-called Papringan Market; have you ever heard of it? The desire for implementing local wisdom, as exemplified in the quote, laments that some local wisdom and knowledge has been lost. It recognizes that some local wisdom and associated actions may not be practical or compatible with today’s progress or modernization. However, some local wisdom and associated practices still are valuable, and can and should be integrated into heritage conservation. Some interviewees shared their opinions regarding the need to include or prioritize local wisdom in Indonesia’s heritage conservation. This local wisdom should be applied continuously in everyday living to achieve quality of life, both in the present and future, and can provide a 168 foundation for local communities to make their own decisions about if, which, and how to share their heritage and values with heritage tourism visitors. 4.3.2.5 Local community-based heritage tourism development should use a bottom-up approach Of all interviewees in this study, only one interviewee applied the concept of community-based tourism to heritage work. This application differed from programs in which other interviewees took complete responsibility for planning, management, and implementation of tourism products and services based on a community’s heritage resources. In this context, community-based heritage tourism means that local community members make plans and decisions, execute the plans, and reap the benefits of heritage tourism development. The interviewee began with a brief statement: “. . . all the events and activities did not originate [only] from me, but also from my friends. So, they [the ideas] came through hanging out together, and meetings – automatically – each person has their own responsibilities. They can make those events a success.” She continued by stating that the community decides what to do in local tourism-related activities: “It actually depends on the community. Still the same. If something else emerges later and the community likes it, and it is possible for it to be coordinated, to be developed, there’s nothing wrong about it, right?” She added, “So, the more we involved people – locals – the more the ideas grew, and they [the residents] consequently would organize them [the heritage activities]. They [the ideas] were supported by the residents themselves.” She admitted that, oftentimes, the decision making and the practices of community empowerment, as she termed it, were done without any realization or intention to apply community empowerment concepts: Initially, it [the decisions and actions of the community] was not realized as community empowerment because, whether you like it or not, in creating a heritage trail product, you should involve community elements in it – like what I said earlier, we involve the local community, like it or not. So, the initial idea just flowed naturally. Then, maybe in ‘98 when we started [heritage trails], we already had begun to involve the community but, initially, such involvement might not have been recognized [as a specific, intentional strategy] because we were locals, so it just occurred. 169 She exemplified heritage trails as a form of tourism activity, through which she involved local community members as the actors: Heritage trails during this time can be an example. They involved many people, starting with guides [licensed, professional guides employed by tour operators] as well as guides from local residents, local friends, then local residents who provided food. We also ordered from local traditional food producers. Then we also visited traditional houses, which are 100% owned by locals. That’s if you want to talk about community empowerment, like you asked. In the end, she learned that by involving local community members, the local community helped conserve heritage in their home neighborhoods: So we can do both community empowerment and conservation at the same time through tourism. That's the point. That’s what I meant by interrelated. There is also a real example. (Let’s go back slightly to what you said earlier, about coordinating the existing community groups. So, those community groups were eventually empowered through your activities?) Yes, that’s right. For example, if they have guests who want to bike, it will be very simple, "Sis, we have a guest request. They want to have a bike tour.” Then we began contacting those who have bicycles. Any community member who had their bike available, they will be given rental fees. That’s all. (Even though the community members do not make a living from that?) Yes, that’s right. Through her experiences with involving local communities, one interviewee learned about the importance and positive impacts of using a bottom-up, community-based approach to heritage tourism development in her neighborhood. 4.3.3 Discussion: Heritage as a Comprehensive Practice toward Quality Community Living Before discussing how key actors practice their heritage work, I review the benefits of heritage conservation and heritage interpretation from key actors’ points of view. Based on their interviews, I suggest that key actors’ predominant motivations to practice heritage work are to seek its benefits – even if it is to fulfil their passion or interest in heritage. I also suggest that how key actors work to achieve benefits from heritage are reflected in their practices. Therefore, I begin the discussion about heritage practice with an overview of benefits of heritage, which is associated with how key actors are willing to trade their resources (e.g., time, energy, money, human resources) for the benefits of heritage. 170 People exchange their resources based on the relative costs and benefits incurred as a result of that exchange (Ap, 1992; Ozdemir et al., 2015; Deng, 2016; D’Mello et al., 2016). “Resource” is a broad term that covers various kinds of things, such as time, energy, talents, knowledge, skills, and money, among others. Benefits, as discussed in the second major section of this chapter, come in different forms, including concrete benefits such as income and knowledge to individuals, and abstract benefits such as a community’s pride and sense of pleasure from interacting with guests. I suggest that benefits of heritage have been key motives for interviewees to practice heritage work, including fulfilling personal interests, generating knowledge, building a community’s identity, and improving a community’s welfare and wellbeing, as recently realized by one key actor. This notion is consistent with interviewees’ evolving definitions of heritage, which are not only about values of the past, but now include how such values can bring contributions and benefits – either monetary or non-monetary, and for individuals or society at large – to the lives of present and future generations. Interviewees’ heritage practices fall into two categories: what and how interviewees had been practicing heritage conservation or interpretation, and what and how interviewees thought heritage conservation or interpretation should be practiced. Discussion of what and how interviewees had been practicing heritage conservation and interpretation is linked to benefits gained from such practices. Based on the findings, the four categories of their practice include raising public awareness of heritage, disseminating heritage knowledge to the public, and organizing outreach programs for the public; conducting inventories of heritage; helping governments prepare policies for heritage conservation; and developing local heritage-themed, community-based tourism. Raising public awareness and disseminating knowledge about heritage, as well as organizing outreach programs, had been done by interviewees since they founded or first were involved in their heritage community groups. I suggest there were several reasons as to why interviewees first were engaged with outreach and awareness-raising. First, this work was 171 closely related to their personal interest in heritage, and then it was reinforced by interviewees’ growing realization of benefits of heritage conservation and interpretation. Second, interviewees felt a desire to share their interest in heritage conservation with their communities. Thus, interviewees would influence or persuade others to develop similar interests in heritage. Third, as interviewees were learning more about heritage conservation and interpretation, as well as practicing heritage work and gaining related experiences, they realized that heritage conservation and interpretation could generate a variety of benefits for individuals and society. To achieve goals of raising awareness and encouraging other community members to become interested in and care for heritage, interviewees undertook a variety of work that, based on the patterns of their practice, reflected their professions as academicians. Thus, practices reflecting education, research, and community service – the three pillars of higher education in Indonesia – had become their means of achieving their goals. Examples of interviewees’ academically influenced practices included disseminating knowledge through discussions, public events, outreach programs, educational programs, and capacity-building programs. Other interviewees were active in the heritage community groups and, even though their professions are not related to the academic world, their practices resembled those undertaken by interviewees whose professions were as academicians. These academicians became models for other interviewees to practice heritage work. Despite interviewees engaging in similar practices, the focus of their individual work was affected by growing community needs and individual contexts, such as natural disasters. Governments play a major role in laying a legal foundation for heritage conservation and have the authority to ensure implementation of heritage-related public policies, regulations, and programs, including incentives and sanctions for public engagement in heritage. Therefore, some interviewees had assisted local governments – mostly in response to local governments’ requests, and sometimes of their own initiative – by providing feedback and preparing drafts of heritage conservation policies and regulations, and by providing rationales for local bodies of 172 representatives to set and formalize regional heritage-related laws. These were created so that law enforcement – applying incentives and sanctions identified in the policies and regulations – could be used with the public. This provided a foundation for future heritage conservation work. As interviewees continued to work on heritage conservation, and as some initiated heritage interpretation starting in the late 1990s, they became concerned with the quality, validity, and accuracy of the content of their work. For example, to conserve a heritage building, interviewees required information related to the building as a basis for inventories and designations. Similarly, in interpreting a heritage building or area to a guest, they believed interpreters should deliver quality programs based on accurate information. The need for accurate data can be met through research about local history and culture. Some interviewees learned that heritage resources can be incorporated into tourism attractions based on their values and significance, such as historical, aesthetic, and rarity. They perceived tourism as one medium through which to disseminate heritage education – despite the fact that, as their enterprises grew, income became an additional motive for interpreting heritage. As a way to introduce and interpret local heritage to guests, and parallel to efforts to maintain their heritage, some interviewees applied community involvement practices in managing their enterprises. I suggest this approach has been effective and efficient for interviewees in meeting their goals of developing tourism experiences and enhancing local communities’ quality of life, as also found in studies by Andereck and Nyaupane (2011), Hanafiah et al. (2013), and Kim et al. (2013). However, different types and levels of community involvement were applied by different interviewees. Some interviewees took full charge of decision making and implementation while one interviewee actively involved local community members in making decisions about what they wanted to achieve, in implementing those decisions, and enjoying the profits from their efforts. I suggest that one interviewee offers support for the positive impacts of involving local community members in community endeavors to ensure sustainability of their enterprises (Getz, 1994; Boonratana, 2010). Furthermore, it is 173 important to consider financial benefits as a motivator, because they usually become strong drivers for community members to become involved (Hanafiah et al., 2021). It is interesting, however, that some local community members in Kotagede, Yogyakarta perceived financial benefits as less motivating than their opportunities to interact with guests, which generated personal feelings of pleasure. One of the emerging findings that affected how, where, and why heritage conservation was applied in specific communities was partly a consequence of geographic location and conditions. Yogyakarta, a region prone to natural disasters such as volcanic eruptions and earthquakes, provided opportunities to create novel applications of heritage work by some interviewees to achieve supplemental goals. Despite taking the same forms of public discussions, heritage education, capacity building, and inventorying, the geophysical context and related natural disasters provided an opportunity to link heritage conservation activities with a post-disaster recovery program. Adapting practices to a local geographic condition is in accordance with how humans generally adjust themselves and their actions to geographic conditions where they live. In this way, heritage conservation practices are contextual to the locations in which they occur (Poria et al., 2003; Park, 2010; Butler et al., 2014; Winter, 2014). This notion probably reflects what Heidegger (1975) philosophized that people’s perspectives and uses of place are influenced by characteristics of the place, and how people design their built environment within that space reflects what is important to them. Actual practices, as reported by interviewees, reflect most of the five phases in the evolutionary process of cultural heritage management. According to McKercher and DuCross (2002), cultural heritage management in Indonesia was a relatively new concept in the 1980s, and conceptions and practices still are evolving. Cultural heritage management had been progressing through a five-phase process, including: 1) inventory of heritage resources, 2) creation of legislation to protect heritage, 3) increase in professionalism as a demand for managing heritage, 4) stakeholder consultation and participation in heritage conservation, and 174 5) professional and state responsibility in heritage conservation. Even though findings of this section do not exactly match the aforementioned phases, some of the activities are similar, such as conducting inventories, preparing policies and regulations, and engaging the community. Others are reflected in practices that interviewees stated should be done, including the need for governments to play more active roles and for more stakeholder participation in heritage conservation. Learning from their experiences with practicing heritage conservation and interpretation, interviewees realized there was still room for improvement and that principles of heritage conservation and interpretation should be applied to improve future living and to increase benefits of heritage. According to interviewees, practices that should be applied to heritage work include that heritage conservation should receive support from diverse stakeholder groups in a community; should consider all types of heritage when making decisions about heritage conservation; that communities should conduct research on their local culture and history; that communities should base their development on local wisdom; and heritage efforts should utilize bottom-up, community-based approaches in local heritage tourism development. Some interviewees believed that the goals of heritage conservation will be achieved only if there is support and collaboration among diverse stakeholder groups in the community. Stakeholders are “communities of interest and transcend communities of place and geographical boundaries” (Johnson, 2000), and they range from “professionals, landowners, politicians, tourists, descent communities, and others with an interest in the past typically coexist with communities of place, and they are often multiple and contradictory” (McGimsey, 1972). The need for stakeholder groups’ collaboration in achieving the goal of heritage conservation is consistent with a notion that “engaging local community in heritage conservation collaboratively with other stakeholders is crucial as it has the potential to transform values, practices and overall behavior towards sustainability” (Halim & Ishak, 2017, p. 11). Involving stakeholders as collaborators should result in community support for local heritage conservation. As a result, the 175 community at large should have opportunities to maximize and enjoy the benefits of heritage conservation. According to interviewees, stakeholders include local community members, governments at various levels, networks, a structural system, and regulations. However, among all stakeholder groups, interviewees identified the two most influential in affecting heritage conservation work as the local community and local government. A local community is the collective owner of its local heritage – thus, they know their heritage, what they want as benefits from their heritage, and they are the parties who should enjoy the benefits of their own heritage (Wall & Black, 2004). This relates also to the values, as identified in definitions of heritage, that if a community recognizes the benefits of specific heritage values, they will keep those values, and the community has the right to keep or to discard values, based on what they consider to be relevant and valuable in the present and future (Olick et al., 2011). See Figure 13 for an example of local heritage that includes both tangible (physical market) and intangible (interactions among people, and the traditional practices and economy carried on in the market) elements and values. 176 Figure 13 Market in Kotagede, Yogyakarta Note. The traditional market of Kotagede, Yogyakarta, is also dubbed ‘oldest market in Yogyakarta’ (circa end of the 16 th century). Traditional markets in Indonesia, typified by lively interactions between buyers and sellers – usually in the form of bargaining – is a form of local tradition. One interviewee hopes this traditional market continues to contribute to Indonesian cultural identity. Photo taken in May 2019 by Patria. Interviewees stated their belief that government should be the leader that has the authority and should have a vision for the nature and direction of heritage conservation. To function effectively in such a role, I suggest that government officials should have sound knowledge about heritage conservation. One way to accomplish this is by involving or recruiting heritage experts into government positions. The government also is responsible for setting legal frameworks and operational regulations, as well as raising community awareness. Therefore, heritage professionals also should consider providing training for government officials so they are knowledgeable about heritage and can more effectively develop appropriate policy 177 frameworks, regulations, monitoring practices, and provide funding and other support to communities. This notion reflects a statement by Ceccarelli (2017), who said that: On the one hand, a different way of preserving the heritage, born from a direct and conscious participation of the entire population, and not only the professionals, should be put in practice; on the other hand, architects, planners, technical personnel, public managers should be trained differently [from how they are currently trained]. (p. 9) Through this quote, Ceccarelli expresses the opinion that multiple stakeholders in a community should participate in heritage conservation efforts. For this to be successful, he also emphasizes the need for heritage-related technical and government personnel to have specific and more thorough knowledge and skills related to heritage. Thus, there is a need to change the way these professionals are trained, with a goal of creating knowledgeable and skilful stakeholders to effectively perform their duties by integrating heritage conservation in their work. Interviewees perceived heritage as a comprehensive system, thus considering it necessary to include all types and elements of heritage when engaging in conservation. This means heritage is not viewed as a collection of singular tangible elements only, but as an integrated system of tangible and intangible representations, and cultural and natural heritage elements. In Indonesia, as similar to many other countries in South and East Asia, the focus of heritage conservation is not on single tangible heritage objects, but includes their surrounding environments that consist of natural, cultural, and human elements, as well as humans’ relations with the spiritual world. As Chapagain (2013) said, “Asian heritage draws more from spiritual or intangible beliefs and worldviews than tangible or material aesthetic principles. Also, in general, Asian heritage encompasses people, nature and culture as integral parts of a holistic concept of heritage” (p. 3). One particular concern that has emerged among interviewees during recent decades revolves around the contribution of heritage to improvement of present and future lives of societies. I suggest this is influenced by interviewees’ most recent understanding of heritage, whereby heritage is not restricted to things of the past, but also is influenced by relevance into 178 the future. Specifically, past values should continue to contribute to or benefit future generations. As a related concept, interviewees expressed the importance for communities to base their future development on local wisdom. Local wisdom has been shown to help communities live, resist or respond to challenges (including disasters), and sustain their lives over generations. Local wisdom, conserved as part of heritage, should be able to help future communities move into the future (Fabbricatti et al., 2020). However, one concern raised about this is that society’s perceptions of values can change over time, as influenced by various factors (Araoz, 2011; Meutia et al., 2018) such as religious values. In response, changes in society’s perceptions of values can affect how society practices heritage work. Finally, heritage-themed tourism development should be based on a bottom-up, community-based approach. I suggest this reflects an important role for community heritage work, in that a community knows what their heritage is, what they want to do with their heritage, and how they might benefit from their heritage, in both tangible and intangible ways. This applies also to the heritage-based tourism context. Local community members should know what their heritage is, what they want to do with their heritage (protect from or incorporate certain elements into the tourism experiences), and how they want to benefit from heritage tourism development. The community has the right to be involved in local tourism development even when each community has different levels of capacity when they first engage actively in tourism (Jamal & Getz, 1999). Bottom-up heritage tourism development should involve local community voices in aspirations, decisions about what community-based tourism should be, selection and provision of heritage -based products and services (Murphy, 1985; Wall & Black, 2004; Simpson, 2008; Lopez-Guzman et al., 2011). Simultaneously, communities should engage in capacity building across many areas of the tourism system to address gaps in local skills and knowledge. 179 Chapter Five Conclusions and Recommendations This chapter presents conclusions and recommendations based on the findings and discussions presented in Chapter 4. The conclusions section summarizes key study findings along with additional questions some of those conclusions raise, followed by scholarly implications and knowledge creation, practical applications and recommendations for Indonesian heritage work, study limitations, and recommendations for future studies. The scholarly implications and knowledge creation section discusses study contributions to heritage- related scholarship and the practical applications and the section on recommendations for Indonesian heritage work discuss how and in what contexts the lessons learned from the study can be applied. Study limitations describe the limitations faced during the research process, particularly the methods and data analysis stages. The recommendations for future studies section suggest issues and research questions that could be explored as follow-ups to this study and how methods of this study can be improved in future research. 5.1 Conclusions and Questions Raised Perhaps the most fundamental finding of this study is confirmation that heritage is a social construct, subject to the variabilities of humans as they live and interact within social groups and differing geographic contexts. Social values and social identity are strong elements of this social construct, as are the characteristics of differences and change across groups of people and across time. Perhaps this is why there is no universal definition or set of criteria for what specifically is considered heritage. Nevertheless, heritage is valued by respondents, and they had strong opinions about why heritage is important, and why it should be recognized, protected, and shared with others. All other key findings are related to this overall confirmation of heritage as a social construct. 180 Heritage exists as a consequence of a group of humans, or a community, giving meaning to things. The process begins with a space where a group of people, as a community, are present and who then give meaning to the space. A space is a space until humans give meaning to it and it becomes a place (Tuan, 1977; Williams & Stewart, 1998). Using their bodily senses – sight, smell, hearing, taste, and touch – humans interact with the space and its natural elements, and build meanings of the place in which they live. A community continuously adapts to the geographic conditions of its place and utilizes the available objects in its place to support the community members’ living. As a result of this process of interactions, a community produces culture – including intangible forms such as values, and tangible forms, which are the material manifestations of values. Because every place has its own geographic characteristics and conditions, all cultures differ from one another. Culture distinguishes and gives each community an identity. At some point of the lived human experience, a community develops a desire and perceived need to pass on its culture to the next generation. Its members seem to feel a need to provide their future generations with the benefits of their culture and to sustain their collective identity. Motivated by the desire to transmit its culture, the community must select the values, along with their material manifestations, that its members believe will best contribute to the community’s identity and continuity into the future. Values include cultural, spiritual, educational, and professionally-based ideas and representations. Decisions about which values and material manifestations to pass on is affected by internal and external factors. Within the context of community, internal factors include shared values inherited by a community’s former generations or those built or adapted by the current community. External factors include a community’s interactions with other communities, through which diverse values and cultural expressions converge or conflict, and the evolving geographic conditions of the place in which a community lives, to which the community adapts. 181 For example, as demonstrated by the two primary communities in this study, the geographical conditions of Bandung and Yogyakarta, interacting with the social and cultural development of the two cities, have produced two distinct cultures. Through this study, it was revealed that the predominantly Western-influenced characteristics of Bandung – at least during the city’s early development era – have produced and showcased a stronger, more overt emphasis on material culture than intangible culture. In Bandung, local heritage key actors expressed more interest in conserving architectural and cityscape heritage than for other forms of heritage. In Yogyakarta, local heritage key actors discussed a more complex system of heritage that incorporates tangible and intangible, and natural, cultural, and spiritual elements of heritage (often associated with the Tri Hita Karana concept, which seeks a balance in relationships among humans, nature, and the Creator). The tangible-oriented heritage conservation in Bandung and the complex system of heritage adopted by key actors in Yogyakarta provide an example of how two places having different histories, influences, and characteristics generate differing orientations, views, and experiences regarding heritage conservation. As a consequence, the values attached to Bandung and Yogyakarta have contributed to the distinct identities of each of these cities. The idea of heritage as a social construct provides a foundation for numerous other concluding ideas derived from the overall study. The following sub-sections discuss those conclusions, including: heritage as a dynamic and continuing process of values assessments and perceptions; heritage as a reflection of worldviews, both Eastern and Western; heritage as an evolution of understanding past values; heritage as a consequence of decisions involving social power dynamics; evolution of Indonesia’s heritage perceptions as a reflection and compression of the evolution of global perceptions; heritage as oriented toward future community welfare and wellbeing; and heritage as a social construct, imbued with contradictions. 182 5.1.1 Heritage as A Dynamic, Continuing Process of Values Assessments and Perceptions As a result of the social, human-constructed nature of heritage and associated values, communities’ perceptions of values evolve over time. What is perceived as a core value by one generation can become more essential, less valued, or even be discarded by ensuing generations. The evolution occurs due to dynamic internal and external factors, as well as adaptions to geographic environments and conditions. Hence, some past values and their tangible manifestations will endure only for a relatively short time across generations, or are no longer transmitted to next generations because they become obsolete or deemed no longer useful or appropriate. Other values deriving from a cultural group’s past will have longevity, and are transmitted across innumerable generations. The care, maintenance, and transmittal of a community’s past values and their tangible manifestations reflect a community’s perceptions of its values as well as its aspirations for the next generations so that they, too, can receive the benefits of their heritage. 5.1.2 Heritage as A Reflection of Worldviews: Eastern vs Western Perceptions of values determine how one societal culture develops in relation to its heritage, and also how that cultural group perceives the process of heritage conservation. Western societies predominantly view life as a linear process whereas eastern societies perceive it as a cyclical process. Using a butterfly’s life as an analogy, Western societies perceive a butterfly as living through four phases, from one phase to another in sequence, before it dies. Thus, to illustrate a sort of conservation, the butterfly’s body remains in its final form after it dies. Eastern societies expand this view of a butterfly as a physical bodily form that includes its energy, believing that the energy will be reborn in another form after the butterfly’s death. Within the context of architecture, Eastern societies look beyond the West’s emphasis on material authenticity to include the process and meanings associated with building a structure. Another analogy can be used here – the change of seasons in sub-tropical regions. One 183 viewpoint is the transformation of leaves from one spring to one winter as a single journey, whereas another viewpoint is the transformation of seasons as an incessant repeating cycle, year after year. One focuses on the changing physical forms, the other on the lasting energy. As Einstein once quoted in Bratianu and Andriessen (2008), “Energy cannot be created or destroyed. It can be only transformed according to the law of conservation, regardless [of] the practical forms of energy available” (p. 2). Both viewpoints are accurate, but the focus of attention is based on the associated perspective or worldview. Each represents the way a community learns, believes, and chooses to see the life process. Hence, it should not be argued which perspective is right or wrong, and thus which should be adopted by a community, but rather which most appropriately reflects the values of a particular group. Similarly, both Western and Eastern perspectives of heritage conservation, based on differing perspectives, contribute to the broad construct and work of heritage conservation. Both linear and cyclic views of life can complement and enrich each other, and each culture or community should understand and practice the heritage conservation and management practices that reflect its values and worldview. Collectively, across the world, a fusion or blending of both perspectives and approaches can enrich understanding of heritage, and simultaneously acknowledge and respect the values of all cultures. 5.1.3 Heritage as An Evolution of Understanding Past Values The evolving understanding of heritage among Indonesian key actors in this study has reflected the global development of heritage conventions. This evolving understanding illustrates how key actors’ perspectives of heritage conservation have been influenced by both internal and external factors, such as cultural, spiritual, education- and profession-based factors. During this evolution process, key actors’ understanding about heritage diverged from, or expanded on, that of the early global conventions to more clearly reflect local values and conditions. In this case, how key actors in Yogyakarta gained knowledge, skills, and experiences as they applied heritage conservation programs to post-disaster relief programs, 184 including rebuilding livelihoods of members of affected communities, provides one example of the evolution of the understanding and application of heritage conservation practices. Another example, also represented in Yogyakarta, is how local communities have adapted former spiritual values to current cultural practices, such as when local beliefs fused with those of Hinduism and Islam to create Kejawen, a belief system now reflected in their current daily lives. The dynamic perceptions of values play a role in a community’s decisions about which heritage to conserve and pass on to future generations. 5.1.4 Heritage as a Consequence of Decisions Involving Social Power Dynamics As a social construct, the meanings of heritage depend on individuals and social groups’ perceptions. Those groups who take the lead in a new area of work often become the ones who are respected and to whom others listen, sometimes without questions or challenges. As with any social group, power positions and power dynamics exist within the field or the context of heritage. In this way, decisions about which philosophies, concepts, and practices of conscious heritage conservation to which to ascribe, and which heritage to select for conservation as a representation of a community, depends on an individual or group that is dominant in terms of power and authority within a community. Global development of conscious heritage conservation philosophies and practices had influenced the early development of conscious heritage conservation in Indonesia, pioneered and led by some of the key actors in this study. At the national level, elites – including the government, heritage experts, and scholars – have been dominating the formal decision-making process in relation to which heritage to conserve and to use to represent the nation. Indonesia’s national level efforts and involvement in conscious heritage conservation still predominantly reflect the earlier global perspectives and priorities, which are based on Western approaches that heavily influenced Indonesia’s early heritage conservation development. This can be seen through the state’s most recent laws about protected cultural heritage, UU RI No. 11 Tahun 2010, which still emphasize tangible heritage. However, at the community level, at least as demonstrated by interviewees in this study, the 185 orientation for heritage understanding and work has been shifting to include both tangible and intangible heritage as well as cultural landscapes, as stipulated in the 2003 charter of Badan Pelestarian Pusaka Indonesia (the Indonesian Heritage Trust). Inclusion of more intangible representations in the heritage domain, and increasing attention to the underlying values over original fabrics, has been applied at both global and national levels. Because concerns for the need to include intangible heritage were voiced in the early 1990s, particularly by some Asian countries such as Japan, inclusion of intangible heritage representations has been expanding worldwide. As conscious heritage conservation in Indonesia was much influenced by key actors of heritage groups in the country – some were interviewees in this study – the evolution of understanding and orientation of heritage conservation in Indonesia follows that of the global evolution. These key actors were mostly scholars in fields related to heritage, such as architecture and urban planning, and many of them received or were influenced by Western education. Thus, since the 1990s, the concepts of heritage and heritage conservation in Indonesia initially were Western-centric, but have been shifting from a tangible focus to include intangible elements and values, and to reflect a more complex, integrated system of heritage elements and representations. Key actors’ professions – mostly as scholars and community leaders – provide an example of how influential their heritage groups can be in raising awareness and disseminating knowledge about heritage to the community at large. They managed to build relationships with others, provide outreach and other awareness-raising activities within communities, and develop partnerships for collaboration with local communities, the regional house of representatives, government entities, and international institutions. Early leaders often became the decision makers about what and how to conserve within the heritage field, at least initially. Despite their growing influence, key actors indicated that they preferred that the government be the regulatory entity guiding heritage conservation, and that local communities be the decision makers and actors of heritage-related work in their own places. Development of the heritage 186 field in Indonesia has reflected a social power dynamic whereby a small group of people has strongly influenced decisions about which heritage to conserve and how heritage conservation should be practiced at a formal level – be it local, regional, or national – based on these groups’ worldviews, knowledge, skills, and experience. 5.1.5 Evolution of Indonesia’s Heritage Perceptions as a Reflection and Compression of Global Evolution of Heritage Perceptions Despite historically having been a multicultural country comprising people of predominantly Eastern-oriented cultures, conscious heritage conservation in post-independence Indonesia has evolved from a Western-oriented approach to one incorporating more diverse and complex forms of heritage. Throughout its history, the region that is now the Republic of Indonesia had lured peoples from other parts of the world, including Indians, Chinese, Arabs, and Europeans, particularly the Dutch, who came primarily to exploit Indonesia’s rich natural resources and to take advantage of its geographic location as a center for trade. As a consequence of encounters among diverse ethnic groups, both native and non-native, cultural fusion occurred and created several dominant cultures. This process impacted the practices of conscious heritage conservation in the region, which commenced in the early 1900s when what is now Indonesia was ruled by the colonial Dutch administration in the Dutch East Indies. Even after Indonesia proclaimed its independence, rules and regulations for conscious heritage conservation in the new republic referred to Western-centric laws established by the colonial Dutch administration. The evolution from Western-centric conscious heritage conservation to today’s more complex system of heritage conservation increasingly reflects Eastern values. This evolution has mirrored the global evolution of heritage understanding and work, but in a compressed time frame. In addition to the early influence of pre-independence Dutch colonial laws on conscious heritage conservation, the early Western-centric heritage conservation practices also were influenced by a small group of key actors – many of whom received or were influenced heavily 187 by Western education. This reflects the impacts of power dominance, whereby a prominent group in society influences how philosophies, concepts, and practices of conscious heritage conservation are applied to the whole society. The subjugated groups – who are not represented by the key actors, particularly as related to education or profession – had limited influence in determining which approach to apply or which heritage to conserve and celebrate. Nevertheless, many of the key actors – as they gained more experience, particularly working within local contexts and paying attention to local needs, expanded their views and approaches to incorporate more eastern philosophies. To address implications of this power gap in the future, it is recommended to actively engage local communities and individuals in discussions about their heritage, and actively involve them as partners in future heritage conservation efforts. In addition to broadening the power base, such efforts would create an environment for more culturally appropriate decisions and approaches to heritage conservation. 5.1.6 Heritage as Oriented toward Future Community Welfare and Wellbeing Despite its association with past values, the word “heritage” connotes benefits from which future communities can gain. The verb phrase that often precedes the word “heritage,” “to pass on,” denotes that there is something about past values that is important to pass on to future generations, as related to the importance of and benefits received from past values. If a community does not perceive a future benefit of a past value, they will not maintain and transmit that past value to future generations. Benefits of heritage generally can be oriented toward future communities’ welfare and wellbeing. The word welfare often is associated with concrete benefits, such as financial benefits, and wellbeing is associated more with abstract or intangible values, such as pride in collective identity. As heritage implies transmittal of things from the past to the present or the future, the benefits associated with heritage are oriented toward the benefits that future generations can gain. This implies that heritage should be at least a significant part of a foundation for future societies – as a result of sustaining selected past values while embracing future values for the betterment of a community’s living. 188 5.1.7 Heritage as a Social Construct, Imbued with Contradictions Because heritage is a social construct, and involves all the differences of opinion and diversity of humans, its perceptions and practice are characterized by contradictions. One contradiction is between the concept and intention to maintain cultural values and practices, particularly as related to conscious heritage conservation, while also embracing modernization that brings with it all sorts of changes, including technologies across all arenas of life. Concurrently, socio-cultural progress is inevitable. Collectively, these changes often are labelled as “progress,” which can be perceived as counter to conscious heritage conservation that attempts to preserve past values for the present and the future. As indicated by at least one interviewee, today’s Indonesians face cultural uprooting because there has been an increase in the number of people moving into urban areas where they tend to adopt a more modern and global culture. Another impact of urban area life is the assimilation that typically occurs. Thus, for most Indonesians, the notion of conscious heritage conservation does not have appeal. This raises several questions about heritage values, their conservation, and their transmission to future generations. Are heritage values and objects conserved as a foundation of values for future living, or relegated to nice memories that tell the story of the past? How do underlying values (that might be maintained) interact with the tangible or behavioral representations into the future (that may be modified to accommodate current contexts)? Or, as conveyed by some key actors, perhaps not all past values should remain in the past. As heritage is a social construct, it depends on how current generations perceive its values. Some past values still have relevance to the present time and perhaps the future because of their perceived ability to address current or future problems. In such cases, there may be a need to maintain or reintroduce past values that are still relevant to today’s or future community living, and to adapt those values and behaviors, as needed, to inform solutions to current and future issues. 189 Another, and related, potential contradiction is the reported adaptability of Asian cultural groups to new ideas as juxtaposed to comments from some interviewees that heritage must be transmitted so that a person of Batak ethnicity or a person from Yogyakarta maintains their culture and “acts like a Batak or Yogyakartan” person. Again, this apparent contradiction raises numerous questions. How does this outward maintenance of personal cultural values and behaviors also reflect an ability to shed no-longer-relevant behaviors while holding on to cultural identity? What is visible and what is invisible? What is shared with others and what is held sacred and secret within a cultural group? Does this result in cultural identity conflicts? How does this impact what is selected during the process of conscious heritage conservation and interpretation? 5.2 Scholarly Contributions and Knowledge Creation This section presents scholarly contributions and knowledge creation about Indonesia’s heritage conservation and interpretation development. The scholarly contributions section briefly discuss contributions of study findings to selected scholarly concepts, and knowledge creation specifically refers to contributions of the study to the field of conscious heritage conservation and interpretation in Indonesia. 5.2.1 Scholarly Contributions Findings of this study confirm specific concepts and theories used as conceptual foundations for the study. While this study does not test or specifically contribute to further development or applications of theories – because this study is exploratory – it confirms relevant consideration of some theories, models, and concepts, including interactions among people and place, place attachment, social exchange theory, and collective memory and associated memory sites. Two key concepts to which study findings contribute are related to the role of interactions among “people and places” to the notion of heritage, and the potential “place 190 attachment” that can result. This study found that key actors’ appreciation for and concerns about particular kinds of heritage are a result of their interactions with the characteristics of the places where they grew up. Key actors who were exposed to distinct tangible heritage developed more, or earlier, appreciation for tangible heritage than for intangible heritage, as demonstrated by the Bandung interviewees. It turns out that key actors, through their professional and community work, have impacted the places where they currently live. Also, selection of their professions was influenced by the places where they were raised as children. Thus, there has been an iterative interrelationship between the place and key actors’ interests and work, and between key actors’ interests, work, and place. For example, key actors in Bandung have been concerned with and have chosen to work on conservation of architectural heritage in Bandung, which is characterized predominantly by Dutch colonial architectural heritage. Their attention stemmed from the neighborhoods in the cities where they grew up, Bogor and Bandung, both of which are rich in Dutch colonial architectural heritage, and with which they developed emotional bonds. In Bandung, where they currently live, they can express their interests in and contribute to conservation of Dutch colonial architectural heritage. Thus, there is an interrelationship in terms of meaning making between the place where these key actors grew up and their interest in and contributions to the place where they currently live. This study also found that key actors’ preferences for a particular form of heritage – tangible or intangible, cultural or natural – are affected by the bonds to the same forms of heritage that were prominent in their lives during the years and experiences through which they developed their heritage conceptions. The natural environment and socio-cultural milieus where key actors grew up strongly influenced their current appreciation for the kinds of heritage with which they most associated during their younger years. Two additional scholarly concepts reflected in study findings are “social exchange theory” and “collective memory,” which includes memory sites that reflect those collective memories. Supported by principles expressed in social exchange theory, this study confirms 191 that a group of people will exchange their valuable resources for benefits that accrue as a result. Key actors identified benefits of heritage conservation and interpretation – both intrinsic and extrinsic values – for themselves, their communities, and for future generations. Because these benefits were deemed valuable, either to individuals or to society, and either in the present or in the future, key actors determined that their expenditures of effort, energy, time, and finances were worthwhile. Heritage work goals of interviewees, based in part on their beliefs about benefits, also influenced key actors’ practices and priorities in heritage work. Even though some of the choices about what specific kinds and examples of heritage to conserve were influenced by their personal experiences with heritage (interactions between people and place, and place attachment), later discussions and choices were impacted by their work. As they developed community-based heritage groups, they discussed their ideas with increasingly more people, representing diverse stakeholder groups within communities. Some interviewees also explained growing interactions with community members, either as targets of their outreach and awareness efforts or as partners in the heritage work itself. As more people were involved, and more voices were included in discussions about what to conserve and interpret, decisions were influenced by collective memories of participants. Often these collective memories are represented most overtly by tangible heritage, often termed memory sites that are often architectonic in nature, and that remind a group of people of particular events in the past. Thus, collective memories and memory sites can influence the kinds of heritage choices they make, and the types of heritage projects on which they focus their work. 5.2.2 Contributions to Knowledge about Indonesia’s Heritage Conservation and Interpretation Development Studies about heritage conceptions, particularly from the perspective of Indonesians, are limited. Findings of this study contribute to the knowledge about heritage from the Indonesian perspective, which ultimately will contribute to knowledge about heritage from an Asian point of view and to global knowledge about heritage. Specific knowledge generation related to heritage 192 as a result of this study include insights into the development of community-based heritage groups and how they develop and conduct their work; the strong influence of spiritual values in Indonesia’s heritage perceptions and work; growing government engagement in community- based heritage work; and increasing collaboration among various heritage stakeholder groups. First, this study provides insights into the development of community-based heritage groups in Indonesia. While the purpose of this study was not explicitly to study the groups and their operations, the local heritage groups were part of the sampling plan, and provided the starting point for identifying appropriate key heritage actors as interviewees. As part of getting to know and understand each of them, some of the interview questions asked about their work, as associated with the groups they represented. Thus, this study contributes to understanding the motivations for the key actors to initiate and work on conscious heritage conservation and interpretation, and how this work is assisted by the formation of groups through which to organize their work. Three key observations about the groups and their leaders are: 1) Personal motivations of key actors are rooted in their personal interest in heritage and reflected through their choices of educational fields and professions. 2) A common motivation that has driven key actors to practice their heritage work has been to raise public awareness of heritage through a variety of activities, such as public discussions, heritage trails, arts and cultural classes for local community members and visitors, heritage-themed publications, and provision of advice and advocacy for owners of heritage buildings and the governments. 3) Several common characteristics of the groups became evident. Most heritage groups were founded and organized by individuals having personal interests in and passion about heritage. They are managed as non-profit institutions and apply volunteerism in running the organizations, even when there also may be a business unit. The groups also provide services that reflect key actors’ interests and expertise in heritage conservation or heritage-related tourism activities. 193 The second key point is the strong influence of spiritual values in Indonesia, including as they relate to perceptions of heritage. This study revealed that spiritual values are strongly embodied in the Indonesian conception of heritage, and are reflected in expressions such as Kejawen and Tri Hita Karana. Spiritual values are particularly significant among key actors in Yogyakarta, who explain the Saujana (cultural landscape) concept as being grounded in the Hindu philosophy of Tri Hita Karana, which includes the Creator as an important and necessary element, along with humans and nature, for which to seek relationship balance in pursuit of creating a quality life. Another example, also exemplified by an interviewee in Yogyakarta, is the sak madyo mindset and attitude. Sak madyo, literally means “moderate” (originated from the Sanskrit word, “madya”, which means “medium”), and encourages a person to live a modest lifestyle. The sak madyo philosophy teaches that living in moderation – neither in overindulgence nor austerity – is safe for individuals. It discourages people from becoming excessive in many aspects of life due to the unlimited nature of humans’ desires. Thus, sak madyo also teaches people to refrain from being immoderate. It also reminds people that life is temporary and worldly possessions will not be carried to the afterlife. Thus, this study contributes to understanding that the Indonesian concept of heritage has religious elements as ingrained and essential. Third, this study found that government’s engagement in conscious heritage conservation and movement was limited initially to law and regulation preparation. With the emergence of community-based heritage groups, governments have been experiencing increasing pressures by these community groups to increase their roles in advancing conscious heritage conservation and interpretation. Some of this has been achieved through increasing collaboration with the heritage groups, for example, the municipal government of Bandung collaborating with Bandung Heritage to obtain its input and feedback on heritage-related issues as well as to develop regulations pertaining to designation of protected heritage sites and heritage conservation in the city. Thus, this study contributes to knowledge about how 194 community groups and government can work together in the conscious heritage conservation and interpretation fields. Fourth, this study found that collaborations among stakeholder groups are key in achieving a collective, successful goal of heritage conservation. One example, specific to post- disaster situations in Yogyakarta, was the collaboration among the local community, a university, and a heritage group to inventory and renovate structures impacted by the 2006 earthquake. In a related effort, a heritage group made efforts to collaborate with international funding institutions to support creation of post-disaster programs and activities to help local communities rebuild their livelihoods. Thus, the finding contributes to an understanding that heritage, both as a concept and in practice, is most successful and effective when it is a collaborative rather than individual endeavor. 5.3 Practical Applications and Recommendations for Indonesian Heritage Work Study findings can be used to provide some foundations and recommendations for future work in the areas of conscious heritage conservation and interpretation, to include providing a foundation for government policies and regulations; developing processes and criteria for prioritizing which heritage to conserve and interpret; developing recommendations for partnership development; encouraging application of heritage concepts and work to other community development goals; and providing guidance for heritage tourism training. 5.3.1 Providing a Foundation for Government Policies and Regulations This study reveals previous and existing influences of local heritage groups on existing government policies and regulations. However, many of those regulations still are rooted in Western approaches to heritage conservation. This study reveals, however, that more Eastern philosophies and practices should be incorporated into future government policies, regulations, and practices. Although this study’s findings are not sufficient to represent all Indonesian views 195 and practices of heritage, it does suggest that government involvement should solicit, then incorporate broader Indonesian perspectives, including Eastern philosophies. 5.3.2 Developing Processes and Criteria for Prioritizing which Heritage to Conserve and Interpret Findings of the study can provide a basis for heritage program development related to heritage conservation and interpretation. Because much of current Indonesian society still associates heritage with “colonial relics” or is limited to arts and culture and traditions, findings of the study can be used to broaden society’s insights (that heritage is a complex system that includes nature, cultural landscapes, and spiritual elements). However, with the modernization that is taking place, particularly in urban areas, some urbanites might cast aside the religious element as an integral part of Indonesian heritage for themselves. Study findings also imply a need for involving local communities in deciding whose and which heritage within a community or a place to conserve and interpret. This is related to the tendency that conscious heritage conservation, within a formal context, currently is determined by a few elites, such as experts, academicians, and the government. An example of conflict arising from lack of community involvement is shown through the local government’s rural cleaning project in Yogyakarta, where local community members had a different standard of cleanliness than did the local government. On the other hand, when community involvement was practiced by Organization B in a post-earthquake situation, the collective result of using heritage to ground its recovery was more successful and better accepted by the community. This example involved local community members in deciding what they wanted to do, which heritage sites to restore, which cultural aspects to utilize in rebuilding livelihoods, what benefits they wanted to gain, and how they could reach the goals and receive benefits of their heritage- focused efforts. 196 5.3.3 Developing Recommendations for Partnership Development Findings of the study indicate the importance of collaboration among diverse stakeholder groups in the community to achieve successful heritage work outcomes. Thus, another recommendation is to encourage thoughtful partnership development for creating win-win situations. One potential example of a partnership is using heritage tourism-based income to reinvest in heritage conservation work (tangible and intangible) for the community and tourism. Another example of a partnership is organizing heritage awareness projects, such as through exhibitions, publications, arts and cultural festivals, heritage trails, and seminars, in collaboration with other institutions – both governmental and private. All partnership development should design strategies to promote, conserve, and interpret heritage that promotes win-win outcomes and minimizes negative impacts on physical and social heritage. One example of ignoring this principle is creating a circumstance of over-tourism, whereby too many tourists can damage tangible heritage resources as well as disrupt the social culture of a community. 5.3.4 Identify Innovative Applications of Heritage Work Key actors identified several applications of heritage work that also helped to meet other community needs. These included using heritage structures (reconstructing heritage buildings) and practices (such as crafting Batik) to rebuild a community and the livelihoods after a natural disaster; using traditional games to teach contemporary lessons about identity, self-confidence, and community heritage; teaching community youth about their traditional music, dance, and other traditions while also providing authentic experiences for visitors; and providing income to individuals and communities from heritage tourism experiences. This suggests that, while heritage has values in and of itself, particularly in the social context of communities, heritage resources, experiences, and work also can be integrated with efforts to meet a variety of community needs and goals. 197 5.3.5 Provide Insights into Direction for Heritage Tourism Professional Training Study findings suggest that heritage tourism and heritage conservation can be interrelated and support each other. Thus, to provide knowledgeable, skillful, and experienced human resources in heritage tourism, this study provides some hints on what can be incorporated into educational and training programs for heritage tourism professionals. One example is providing training for people working in museums to understand the tourism system. Currently, one key actor organizes this kind of training with funding from overseas public and private institutions. Based on her experience, she indicated it is important to be sensitive to and incorporate local wisdom in development of museum and tourism experiences. For example, heritage based on Indonesian philosophy is not limited to tangible heritage but also includes the intangible aspects, the environment, and the people who live and work in those environments. An example of a human heritage element is reflected in traditional markets. Thus, as part of her museum training programs, she would suggest that traditional markets can be used as living museums. Through such efforts – for both tourism and community development – traditional markets can be reintroduced to the community to highlight the benefits of maintaining these markets for both local community members and tourists. In conclusion, heritage tourism professional training should incorporate technical skills, soft skills (e.g., knowledge about heritage and tourism, and skills related to traditional lifeways to supplement tangible elements), and the importance of basing tourism experiences on the complexity of Indonesian heritage, which is a totality of various elements. 5.4 Study Limitations This study had numerous limitations, partly because it was intended as an exploratory study to provide a foundation for understanding the development of conscious heritage work in Indonesia, and partly because of time and logistical constraints. Key factors that limited the scope of this study are discussed below. 198 5.4.1 Limitations in Study Sample Intentionally, particularly after determining during early pilot interviews that not all heritage group members could provide the kinds of information being explored in this study, the sampling frame for this study was limited to key leaders in a limited number of local grassroots organizations in two selected communities. Because these organizations were developed initially as a result of individuals’ or small groups of professional colleagues’ personal and professional interests, diversity in academic backgrounds of interviewees was limited. Many interviewees’ professions were related to architecture and urban planning. Thus, because their professional training and understanding about heritage focused on tangible heritage, overall results may have a bias toward tangible heritage. Nevertheless, even for those who began their heritage work grounded in architecture and tangible heritage, their understandings about heritage evolved over time, expanding to recognize and include intangible heritage meanings and representations. As stated previously, interviewees were delimited to “leaders” of the heritage groups, which automatically restricted the sample size. Also, there was strong cross-pollination and influence among many of the interviewees, resulting in limited diversity of experiences, professions, and opinions. Finally, due to time and logistical constraints, study participants were limited to those working in only two communities in Indonesia. 5.4.2 Transcription and Translation Constraints One of the limitations faced was related to the need to use two languages (English and Indonesian) and the cross-cultural nature of this study. Forward and backward translations between the two languages occurred regularly, as the study was conceptualized in English, the interview guide was created in English, then translated to Indonesian. Interviews were conducted in Indonesian, then transcripts had to be translated back to English for analysis. There was constant need to return to the original Indonesian transcripts to double-check or clarify meanings of interviewee comments during the analysis process. 199 Another factor that exacerbated the use of two languages was the financial constraint for this study. Professional services related to scholarly transcription and translation of transcripts is expensive, as is using two native language speakers to either code all the Indonesian transcripts independently, or translate the transcripts to English. Thus, even though the hope was to use two people for both the transcription and translation processes, this was not possible due to financial constraints. Nevertheless, one other person assisted with some of the transcripts and I did all the transcript translations myself. Neither the other person nor I are experts in transcription or translation. Another challenge, particularly with translations, was the difference in characteristics of the Indonesian language compared with English. In my perspective as a bilingual person, Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian language) is more simplified and less nuanced than English, and it does not recognize various tenses as in English, Furthermore, vocabularies in the Indonesian language are more limited and lack nuance compared with English. Additionally, translations used multiple pronoun referents within single sentences, sometimes making it challenging to understand the noun referred to by each, necessitating constant referral back to original transcripts for review of both the words and the context of specific comments. Thus, even though I made sense of most of what my interviewees said, I found challenges in finding the precise words or idioms in English. Thus, I made my best guess for many of the expressions – sometimes I had to translate the words or sentences in a non-verbatim fashion when transcribing the audio recordings of my interviews with my interviewees. The preference would have been to have two people independently transcribe and translate the interviews, then do a comparison followed by discussions to resolve discrepancies in meaning. To help address these weaknesses, I hired some colleagues – who are not professionals in academic transcription and translation – to assist me with the tasks. The assistance helped save some time – so I could allocate my time to other more essential tasks, such as writing summary memos and coding. Also, I engaged in extensive conversations about 200 translations and meaning with my co-advisors during the entire coding and analysis process. Nevertheless, the method I used slowed the entire research process because I had to conduct many technical checks and rechecks of the data. Also, the reliability and the accuracy of both the transcripts and the translations were not maximized because I was the primary person conducting this work. However, this process did allow me to become thoroughly familiar with the transcripts, as the process required multiple readings and reviews before I even began the coding process. 5.5 Recommendations for Future Studies Findings of this exploratory study, as alluded to in discussions of findings, ground the need and rationale for future studies. Recommendations for future studies are grouped by definitions of heritage, benefits of heritage, and practices of heritage. In addition, recommendations for future studies based on limitations and delimitations of this study are presented at the end of this section. 5.5.1 Factors that Influence Definitions of Heritage and Identification of Heritage Assets Additional studies related to definitions of heritage are needed because Indonesia is a diverse country, based on ethnicities, cultures, religions, and the varied geographic conditions across the archipelago. Thus, it is impossible to generalize from a single study about Indonesia’s heritage. Findings from additional studies about perceptions of and work related to Indonesian heritage can provide an expanded understanding about heritage that eventually can contribute to knowledge about heritage perceptions and practice in Southeast Asia and Asia more broadly. Specific questions for further studies about heritage definitions, scope, and criteria include: 1) What are the unique characteristics of Eastern or Indonesian perceptions of heritage, and what are the factors (e.g., philosophical, cultural, religious, and historical) that influence those perceptions? Studies could be designed to identify factors that influence why and how 201 certain individuals, organizations, and communities have different levels of strength/passion/ commitment to heritage. 2) What are the processes by which a community or a cultural group decides which heritage values, local wisdom, and heritage representations to pass on to future generations? Such a study could be expanded to identify who and how various people or organizations are involved in the decision-making process, and if the results are consistent with what individuals at the local community level perceive as heritage important enough to conserve. 3) What are the differences between Eastern and Western cultures in how they perceive of and practice heritage conservation and interpretation? What are the factors that influence these differences? What are the impacts of their practice on the actual heritage resources that are conserved and interpreted? 4) Who is responsible for the conscious selection of past values? Are values that are selected agreed upon by all people? If definitions change, and heritage values change (according to new values), then is it really “heritage” or only “something new”? and 5) Is it possible to identify and describe what is “local wisdom” and “values”? What are the criteria to determine that something is “good” and “outstanding”? 5.5.2 Benefits and Costs of Heritage Conservation and Interpretation Further studies related to the benefits of heritage are important based on the premise that heritage is conserved not only because of its past values but also its future benefits to individuals and societies in the future. Thus, to further explore benefits, and to learn how future societies can maximize the benefits, future studies might be structured around these research questions: 1) What are the societal and individual benefits of heritage, from the perspectives of multiple stakeholders (including community members who have no direct involvement with conscious heritage work)? 2) How do communities relatively value financial and non-financial benefits of heritage? 3) What are the factors that influence communities to recognize and value intrinsic (non-financial) benefits of heritage conservation and interpretation? 4) How do communities perceive the costs and benefits of these intrinsic benefits, as compared with other community and personal goals, and as compared with financial benefits? 202 5.5.3 Understanding Choices and Priorities in Heritage Practice As connected with benefits of heritage, there is a potential relationship between what and how societies gain benefits of heritage and how societies practice their heritage work. To maximize the generation of heritage benefits, the following research questions could be explored in the future: 1) What are the original practices of Indonesian heritage conservation and interpretation, even if not conscious? Such a study could include an investigation of whether or not conscious heritage conservation existed in Indigenous cultures living in what is now Indonesia prior to being actively and overtly acknowledged as a result of Western influences and, if so, the study could be expanded to identify what Indonesian people would choose to conserve – tangible, intangible, or both – and why. 2) What criteria are needed to assess “success” of heritage conservation and interpretation work? 3) What factors contribute to successful development, operation, and impacts of heritage community groups, and – based on criteria for success – which criteria are most influential to that success? 4) Has the use of heritage in disaster relief programs become a part of conscious heritage strategies and policies in Indonesia, or was the case identified in Yogyakarta the result of an individual’s creativity and a one-time funding opportunity post-disaster? 5) What other applications of heritage work have been made to achieve other kinds of complementary goals? 6) What do heritage workers think about the interrelationship between heritage conservation and heritage interpretation or tourism? Such a study also can be conducted to investigate further under what conditions one is prioritized over the other (and based on what criteria), or how they both might be recognized and utilized to support community-based development. 7) How and to what extent do community-based heritage development and utilization support the conservation of heritage? 5.5.4 Linking Heritage and Tourism The widely held concept regarding heritage and tourism, particularly among current global scholarly communities in related fields, is that the heritage and tourism are interrelated and can support each other. Tourism often is perceived as a medium to generate income 203 through public visits to heritage objects, whereby the profits can be used to help maintain the heritage objects. However, there are questions to be addressed related to the link between heritage and tourism, particularly in Indonesia, including: 1) What are the perceptions of the Indonesian society in general regarding the development and use of heritage objects as tourist attractions? 2) What is the current level of community preparedness for heritage tourism development? What must be prepared and anticipated in relation to heritage tourism development at a national and a local level? 3) What are local communities’ perceptions of the costs and benefits of heritage conservation and heritage tourism development? What strategies might be employed to ensure balance between the two fields to bring maximum benefits to both and minimize negative impacts? 4) What might be local reactions to growth of tourism, and how might their responses be influenced by their engagement in planning and implementation of heritage tourism? Could models such as Doxey’s Irridex (Irritation Index) theory and Butler’s Tourism Life Cycle model inform their understanding of tourism impacts and their heritage tourism planning? 5.5.5 Addressing Limitations and Delimitations of this Study in Future Studies Another category of future studies is related to the limitations and delimitations of this study. Based on the experiences with conducting this study, future studies can be undertaken using the following considerations: 1) include interviewees with more varied professional backgrounds to reduce potential bias; 2) select more diverse communities and organizations involved with heritage; intentionally identify and include representatives from diverse ethnic groups in Indonesia (as it is challenging to generalize topic of the study within a national context); and 3) improve the validity of findings as a result of transcribing and translating the transcriptions by hiring a professional academic transcriber-cum-translator, and/or by using two people for transcribing and coding data. 204 APPENDICES 205 APPENDIX A Early Development of Heritage Groups in Indonesia Conscious heritage conservation in Indonesia can be traced back to the establishment of The Archaeological Commission in 1901, which was initiated and executed by the colonial administrative government of the Dutch East Indies (DEI), a part of the Southeast Asian region that was occupied by the Dutch, which proclaimed independence in 1945 to become the Republic of Indonesia (Bloembergen & Eickhoff, 2011). In 1955, after Indonesian independence was declared, the Archaeological Commission merged with the Republican Archaeological Services, which had been established by the new Indonesian government to form The Indonesian Board of Antiquities. Community-initiated heritage groups possibly originated in 1970, when a group of multinational expatriates in the Indonesian capital of Jakarta formed the Ganesha Group. It was a non-profit organization whose purpose was to offer its members the opportunity to learn about the rich cultural heritage of Indonesia. The group’s name eventually was changed to the Indonesian Heritage Society, which is still used today (Indonesian Heritage Society, 2021). In 1987, the Bandung Society for Heritage Conservation, believed to be the first community- initiated conscious heritage conservation group founded by mostly Indonesians, was created in the city of Bandung, West Java. Since then, similar groups have multiplied in the ensuing decades. Compared with other community-based art and cultural groups that had proliferated in Indonesia prior to 1987, such as the successful and internationally recognized Saung Angklung Udjo (the Angklung House of Udjo, founded in 196622), the heritage groups’ work seems to have focused more on tangible cultural heritage, such as buildings, cultural landscapes, and other kinds of structures from the past, than on intangible heritage elements. The missions and 22 Angklung is an Indonesian traditional musical instrument made of bamboo. 206 emphases of these then-novel heritage groups are perhaps what differentiate them from most community-based art and cultural groups, which operate art and cultural studios and maintain intangible cultural expressions through performing traditional dances, music, and other performance arts for public audiences. Based on my preliminary field observations and discussions with a number of Indonesian tourism stakeholders during the summers of 2015 and 2016, I suspect that the emergence of these heritage groups is related to the increased popularity of some heritage sites and the literal use of the term “heritage” among community members in Indonesia. Some indicators I observed include: 1) ongoing and initiation of new revitalization and development projects related to historic districts and buildings by some local governments, such as those of the old towns of Jakarta and Semarang, Central Java (see Figure A1); 2) expanding adoption of heritage, or tempo doeloe (bygone era), as a theme for products by some owners and managers of tourism-related enterprises, such as restaurants, hotels, and tour operators, in numerous cities and towns; and 3) rising interest in and selection of heritage as a research topic by some scholars and college students, particularly in the majors of architecture, urban planning, and tourism23. 23 Examples of topics of internationally published book chapters include those concerning revitalization of Kotagede heritage district, Special Region of Yogyakarta (Adishakti, 2008); urban heritage conservation in Bandung, West Java (Martokusumo & Zulkaidi, 2015); and heritage trails in Bandung (Wulandari, 2016). 207 Figure A 1 Example of Recent Revitalization of Old Town of Semarang, the Capital of Central Java Note. This building is the Semarang Creative Gallery, a place to sell products of Semarang- based small-micro-medium enterprises. The building is part of the old town of Semarang, a historic part of the city that has been revitalized since 2017 by the Semarang government. The old town of Semarang was founded by the colonial Dutch in the 17 th century and had been abandoned and gradually going to a derelict condition since Indonesian independence in 1945. The Semarang government initiated a major revitalization of the old town, with an intention to develop it as “a vibrant historical area that allows for economic, social, cultural, and tourism activities in the historical, architectural, and environmental settings of Semarang City” (Dewi et al., 2020). Revitalization of the Semarang’s old town is an example of stakeholders’ recent interest in heritage conservation in Indonesia. Photo taken in August 2019 by Patria. This phenomenon continued to be of interest at the beginning of the 21 st century, and was punctuated by the 2004 foundation of Balai Pelestarian Pusaka Indonesia (BPPI), or the Indonesian Heritage Trust, a national-scale heritage conservation organization. It is noteworthy that, as the popularity of the term “heritage” has increased, the term has been associated more frequently with tangible heritage than intangible heritage among many community members in Indonesia. A brief chronology of the initial growth of heritage groups in Indonesia is described in the paragraphs following Table A1. 208 Table A 1 Timeline of Key Events in the Development of Conscious Heritage Conservation and Interpretation in Indonesia Pre-Indonesian Independence 1901 The Dutch administration established The Archaeological Commission*24 1907-1911 The Archaeological Commission restored Borobudur Temple (their first restoration project)*25 1913 The Dutch administration founded the Dutch Archaeological Service, adding Islamic, Chinese, and Dutch antiquities in the Dutch East Indies (Indonesia) to its purview.* 1931 The Monument of Act of 1931 was intended to support policy for conservation of cultural heritage included in the Dutch Archaeological Service’s domain* 1942 The Japanese took over Indonesia from the Dutch and established the Japanese Archaeological Service* Post-Indonesian Independence 1945 Indonesia proclaimed its independence* 1946-1950 The Indonesian government established the Republican Archaeological Service* 1953 The first Indonesian president, Soekarno, inaugurated Siwa Temple, Prambanan, as part of an effort to represent the national identity* 1955 The Dutch and the Republican Archaeological Services were combined to form the Dinas Purbakala Republik Indonesia (The Indonesian Board of Antiquities)* 1970 Indonesian Heritage Society (then the Ganesha Group) was founded by a group of multinational expatriates in the capital, Jakarta 24 Bloembergen, M., & Eickhoff, M. (2011). Conserving the past, mobilizing the Indonesian future: Archaeological sites, regime change and heritage politics in Indonesia in the 1950s. Bijdragen tot de Taal- , Land- en Volkenkunde, 167(4), 405-436. https://www.jstor.org/stable/41329001 25 Sastramidjaja, Y. (2014). This is not a trivialization of the past: Youthful re-meditations of colonial memory in Jakarta. Bijdragen tot de Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde, 170(2014), 443-472. https://10.1163/22134379-17004002 209 Table A1 (cont’d) 1985-2005 The Jakarta City Planning Masterplan was implemented, which included plans to restore Kota Tua (the Old Town of Jakarta)** 1987 Bandung Heritage, believed to be the first predominantly Indonesian-led community heritage conservation group, was organized 1991 The Urban Heritage Plan for Kota Tua (the Old Town) of Jakarta, a collaboration between Technical University in Delft and the University of Indonesia, was implemented** 1992 Issuance of state’s UU RI No. 5 Tahun 1992 tentang Benda Cagar Budaya (Law Number 5 Year 1992 of the Republic of Indonesia on Protected Cultural Objects) 1993 The Jakarta History Museum opened, occupying one of the buildings in the Kota Tua of Jakarta** 1998 Joga Heritage Society, believed to be the first heritage group to organize interpreted heritage tours, was founded 2004 Balai Pelestarian Pusaka Indonesia (BPPI), or the Indonesian Heritage Trust, was founded 2010 Issuance of state’s UU RI No. 11 Tahun 2010 tentang Benda Cagar Budaya (Law Number 11 Year 2010 of the Republic of Indonesia on Protected Cultural Objects), a revision of the former UU RI No. 5 Tahun 1992 The first conscious, predominantly Indonesian, community-organized heritage conservation group was Bandung Society for Heritage Conservation, known by some local community members as Bandung Heritage (BH) (Fitri et al., 2015; van Roosmalen, 2013; Wiltcher & Affandy, 1993). BH was founded in 1987 by a group of concerned individuals, many of whom were architects. The founders were interested in conserving the historic buildings, environment, and culture of Bandung because they feared losing the city’s unique cultural identity as a consequence of rapid municipal and national development that had begun in the 1980s (Tirtosudarmo, 2019). It is noteworthy that one of the founders, Frances Bowden Affandy, is an American citizen who has been living in Bandung since the mid-1980s. Despite this organization being predominantly Indonesian, her influence has been significant. Because she 210 is an American citizen, her influences most likely originated in Western ideas of heritage preservation and heritage conservation. As a non-government organization, BH has been supported financially primarily by donations, conservation-related consultations and studies, and memberships (Wiltcher & Affandy, 1993). Its main activities, both initially and presently, include: inventorying and grading heritage sites in the city; lobbying the municipal government for protection and conservation of particular heritage sites; providing advocacy for heritage site conservation; providing technical advice to the municipal government, public and private institutions, and individuals; and organizing monthly discussions that are open to its members and the community at large (see Figure A2). Figure A 2 A Monthly Discussion Session of Bandung Heritage Note. This discussion was held at the premise of the West Java Board of Tourism and Culture. Monthly discussions, regular activities of Bandung Heritage since its foundation in 1987, are sessions during which members and the community-at-large gather to discuss specific topics or current issues in heritage conservation, particularly as related to Bandung. Venues for 211 discussions vary and often have been in-kind contributions from other entities such as the local government and hotel companies. Photo taken in December 2018 by Patria. In the following decades and in numerous other places in Indonesia, organizations similar to BH flourished, such as Sumatra Heritage in Medan, North Sumatra (organized in 1998); Jogja Heritage Society in Yogyakarta, the Special Region of Yogyakarta (organized in 1998); Bali Heritage Trust in Denpasar, Bali (organized in 2000) (Sandholz, 2017); and Surabaya Memory in Surabaya, East Java (organized in 2001). Some of these organizations were founded by former members or volunteers of BH, who studied architecture at a university in Bandung. Upon graduation and return to their home regions throughout Indonesia, they initiated local heritage trusts (e.g., Sumatra Heritage and Bali Heritage Trust). Others were founded by professors of architecture at universities in other cities who had professional connections to some founders of BH (e.g., Jogja Heritage Society). Judging by the history of these organizations, it appears that the city of Bandung and the work of BH have inspired individuals to found similar organizations in other parts of the country (Fitri et al., 2015). Heritage interpretation groups began to emerge at the end of the 20 th century. Based on my preliminary observations and conversations with heritage stakeholders, completed during the summers of 2015 and 2016, the first heritage group that organized heritage walking tours in Indonesia was Jogja Heritage Society (JHS). Individuals who worked with JHS have been known to continue similar work outside this organization. For example, one individual began to organize heritage trails (tours) for visitors in neighborhoods of Kotagede and developed other kinds of arts and cultural activities with assistance from local community members. This effort, known as Kotagede Heritage Trails, has sustained its work through the present time (see Figure A3). 212 Figure A 3 Visiting Senior High School Students at a Batik Workshop with Kotagede Heritage Trails Note. Aside from organizing heritage walks of the neighborhood for visitors, Kotagede Heritage Trails also provides arts and cultural classes as regular activities for local residents, which also can be organized as short workshops for visitors such as these visiting senior high school students from another city. Workshops like this involve local residents as organizing committees. Photo taken in January 2019 by Patria. In the first decade of the 21st century, other pioneering heritage interpretation groups were organized in other cities, such as Sahabat Museum (2002), Komunitas Jelajah Budaya (2003), and Komunitas Historia Indonesia (2003) in Jakarta; Bandung Trails (2003) and Komunitas Aleut (2006) in Bandung; Jejak Petjinan in Surabaya (2009); and many others in the following years (van Roosmalen, 2013; Wulandari, 2016). Coverage of cultural heritage in their activities is not limited to relics that represent native Indonesian ethnic groups, but also those of non-native groups such as those of Indian, Chinese, Arab, Portuguese, British, and Dutch heritage, who moved into the archipelago mostly as traders, missionaries, and colonists in Indonesia’s past. It is noteworthy that much of the focus of these heritage interpretation groups 213 has been on tangible heritage. For example, most groups in Jakarta explore the capital’s old town, which was built by the Dutch in the early 17 th century26, and Glodok, the Chinese quarter. Similarly, groups in Bandung, which experienced rapid physical development during the 1920s and 1930s to prepare for the relocation of the new capital from Batavia (then Jakarta) to Bandung, predominantly explore the city’s colonial districts for their characteristic Dutch- influenced architecture. The same occurs in Surabaya, where the colonial district and the Chinese quarter have been the focal points of local groups. These groups’ choices for heritage interpretation raise a critical question: why does tangible cultural heritage seem to have become the prime interest in a country rich in both tangible and intangible heritage? Whether intentionally or unintentionally, activities of the heritage interpretation groups have driven growth of tourism-related activities, in that members began to organize request- based tours for local residents and institutions, domestic and international visitors, and for tour operators (examples of such heritage interpretation groups include Komunitas Historia, Bandung Trails, and Kotagede Heritage Trails). It is noteworthy that all these heritage interpretation groups share similar characteristics: they were initiated by young generations of Indonesians (mostly in their 20s when they formed the groups); most were college graduates (from majors such as literature, history, and tourism); and most lived in urban areas. Another common characteristic was that each had a deep passion for history, cultural heritage, and for raising their communities’ awareness of local and national heritage and histories. Demonstrating this passion, they organized periodic heritage walking tours having both educational and recreational characteristics. Despite their active programs, most of the heritage interpretation 26 The use of the term ‘Dutch’ here refers to two different parties: first, the Dutch India company (Veregnide Oostindische Compagnie, or VOC) that ruled and monopolized the Dutch East Indies as a source of spices to trade between 1602 and 1799 (in 1799, VOC filed for bankruptcy) and the Dutch East Indies administration that took over rule of the Dutch East Indies from VOC in 1800 and continued its rule through 1942 (Hannigan, 2015). 214 groups probably are not registered as formal organizations and are seen by the communities at large as grassroots interest groups (see Figure A4). Figure A 4 International Tourists on a Historical Walk of Bandung, Organized by Bandung Trails Note. Begun as a not-for-profit group aimed at raising public awareness of heritage in Bandung in 2003, Bandung Trails began in 2004 to receive and organize commercial bookings for heritage tours from individuals and groups who wanted to learn about Bandung heritage. Its commercial activities began to intensify in 2010 after Bandung Trails built collaborations, mainly with Netherlands-based tour and travel companies. In this photograph, a group of Dutch tourists listen to an interpretive story of one of Bandung’s earliest hotels and celebrated Art Deco buildings, Savoy Homann (founded in 1871-2 and owned by a German family, the Homanns, and redesigned in 1939 by a Dutch architect, Aalbers), during their historical walk of Bandung. Photo taken in September 2019 by Patria. 215 APPENDIX B Research Participant Information and Consent Form Factors Affecting Perceptions of Local Cultural Heritage and Decisions about their Heritage Work among Heritage Groups’ Indonesian Key Actors 1. EXPLANATION OF THE RESEARCH and WHAT YOU WILL DO You are being asked to participate in a study about perceptions of local cultural heritage among heritage groups’ Indonesian key actors in Bandung and Yogyakarta, Indonesia, and how those perceptions and other factors influence the work you do with your heritage group. You will be asked to provide stories about your experience with [founding/organizing/involvement in] your heritage group. This interview will take approximately between two and three hours and will be audio recorded, then transcribed. To familiarize myself with your organization and its work, I also will ask for your permission to use, review, and examine samples of your group’s documents and visual materials prior to our interview. After the interview transcript is complete, you will be asked to review it and provide corrections, clarifications, and/or additions and omissions, as needed. Upon your approval of the transcript, I will translate it from the Indonesian language to English, and a bilingual colleague will review the translated transcript to check its accuracy. The translated transcript will be sent to my Michigan State University academic advisor for her record. You must be at least 18 years old to participate in this research. To maintain confidentiality of your comments, you will be asked to select a pseudonym that will be connected with your interview comments. Your personal name will not be associated with your comments during analysis or any follow-up presentations or articles. 2. YOUR RIGHTS TO PARTICIPATE, SAY NO, OR WITHDRAW Participation in this research project is completely voluntary. You have the right to say no. You may change your mind at any time and withdraw. You may choose not to answer specific questions or to stop participating at any time. Whether you choose to participate or not will not result in penalties. 3. COSTS AND COMPENSATION FOR BEING IN THE STUDY There are no foreseeable risks associated with your participation in the study. You will receive a non- monetary gift to compensate you for the time spent talking with me and reviewing your transcript. 4. CONTACT INFORMATION FOR QUESTIONS AND CONCERNS If you have concerns or questions about this study, please contact the researcher (Teguh Amor Patria: Jl. H. Ibrahim Adjie 304 No. 24, Bandung 40275, West Java, Indonesia, patriate@msu.edu, 0813-220-74635. 5. DOCUMENTATION OF INFORMED CONSENT Your signature below means that you voluntarily agree to participate in this research study, to share relevant documents and visual materials about your group’s work, and to have this interview audio- recorded. Create a pseudonym for use in data records, analysis, and subsequent publications: ___________________________________ Signature Date 216 Lembar Informasi dan Persetujuan Peserta Penelitian Faktor-faktor yang Memengaruhi Persepsi akan Pusaka Budaya Lokal dan Keputusan terkait Karya Pusaka di Kalangan Aktor Kunci Indonesia dari Kelompok-kelompok Pusaka 1. PENJELASAN TENTANG PENELITIAN DAN APA YANG AKAN ANDA LAKUKAN Anda sedang diminta untuk berpartisipasi dalam sebuah studi tentang persepsi akan pusaka budaya lokal di kalangan aktor kunci Indonesia dari kelompok-kelompok pusaka di Bandung dan Yogyakarta, Indonesia, dan bagaimana persepsi tersebut serta faktor-faktor lainnya memengaruhi karya yang Anda hasilkan untuk kelompok pusaka Anda. Anda akan diminta untuk menceritakan pengalaman Anda tentang mendirikan kelompok pusaka Anda. Wawancara ini akan memakan waktu lebih kurang antara dua dan tiga jam dan akan direkam dengan alat perekam suara, untuk kemudian dituangkan ke bentuk tulisan (transkripsi). Untuk mendapatkan gambaran tentang organisasi dan karya kelompok Anda, saya akan meminta ijin Anda untuk menggunakan, meninjau, dan menganalisa contoh dokumen dan materi visual kelompok Anda sebelum wawancara dilakukan. Setelah transkripsi selesai, Anda akan diminta untuk meninjau dan mengoreksi, megklarifikasi, dan/atau memberi tambahan atau pengurangan isi transkripsi, apabila diperlukan. Setelah Anda menyetujui transkripsi, saya akan menerjemahkannya dari Bahasa Indonesia ke Bahasa Inggris, dan seorang yang mahir berdwibahasa akan meninjau transkripsi yang sudah diterjemahkan tersebut untuk pengecekan akurasi. Transkripsi yang telah Anda setujui akan saya kirim ke pembimbing akademis saya di Michigan State University sebagai dokumentasi beliau. Anda harus berusia minimal 18 tahun untuk dapat berpartisipasi dalam penelitian ini. Untuk menjaga kerahasiaan jawaban Anda, Anda akan diminta untuk memilih nama samaran yang akan dihubungkan dengan jawaban wawancara Anda. Nama pribadi Anda tidak akan digunakan baik selama analisa, untuk presentasi, atau dalam artikel akademis sebagai hasil dari penelitian. 2. HAK ANDA UNTUK BERPARTISIPASI, MENOLAK, ATAU MENARIK DIRI Keterlibatan Anda dalam penelitian ini bersifat sukarela. Anda memiliki hak untuk tidak berpartisipasi dalam penelitian ini. Anda dapat merubah keputusan kapan pun dan menarik dari dari penelitian ini. Anda dapat memutuskan pada setiap saat untuk menjawab sejumlah pertanyaan tertentu atau berhenti berpartisipasi. Keputusan yang Anda buat tidak akan mengakibatkan konsekuensi apapun. 3. RESIKO DAN KOMPENSASI KETERLIBATAN ANDA DALAM STUDI Tidak ada potensi resiko dari partisipasi Anda dalam studi ini. Anda akan menerima sebuah hadiah non-moneter sebagai kompensasi atas waktu yang diluangkan untuk wawancara dan meninjau transkripsi Anda. 4. KONTAK INFORMASI UNTUK PERTANYAAN Apabila Anda memiliki pertanyaan tentang studi ini, mohon hubungi peneliti (Teguh Amor Patria: Jl. H. Ibrahim Adjie 304 No. 24, Bandung 40275, Jawa Barat, Indonesia, patriate@msu.edu, 0813-220- 74635. 5. DOKUMENTASI PERSETUJUAN KETERLIBATAN DALAM PENELITIAN Tanda tangan Anda di bawah ini menunjukkan kesetujuan Anda secara sukarela untuk berpartisipasi dalam studi penelitian ini, berbagi dokumen dan materi visual yang relevan tentang kelompok Anda, dan mengijinkan wawancara untuk direkam.\ Gunakan nama samaran untuk perekaman data, analisa, dan publikasi sebagai hasil dari studi ini: Tanda tangan Tanggal 217 APPENDIX C Sample of Interview Guide (First Interview, and based on modifications to base interview guide) Personalized IG for Interviewee X, founder of Organization D Research Questions RQ 1: How do cultural heritage leaders define cultural heritage and describe its practice? RQ 2: Why is cultural heritage important? RQ 3: What is the relative importance of preserving tangible versus intangible aspects of heritage? Interview Guide Goals 1. Personal history in Heritage Interpretation (RQ 2) • Personal motivations to practice and/or innovate • Background to understand personal views of Heritage Interpretation significance 2. History of Organization D, its mission, and how it got started (RQ 1) • Organization D’s motivation to practice Heritage Interpretation • Why Organization D does what it does 3. Single most important project ever done with Organization D (RQ 1) • Evidence, detail of how s/he and Organization D practiced • Give example of their definition of Heritage Interpretation Why the project was important (RQ 2) • Significance of their Heritage Interpretation practice 4. Did the project turn out as expected? (RQ 2) • Link response to definition of Heritage Interpretation 5. How Organization D sustains its work (RQ 1) • Conditions under which Organization D is able to practice 6. What has been learned from the project? (RQ 1/2) • Evolving understanding of Heritage Interpretation Experiences that have changed interviewee’s views (RQ 1/2) • Evolving understanding of Heritage Interpretation 7. Importance of tangible cultural heritage work (RQ 3) • Evolving understanding of Heritage Interpretation 218 8. Should Organization D do more of intangible heritage? (RQ 3) • What is and what is not important to interpret and why according, to interviewee and Organization D 9. Considering ALL kinds of heritage, what kinds of things have the lowest priority for being interpreted? Why? (RQ 1/3) 10. Considering ALL kinds of heritage, what kinds of things have the highest priority for being interpreted? Why? (RQ 1/3) Interview Questions Part I: Personal history in heritage interpretation and meaning of heritage interpretation 1. Tell me how you first got interested in cultural heritage interpretation work. (carkey 1) • What was it that made you get involved in that particular heritage interpretation work? • Was there a particular experience that really built your interest or really made you decide that that was the kind of work you wanted you be involved in? Part II: Their organization and how they do their work. Learning about implicit cultural heritage interpretation definitions through exemplar projects. 2. Tell me about Organization D and its mission. (carkey 2) 3. How did Organization D get started? (carkey 2) 4. Why did you think it was important to found Organization D? (carkey 2) 5. In your view, what has been the single most important cultural heritage project that you have worked on with Organization D? Please tell me about it. (carkey 3) • What was the project? (identify the resource) • What was the objective? What did the project do? • Who was the project targeted to? (i.e. who should know about it? Who should benefit from the interpretation of the cultural heritage resources?) 6. In your opinion, what was the reason it was the most important cultural heritage project? (carkey 3) 7. Did the cultural heritage project turn out as you imagined it would? How so? How not? (carkey 4) 8. In your view, what is significant about this project from an interpretation point of view? (carkey 3) 9. What has enabled Organization D to sustain its work over the years? (carkey 5) 219 10. What have you learned about cultural heritage interpretation and what are the things that make it possible to interpret heritage? (carkey 6) Part III: Tangible / Intangible 11. a. It seems as if much of your work here focuses on heritage buildings (note: can be adjusted based on the info interviewee gives in the early part of interview). Why do you have so much focus on buildings? Why only focus on buildings? (carkey 7) b. Are there certain kinds of buildings that are of higher or lower priority? What kind of buildings, for example, are the highest priority to interpret? And what kinds of buildings would be of the lowest priority? 12. Has Organization D ever considered working on other aspects of cultural heritage, such as performing arts, ceremonies, food? (follow up with why/why not) (carkey 8) Why? How? 13. If so, what kinds of things are lower priority? Why? Summary We’ve just talked about both tangible and intangible cultural heritage. 14. Across all types of heritage, what are the things MOST important to interpret for the benefit of society (generally, not just by Organization D or you)? Why? (carkey 10) 15. Across all types of heritage, what are the things LEAST important to interpret for the benefit of society (generally, not just by Organization D or you)? Why? (carkey 9) Closing 16. I’m always curious to know about new things that are happening in heritage interpretation. Can you tell me if there is anything that is really new or innovative for interpreting heritage in Indonesia? (Can be anywhere in Indonesia) (if yes) Describe those new or innovative things. (if interviewee gives you some examples, then ask if s/he knows any person involved with that innovation). 220 APPENDIX D Sample of Interview Guide (Follow-Up Interview) Personalized Follow-up IG for Interviewee X, founder of Organization D Research Questions RQ 1: How do cultural heritage leaders define cultural heritage and describe its practice? RQ 2: Why is cultural heritage important? RQ 3: What is the relative importance of preserving tangible versus intangible aspects of culture? Goals (Carkeys) 1. What qualifies as heritage; how we know that something is heritage (RQ1) 2. Why does heritage matters? What difference does it make? (RQ2) 3. What is the relationship between tangible and intangible heritage, and how does each complement the other? (Tell why/how each of them matters.) (RQ3) Follow-up Interview Questions In the first interview, we talked about a lot of projects that you have worked on with Organization D, and they were all very interesting. You’ve talked about this work as both conservation and tourism and how these activities are very much related. I’d like to go back to some of the things that we talked about to understand more about these projects and how you think about heritage. 1. Interviewee’s definitions of heritage RQ1 We’ve talked about a lot of projects that involved aspects of heritage, but one thing we haven’t talked about is how do YOU determine whether something qualifies as heritage? Thinking back through your HC work, are there certain characteristics or criteria for you to consider something to be heritage? Maybe think of projects you have done through Organization D or elsewhere… Can you tell me how you determined what qualified as heritage in your projects? Is it the same for all projects? Are the criteria constant (over time)? What are they? If not, how do your criteria change? if s/he gives the book/architectural definition, remind them that the projects mentioned as having worked on don’t really qualify by the architectural definition 221 2. The work in Organization D is very much rooted in the community. There are two things I’d like to ask you about that have to do with community. [RQ 1—practice of HI] 2a. You mentioned that Organization D supports and coordinates the local community groups (like community interest groups, e.g, dance) You also said that your mission includes community empowerment and conservation. Perhaps you can you give me an example from your work of how community empowerment and conservation are related? Can you tell me where this notion of community empowerment first came from? 2b. With Organization D, how do you determine which activities or tasks you want to take on? And is this process different when you get a request through the tourism system? Are certain things more important than others? 3. You’ve talked a lot about why it is important to do HI and I’d like to clarify a few things. (RQ2) When we were talking about the importance of HI, you said it is important to not let history disappear and that from this history there is “local wisdom” that emerges. ▪ Can you explain how this happens? ▪ Perhaps give an example? ▪ What’s an example of this local wisdom? Is local wisdom just local practices? How do we as practitioners try to make sure that this “local wisdom” emerges? (RQ 1 practice) You also described your walking tours and said it was good for guests and good for us (the community) to share the living aspects of the local community. In what way is it good for the local community? 4. I’d also like to ask some questions about the approach and practice of HI through Organization D So, when you think of the projects you’ve done through Organization D, you’ve described the process as a very organic practice that brings happiness to people, from working together on events and even from guiding tourists. Does it always produce happiness? Are there ever times when people feel tired or disgruntled and don’t want to do something for the community or for outside tourists? 222 You also mentioned that the [name of place] festival kind of shrunk. What happened to it? [Did the community tire of doing the work for it? Or were there funding challenges? Or? Are there bad things/non-benefits that come with these things, too? Is it all positive? (RQ 1) 5. We seem to always be in a situation in which we have limited resources (e.g., finances, personnel, time). Under such circumstances, what are the highest priority projects to focus on? How do you choose what is most important to work on when there are so many options? How do you prioritize what is most important to work on next? 6. As you look around and see many different players in HI (or HCT), are there ways that you think are NOT good ways to do it? Possible follow up if no answer to this… (this points out bad practice in tourism that clashes with her principles, so it is useful) : As you looked around, you saw many unappealing and inauthentic practices of HI in northern Yogya, where, in your opinion, cafés and other varieties of ‘hedonism’ took place. You once mentioned that the northern part of Yogya is not as appealing to locals, and not very Javanese, referring to the “café culture” and other varieties of hedonism. Can you tell me what is unappealing about this from the point of view as a practitioner of HI or HCT? Perhaps give some examples. What about this is unappealing? Is it important for visitors and residents to know this? 7. [RQ 3: tangible and intangible relationship] You spoke of holding a lunch at a traditional house to raise awareness, and you also spoke about the social value of old structures. In addition, you said “among tamu” will then be associated with this experience and can start to change people’s views of older vs. new structures. I understand this. As practitioners, however, in this situation, how do you get across the idea that ‘among tamu’ is important? How does this happen? How do you communicate this value? Is there a strategy you follow? 223 APPENDIX E Coding 1. Research Question 1 How do cultural heritage leaders define cultural heritage and describe their practice? Heritage Table E 1 Definition of Heritage Code Code Code Definition / Rule for Application of Code Examples of Application Symbol Name Concept DEF Definition Respondent’s definition Text that describes how respondent defines “I think heritage essentially is wisdom, and that has of heritage heritage according to their personal experience been my understanding since then through today. or understanding. Include views that include Probably based on my experiences – not only based legal definition, but be sure to look for further on projects – whether it's tangible or intangible. The definitions in follow-ups. intangible is the wisdom itself, which means something abstract within a community, such as spirit of togetherness, mutual assistance, building our town through activities that we have been doing so far.” Table E 2 Criteria for Heritage Code Code Code Definition Rule for Application of Code Examples of Application Symbol Name CRIT Criteria Attributes or elements Text that describes the attributes used to either “So, in my opinion, the first criterion is it must have that identify something as 1) identify heritage, or to 2) describe what is an important historical value for a place. So, for heritage labeled as heritage example, it turns out that it signifies … um ... [there was] an important event or something. But, then, um … from the side of socio-cultural development, it has particular values that make a place unique or excellent.” 224 Table E 3 Evolution of Heritage Definition Code Code Code Definition Rule for Application of Code Examples of Application Symbol Name EVO Evolution Changes in respondent’s Apply to text that illustrates the changing “Because most of us [the founders of Organization B] understanding/definition nature of the respondent’s understanding of had a background in architecture, we first focused on of heritage over time what qualifies as heritage buildings, on architecture. But, at the same time, we also learned that the scope was very broad – not just Or to text that illustrates an accumulation or physical, architectural, but [included] the supporting additions to what’s previously understood as humans with all their activities, [which] are also heritage heritage.” Evolution will be supported by a series of “So, for example, Batik [patterns and cloths]. It is statements that show the change over time. heritage because it was not just made that way, but there are values there. For example, there’s a variety of Batik, right? In Java, it can tell or describe stages in a human’s life. So, there are certain Batiks used for [particular] purposes only, for example during a seven- month [of pregnancy] ceremony. Then, for a wedding ceremony. Then, one that is used to cover dead bodies, for example, and so on. So, there are those varieties. People don’t just make them. But there is a motif that was created and it has a story, and has been passed down from generation to generation.” “My point of view, however, is that of an architect’s. But when I met with tourism people, for example, who know more about economics, I got another perspective. In the past, I thought buildings must be like this or that [strictly conserved without giving a new function, including economic]. But when I met an economist, I learned that] they [heritage buildings] could be altered to have new functions and so on. So, my thinking has changed.” “Well, in the end, it [spiritual element] is functional, but the one in Indonesia is rooted in Tri Hita Karana. The Jati Luwih (terraced rice fields) in Bali, are connected to this ... to the way of life, such as the water regulation of Subak (a traditional Balinese irrigation system). So, that shows people’s intention to take care of the earth.” 225 Practice Table E 4 How They SHOULD Practice Code Code Code Definition Rule for Application of Code Examples of Application Symbol Name SHOULD Should How heritage work Text that indicates what respondents think “Heritage matters cannot be tackled only by Practice should be practiced; about HOW heritage work SHOULD be conservationists, because it [heritage conservation] practiced, and WHAT kind of work should be includes building owners, who have the right to done (prioritized). Text indicates either determine the aspiration and the plan for the building. Principle is expressed explicitly or implicitly that there is some There is also the government that has the authority to principle or preferred way that heritage work regulate the city and its elements. Also [heritage} SHOULD be performed. enthusiasts [and funders] who want to develop it in line with the goal of their investment, and many more In other words, it is what kind of principles they to consider. They have concerns [based] on different feel are important in heritage work and motivations.” examples of them, whether its actual or its ideal. Can be used to tag text that describes either what they have done or what they think should have done. The important point is that it reflects some principle that is important to HOW work should be done. Table E 5 How They ACTUALLY Practice Code Code Code Definition Rule for Application of Code Examples of Application Symbol Name ACTUAL Actual Description of Apply to text that illustrates how the respondent “Well, we often do [a variety of heritage-related] Practice respondent’s actual or their organization does its heritage work, activities. Even in the [early] 2000s, we held a series heritage work practice specifically HOW they interpret or conserve of discussions. So, for example, there was a new heritage. building on Malioboro Street, the ‘R’ Shopping Mall or something like that (trying to recall). Then, we Note: during the analysis of extracted data, brought up the topic in a discussion. It originally was [Some larger categories sorting into general patterns (work on a three-lot Chinese house. [It was] renovated into within this concept might awareness/outreach/education; research; public one [lot]. Well, that’s what we discussed”. later be sorted as: 1) policy or governance; tourism) will done Awareness / outreach / education; 2) policy Do not tag text on how they managed the program; 3) research; 4) institution. Tourism] 226 Table E 6 Community Practice Code Code Code Definition Rule for Application of Code Examples of Application Symbol Name COMM Community Respondent’s principles Apply to text that their philosophy about “Heritage trails during this time can be an example. Practice of community practice; working with communities to conserve or They involved many people, starting with guides HOW they conduct work interpret heritage; illustrates how the [licensed, professional guides employed by tour in community. respondent or their organization has worked operators] as well as guides from local residents, with communities OR text that illustrates OR local friends, then local residents who provided food. what their strategy to involve community has We also ordered from local traditional food producers. been. Then we also visited traditional houses, which are 100% owned by locals. That’s if you want to talk Do not use for any reference to something that about community empowerment, like you asked.” happens in community, or if a community has just been the recipient of a project. 227 2. Research Question 2 Why is cultural heritage important? Table E 7 Benefits for Common People Code Code Code Definition Rule for Application of Code Examples of Application Symbol Name BEN Benefits Benefit of heritage to lay Applied to text that illustrates the respondent’s “We are trying to conserve them [house and for people (individuals) view about benefits (financial or non-financial) compound] and, in doing so, we really have to think Common of heritage conservation or interpretation for that we – people who live today – have the right to People (or common people. Use when it goes to specific develop, have the right to utilize what previously individuals) individuals existed, have the right to renew what was there. Now, such utilization must not only be considered as giving Common people refer to community members a function, a use, but also [bringing] economic values in general, who are non-government or non- that can be used later to finance [the property’s] own academic. These community members may [existence]. So, like that house [pointing at the house], have interest in heritage or be involved in we finance it so we can use it as a hotel. We can use heritage works or not. it as a café, we can use it for exhibitions, souvenir shops, can use it as Interviewee X) “But, aside from that – especially with foreigners (international guests) - it usually occurred when we (she and her guests) spontaneously visited a house. For example, the homeowner was standing in front of his/her house, and we knew them. He/she simply would be excited to interact with the guests. So, it is not only a matter of material, but immaterial – they (local community members) can interact with people who are truly foreign, who have different skin colors, and so on. They were just excited.” 228 Table E 8 Benefits for Society Code Code Code Definition Rule for Application of Code Examples of Application Symbol Name SOC Benefits Benefits of heritage to Applied to text that illustrates the respondent’s “Yes, besides raising identity, the identity of for Society society at large view about benefits of heritage conservation or uniqueness, there are also two others I saw. One, interpretation for society at large. from the physical point of view, to avoid unplanned physical development. But it should take into account Society at large refers to a collective whole um … one, in terms of culture. What tradition (beyond specific individuals or heritage influences the design. Secondly, there is also local professionals). It refers to the public broadly wisdom related to our location in the Ring of Fire – and may suggest a betterment for the public, Indonesia. (That’s what’s unique for Indonesia?) Uh both now and for the future/for posterity. huh. What should the buildings be? We cannot build skyscrapers just like that (pointing at a skyscraper In contrast to BEN, use SOC when text refers outside the window).” to “all people” at large, without any spec group. 229 3. Research Question 3 What is the relative importance of preserving tangible versus intangible aspects of culture? Table E 9 Separability Code Code Code Definition Rule for Application of Code Examples of Application Symbol Name SEP Separability Relationship between Text that refers to the separability or “A city must have a spirit, a soul. A soul can exist if a tangible and intangible inseparability of tangible and intangible city has an identity. That identity distinguishes one heritage heritage, directly or as illustrated in discussions city from the others. Now, what is Yogya’s identity? of actual work Some say, “Oh, it’s the high culture – that’s the cultural identity.” Then, what is the manifestation of the cultural identity? So, an identity must have its form. Well, there is the Palace, there is Malioboro. What if the palace is gone, for example? What would Yogya be if it has no identity?” Table E 10 Necessity of Intangible Heritage for Conservation Success Code Code Code Definition Rule for Application of Code Examples of Application Symbol Name NEC Necessity The importance or role of Apply to text that illustrates that the person “So, that’s what I thought [about heritage] and it of intangible heritage in believes that it is important to consider contains, like I said, that values have their physical Intangible heritage conservation intangible heritage, either with or without manifestations. So, um … a physical manifestation Heritage efforts tangible heritage. This can be through direct we conserve is a sort of … um … symbol or form that discussion of the relationship between the two has meanings; like I said: values that are important (tangible and intangible) OR, if it is implied, and become strengths for a community’s identity and through an example that is provided (even if they need to be passed on as a continuous strength taking about something else) into the future.” Whenever there’s anything about the good of intangibles mentioned 230 4. OTHER USEFUL CODES Table E 11 Interdisciplinary Code Code Code Definition Rule for Application of Code Examples of Application Symbol Name INT Inter- Heritage topics and Apply to text that refers to work in other fields “So it eventually expanded. We already had the Local disciplinary concepts are used in that features heritage concepts. Heritage Regulation but we also had to talk about how it was other fields spilling over to other fields. included in the spatial regulation, city tax regulation, and such. I think traffic regulation was also important due to road widening and things like that, right? So those regulations also turned out to affect conservation efforts and they must become our work as well. So, it finally expanded. So Organization A must have a broader insight, be smarter, understand better about many aspects. I used to think it was simply a community movement, from the era of Mrs. W, Mr. X, Mrs. Y, Mr. Z. Then it expanded to scientific academics in relation to the cultural heritage objects, architecture, and such. But now I see it more as our need for expertise in those fields, such as finance, urban design, urban, and such.” Table E 12 Tourism Code Code Code Definition Rule for Application of Code Examples of Application Symbol Name TOU Tourism Tourism as a way to Text that illustrates how tourism has been “… And what I haven’t thought about during this time further conservation aims used to further the broader aims of heritage was that tourism can be sold. It even has its plus conservation value – not just sold but also conserving at the same time”. Do not use for any mention of tourism. Only for when tourism/or example of tourism is specifically identified as a helper to heritage. Note: may also be double coded for SEP, NEC, CPR when appropriate 231 Table E 13 Accomplishments Code Code Name Code Definition Rule for Application of Code Examples of Application Symbol ACCOM Professional Significant Professional Text that describes respondents’ important “From my personal side, it was TEDx. For example, Accomplish- Accomplishments in the accomplishments in the field of heritage TEDx about presentation. So, if... Well, there is a long ments field of Heritage conservation. session of Interviewee Y-TEDx on YouTube. So, I gave a lecture about traditional games and, up until Use sparingly. Do not tag everything! now, everyone is watching it. Everyone... um... is inspired by that. Everyone comes to Organization C. Everyone feels enlightened through the event, the lecture.” 232 REFERENCES 233 REFERENCES Abdullah, M., & Nadvi, M.J. (2011). Understanding the principles of Islamic world-view. The Dialogue, 6(3), 268-289. https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A287705166/AONE?u=msu_main&sid=summon&xid=8121 564a Abendroth, S., Kowarik, I., Müller, N., & von der Lippe, M. (2012). The green colonial heritage: Woody plants in parks of Bandung, Indonesia. Landscape and Urban Planning, 106(1), 12-22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2011.12.006 Achwan, R., Ganie-Rochman, M., Alamsyah, A.R., & Triana, L. (2020). University reform and the development of social sciences in Indonesia. International Journal of Educational Development, 78, 1-9. https://doi-org.proxy2.cl.msu.edu/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2020.102269 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). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-4-431-78149-3_12 Ahmad, Y. (2006). The scope and definitions of heritage: From tangible to intangible. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 12(3), 292-300. https://doi.org/10.1080/13527250600604639 Akagawa, N. (2016). Rethinking the global heritage discourse – Overcoming ‘East’ and ‘West’? International Journal of Heritage Studies, 22(1), 14-25. https://doi.org/10.1080/13527258.2015.1068213 Al Amin, N.U., Taufik, E.T., Rofiah, S.M., & Rifai, I.A. (2020). Kejawen, multiculturalism, and principles of Qur’an: Transformation and resupposition of QS. al-Kafirun (109): 6 in Urip Sejati Community in Yogyakarta. Esensia, 21(1), 71-89. https://doi.org/10.14421/esensia.v21i1.2195 Albert, M-T., Bernecker, R., & Rudolff, B. (Eds.) (2013). Understanding heritage: Perspectives in heritage studies. De Gruyter. Aliyah, I., Daryanto, T.J., & Rahayu, M.J. (2007). Peran pasar tradisional dalam mendukung pengembangan pariwisata kota Surakarta [Role of traditional markets in supporting tourism development in Surakarta district]. Gema Teknik Majalah Ilmiah Teknik, 10(2), 111-118. https://puslit2.petra.ac.id/ejournal/index.php/gem/article/view/17613 Aliyah, I., Setioko, B., & Pradoto, W. (2016). The roles of traditional markets as the main component of Javanese culture urban space (Case study: The city of Surakarta, Indonesia). The IAFOR Journal of Sustainability, Energy & the Environment, 3(1), 103- 120. https://doi.org/10.22492/ijsee.3.1.06 Anastasio, T.J., Ehrenberger, K.A., Watson, P., & Zhang, W. (2012). Individual and collective memory consolidation: Analogous process on different levels. MIT Press. 234 Andereck, K.L., & Nyaupane, G.P. (2011). Exploring the nature of tourism and quality of life: Perceptions among residents. Journal of Travel Research, 50(3), 248-260. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287510362918 Ap, J. (1992). Residents’ perceptions on tourism impacts. Annals of Tourism Research, 19(4), 665-690. https://doi.org/10.1016/0160-7383(92)90060-3 Appiah, K.A. (2007). Cosmopolitanism: Ethics in a world of strangers (Issues of our time). W.W. Norton & Company, Inc. Aragon, L.V. (2012). Copyrighting culture for the nation? Intangible property nationalism and the regional arts of Indonesia. International Journal of Cultural Property, 19(3), 269-312. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0940739112000203 Araoz, G.F. (2011). Preserving heritage places under a new paradigm. Journal of Cultural Heritage Management and Sustainable Development, 1(1), 55-60. https://doi.org/10.1108/20441261111129933 Ardiyanto, A., Djunaedi, A., Ikaputra, & Suryabrata, J.A. (2015). The architecture of Dutch colonial office in Indonesia and the adaptation to tropical climate. International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications, 5(4), 1-7. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/224839366.pdf Arifin, M., Abdullah, I., & Ratnawati, A.T. (2019). Contestation between puritan Islam and Kejawen in the urban Yogyakarta of Indonesia. Al Albab, 8(2), 193-210. https://doi.org/10.24260/alalbab.v8i2.1460 Arrunnapaporn, A.B. (2009). Interpretation of intangible: Atrocity of heritage of ‘Death Railway’ of the ‘River Kwai’. In S. Lira, G.C. Pigliasco, R. Amoêda, & C. Pinheiro (Eds.), Sharing cultures 2009 – International conference on intangible heritage (pp. 149-156). Green Lines Institute. Ashworth, G.J., & Larkham, P.J. (Eds.). (1994). Building a new heritage. Tourism, culture and identity in the New Europe. Routledge. Ashworth, G.J., & Tunbridge, J.E. (2001). The tourist-historic city: Retrospect and prospect of managing the heritage city. Routledge. Australia ICOMOS. (2013). The Burra Charter: The Australia ICOMOS charter for places of cultural significance. Retrieved June 15, 2021, from https://australia.icomos.org/wp- content/uploads/The-Burra-Charter-2013-Adopted-31.10.2013.pdf Awienagua, G.J. (2017). Appropriating land, worldviews, and spiritual navigation: The dynamics and praxis of everyday life in the Alavanyo-Nkonya land dispute in Ghana. Anthropos, 112(2), 583-596. http://www.jstor.org/stable/44791394 Aygen, Z. (2012). Introduction: Global boundaries between preservation and conservation. In Z. Aygen (Ed.), International heritage and historic building conservation: Saving the world’s past (pp. 1-7). Routledge. 235 Aygen, Z. (2012). Periphery, margins and self. In Z. Aygen (Ed.), International heritage and historic building conservation: Saving the world’s past (pp. 8-44). Routledge. Badan Pelestarian Pusaka Indonesia. (2003). Piagam pelestarian pusaka Indonesia 2003 [The 2003 charter of the Indonesian heritage trust]. Retrieved June 15, 2021 from https://bppiindonesianheritagetrust.org/piagam.php Badan Pusat Statistik [Central Bureau of Statistic]. (2015). Mengulik data suku di Indonesia [Investigating data on ethnicities in Indonesia]. Retrieved June 15, 2021 from https://www.bps.go.id/news/2015/11/18/127/mengulik-data-suku-di-indonesia.html Baker, S.M. & Kennedy, P.F. (1994). Death by nostalgia: A diagnosis of context-specific cases. In C.T. Allen & D.R. John (Eds.), NA - Advances in consumer research, 21(1) (pp. 169- 174). https://www.acrwebsite.org/volumes/7580/volumes/v21/na-21 Ballart Hernández, J., & Tresserras. J. (2001). Gestíon del patrimonio cultural [Management of cultural heritage]. Ariel. Ballinger, P. (2003). History in exile: Memory and identity at the borders of the Balkans. Princeton University Press. Benton, T. (2010). Understanding heritage and memory. Manchester University Press. Bloembergen, M., & Eickhoff, M. (2011). Conserving the past, mobilizing the Indonesian future: Archaeological sites, regime change and heritage politics in Indonesia in the 1950s. Journal of the Humanities and Social Sciences of Southeast Asia and Oceania, 167(4), 405-436. https://go-gale- com.proxy2.cl.msu.edu/ps/i.do?p=AONE&u=msu_main&id=GALE%7CA276033344&v=2. 1&it=r&sid=summon Bloom, J.Z. (2004). Tourist market segmentation with linear and non-linear techniques. Tourism Management, 25(6), 723-733. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2003.07.004 Boonratana, R. (2010). Community-based tourism in Thailand: The need and justification for an operational definition. Kasetsart Journal of Social Sciences, 31(2), 280-289. https://so04.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/kjss/article/view/246681 Bratianu, C., & Andriessen, D. (2008). Knowledge as energy: A metaphorical analysis. In D. Harorimana & D. Watkins (Eds.), Proceedings of the 9th European Conference on Knowledge, Management, Southampton Solent University (pp. 75-82). Academic Publishing Ltd. Butler, G., Khoo-Lattimore, C., & Mura, P. (2014). Heritage tourism in Malaysia: Fostering a collective national identity in an ethnically diverse country. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, 19(2), 199-218. https://doi.org/10.1080/10941665.2012.735682 Byrne, D., Brockwell, S., & O’Connor, S. (2013). Introduction: Engaging culture and nature. In S. Brockwell, S. O’Connor, & D. Byrne, Transcending the culture – Nature divide in cultural heritage: Views from the Asia-Pacific region (pp. 1-11). Australian National University E- Press. 236 Carman, J. (2009). ‘Castles in the Air’: The intangible of tangible. In S. Lira, C. Pinheiro, R. Amoêda, A. McCleery, & A. McCleery (Eds), Sharing cultures 2009. Proceedings of 6th of International Conference on Intangible Heritage. Green Lines Institute. Ceccarelli, P. (2017). Past is not a frozen concept: Considerations about heritage conservation in a fast changing world. Built Heritage, 1, 1-12. https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1186/BF03545671.pdf Chapagain, N.K. (2013). Heritage conservation in the Buddhist context. In K.D. Silva, & N.K. Chapagain (Eds.), Asian heritage management: Contexts, concerns, and prospects (pp. 49-64). Routledge. Chapagain, N.K. (2013). Introduction: Contexts and concerns in Asian heritage management. In K.D. Silva, & N.K. Chapagain (Eds.), Asian heritage management: Contexts, concerns, and prospects (pp. 1-29). Routledge. Chen, J.S. (1998). Travel motivation of heritage tourists. Tourism Analysis, 2(3-4), 213-215. https://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/cog/ta/1998/00000002/F0020003/art00006#Sup p Chihara, D. (1996). Hindu-Buddhist architecture in Southeast Asia. E.J. Brill. Chung, S-J. (2005). East Asian values in historic conservation. Journal of Architectural Conservation, 11(1), 55-70. https://doi.org/10.1080/13556207.2005.10784935 Connerton, P. (1989). How societies remember. Cambridge University Press. Corral, V. V. (2012). Sustentabilidad y psicología positiva. Una visión optimista de las conductas proambientales y prosociales [Sutainability and positive psychology. An optimistic view of pro-environmental and prosocial behaviors]. Manual Moderno. Corral, V. V., & Domínguez, G. R. L. (2011). El rol de los eventos antecedentes y consecuentes en la conducta sustentable [The role of antecedent and consequent events in sustainable behavior]. Revista Mexicana de Análisis de la Conducta, 37(2), 9–29. https://doi.org/10.5514/rmac.v37.i2.26137 Creswell, J.W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative quantitative, and mixed methods approach (3rd edition). SAGE Publications, Inc. Creswell, J.W. (2013). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. SAGE Publications, Inc. Creswell, J.W., & Creswell, J.D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (5th edition). SAGE Publications, Inc. D’Mello, D.C., Chang, L-C., Pillai, S.K.B., Kamat, K., Zimmermann, F.M., & Weiermai, K. (2016). Comparison of multi-stakeholder perception of tourism sustainability in Goa. International Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Systems, 9(2), 1-13. http://ezproxy.msu.edu/login?url=https://www-proquest-com.proxy2.cl.msu.edu/scholarly- journals/comparison-multi-stakeholder-perception-tourism/docview/1852605651/se- 2?accountid=12598 237 Deng, J., McGill, D., Arbogast, D., & Maumbe, K. (2016). Stakeholders’ perceptions of tourism development in Appalachian Forest Heritage Area. Tourism Review International, 20(4), 235-253. https://doi.org/10.3727/154427216X14791579617579 Devine-Wright, P., & Lyons, E. (1997). Remembering pasts and representing places: The construction of national identities in Ireland. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 17(1), 33–45. https://doi.org/10.1006/jevp.1996.0037 Dewi, C. (2017). Rethinking architectural heritage conservation in post-disaster context. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 23(6), 587-600. https://doi.org/10.1080/13527258.2017.1300927 Dewi, S.P., Susanti, R., & Wungo, G.L. (2020). Spatial impact of the Semarang old town revitalization: The emergences of formal and informal space. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 592, 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755- 1315/592/1/012015 Dolnicar, S. (2002). A review of data-driven market segmentation in tourism. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 12(1), 1-22. https://doi.org/10.1300/J073v12n01_01 Dolnicar, S. (2008). Market segmentation in tourism. In A.G. Woodside, & D. Martin (Eds.), Tourism management: Analysis, behaviour, and strategy (pp. 129-150). CABI. Donghai, S. (2008). The concept of the ecomuseum and its practice in China. Museum International, 60(1/2), 29-39. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0033.2008.00634.x Dormaels, M. (2013, June). Understanding the role of stakeholders in world heritage site management: The case of Arequipa, Peru. Actes du congrès AIMAC - International Conference on Arts and Cultural Management, Universidad de los Andes, Bogota, Colombia (pp. 26-29). Duncan, J.S., & Duncan, N.G. (2003). Landscapes of privilege: The politics of the aesthetic in an American suburb. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203505755 Durkheim, E. (1915). The elementary forms of the religious life. Dover Publications, Inc. Fabbricatti, K., Boissenin, L., & Citoni, M. (2020). Heritage community resilience: Towards new approaches for urban resilience and sustainability. City, Territory, and Architecture, 7(17), 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40410-020-00126-7 Feilden, B.M. (1993). Is conservation of cultural heritage relevant to South Asia? South Asian Studies, 9(1), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1080/02666030.1993.9628456 Felasari, S., Setyabudi, H., Setyohadi, D.B., & Dewi, S. (2017). Exploring collective memory and place attachment using social media data. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environment Science, 99, 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/99/1/012015 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.05.055 238 Fitri, I., Ahmad, Y., & Ratna. (2019). Local community participation in establishing the criteria for heritage significance assessment of the cultural heritage in Medan. Kapata Arkeologi, 15(1), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.24832/kapata.v15i1.523 Fladmark, J.M. (Ed.). (1994). Cultural tourism. Donhead Publishing. Forster, A.M., Thomson, D., Richards, K., Pilcher, N., & Vettese, S. (2019). Western and Eastern building conservation philosophies: Perspectives on permanence and impermanence. International Journal of Architectural Heritage, 13(6), 870-885. https://doi.org/10.1080/15583058.2018.1490827 Fraenkel, J.R., & Wallen, N.E. (1990). How to design and evaluate research in education? McGraw-Hill Publication Company. French, B.M. (2012). The semiotics of collective memories. Annual Review of Anthropology, 41, 337-353. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-anthro-081309-145936 Frochot, I., & Morrison, A.M. (2000). Benefit segmentation: A review of its applications to travel and tourism research. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, 9(4), 21-45. https://doi.org/10.1300/J073v09n04_02 Galbin, A. (2014). An introduction to social constructionism. Social Research Reports, 26, 82- 92. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/283547838_AN_INTRODUCTION_TO_SOCIAL _CONSTRUCTIONISM Gao, Q., & Jones, S. (2021). Authenticity and heritage conservation: Seeking common complexities beyond the ‘Eastern’ and ‘Western’ dichotomy. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 27(1), 90-106. https://doi.org/10.1080/13527258.2020.1793377 Garrod, B., & Fyall, A. (2001). Heritage tourism: A question of definition. Annals of Tourism Research, 28(4), 1049-1052. https://doi-org.proxy1.cl.msu.edu/10.1016/S0160- 7383(00)00068-2 Getz, D. (1994). ‘Residents’ attitudes towards tourism: A longitudinal study in Spey Valley, Scotland. Tourism Management, 15(4), 247-258. https://doi.org/10.1016/0261- 5177(94)90041-8 Giuliani, M. V. (2003). Theory of attachment and place attachment. In M. Bonnes, T. Lee, & M. Bonaiuto (Eds.), Psychological theories for environmental issues. Ashgate Publishing. Goetcheus, C., & Mitchell, N. (2014). The Venice Charter and cultural landscapes: Evolution of heritage concepts and conservation over time. Change Over Time, 4(2), 338-357. https://doi.org/10.1353/cot.2014.0018 Gonzales, P.A. (2014). From a given to a construct: Heritage as a commons. Cultural Studies, 28(3), 359-390. https://doi.org/10.1080/09502386.2013.789067 González-Varas, I. (2006). Conservación de Bienes Culturales. Teoría, historia, principos y normas [Conservation of cultural assets. Theory, history, principles and norms] (Edición 5). Manuales Arte Catédra. 239 Gu, H., & Ryan, C. (2008). Place attachment, identity and community impacts of tourism – the case of a Beijing hutong. Tourism Management, 29(4), 637-647. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2007.06.006 Gunn, C.A., & Var, T. (2002). Tourism planning: Basics, concepts, cases. Routledge. Gursoy, D., Zhang, C., & Chi, O.H. (2019). Determinants of locals’ heritage resource protection and conservation responsibility behaviors. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 31(6), 2339-2357. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-05-2018- 0344 Halbwachs, M. (1950). The collective memory. Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc. Halim, S.A., & Ishak, N.A. (2017). Examining community engagement in heritage conservation through geopark experiences from the Asia Pacific region. Kajian Malaysia, 35(1), 11-38. https://doi.org/10.21315/km2017.35.Supp.1.2 Hall, C.M., & McArthur, S. (1993). Heritage management: An introduction framework. In C.M. Hall & S. McArthur (Eds.), Heritage management in New Zealand and Australia: Visitor management, interpretation, and marketing. Oxford University Press. Hanafiah, M.H., Azman, I., Jamaluddin, M.R., & Aminuddin, N. (2016). Responsible tourism practices and quality of life: Perspective of Lengkawi Island communities. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 222, 406-413. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2016.05.194 Hanafiah, M.H., Jamaluddin, M.R., & Riyadi, A. (2021). Local community support, attitude and perceived benefits in the UNESCO World Heritage Site. Journal of Cultural Heritage Management and Sustainable Development, 11(1), 95-108. https://doi.org/10.1108/JCHMSD-03-2020-0034 Hannigan, T. (2015). Brief history of Indonesia: Sultans, spices, and tsunamis: The incredible story of Southeast Asia’s largest nation. Tuttle Publishing. Harris, M. (1979). Cultural materialism: The struggle for a science of culture. Random House. Harrison, R. (2013). Forgetting to remember, remembering to forget: Late modern heritage practices, sustainability and the ‘crisis’ of accumulation of the past. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 19(6), 579-595. http://doi.org/10.1080/13527258.2012.678371 Harvey, D.C. (2001). Heritage pasts and heritage presents: Temporality, meaning and the scope of heritage studies. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 7(4), 319-338. https://doi.org/10.1080/13581650120105534 Hay, R. (1998). Sense of place in developmental context. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 18(1), 5–29. https://doi.org/10.1006/jevp.1997.0060 Hayden, D. (1997). The power of place. Urban landscapes as public history. MIT Press. Heidegger, M. (1975). Poetry, language, thought. Harper & Row. 240 Hennessey, S., Yun, D., & Macdonald, R. (2012). Segmenting the market of first-time visitors to an island destination. International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, 6(2), 154-172. https://doi.org/10.1108/17506181211233081 Hidalgo, M. C., & Hernandez, B. (2001). Place attachment: Conceptual and empirical questions. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 21(3), 273–281. https://doi.org/10.1006/jevp.2001.0221 Hollowell, J., & Nicholas, G. (2009). Using ethnographic methods to articulate community-based conceptions of cultural heritage management. Public Archaeology, 8(2-3), 141-160. https://doi.org/10.1179/175355309X457196 Homans, G.C. (1958). Social behaviour as exchange. American Journal of Sociology, 63, 597- 606. Horta, H. (2018). Higher-education researches in Asia: The risk of insufficient contribution to international higher-education research. In J. Jung, H. Horta, & A. Yonezawa (Eds.), Researching higher education in Asia: History, development and future (pp. 15-36). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-4989-7 Howard, P. (2007). Heritage: Management, interpretation, identity. Leicester University Press. Indonesian Heritage Society. (2021). Indonesian Heritage Society – Your community for discovering Indonesia. Retrieved June 15, 2021 from https://heritagejkt.org International Centre for the Study of the Preservation and Restoration of Cultural Property (ICCROM). (2005). Definition of cultural heritage: References to documents in history. In Jokilehto (Ed.), ICCROM Working Group ‘Heritage and Society’ (pp. 1-45). Retrieved June 15, 2021 from http://cif.icomos.org/pdf_docs/Documents%20on%20line/Heritage%20definitions.pdf International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS). (1994). The Nara document on authenticity. Retrieved June 15, 2021 from https://www.icomos.org/charters/nara-e.pdf Jacob, E. (1987). Qualitative research traditions: A review. Review of Educational Research, 57(1), 1-50. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543057001001 Jamal, T., & Getz, D. (1999). Community roundtables for tourism-related conflicts: The dialectics of consensus and process structures. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 7(3-4), 290-313. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669589908667341 Jimura, T. (2011). The impact of world heritage site designation on local communities – A case study of Ogimachi, Shirakawa-mura, Japan. Tourism Management, 32(2), 288-296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2010.02.005 Johnson, N. (2000). Historical geographies of the present. In B. Graham & C. Nash (Eds.), Modern historical geographies (pp. 251-72). Prentice Hall. Jones, T. (2018). International intangible cultural heritage policy in the neighbourhood: An assessment and case study of Indonesia. Journal of Cultural Geography, 35(3), 362-387. https://doi.org/10.1080/08873631.2018.1429351 241 Judd, D.R., & Fainstein, S.S. (1999). The tourist city. Yale University Press. Karlström, A. (2005). Spiritual materiality: Heritage preservation in a Buddhist world? Journal of Social Archaeology, 5(3), 338-355. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1469605305057571 Kausar, D.R.K., & M.P., Gunawan. (2018). Managing heritage tourism in Toraja: Strengthening local values and improving tourists’ experiences. Journal of Heritage Tourism, 13(6), 550- 561. https://doi.org/10.1080/1743873X.2017.1411356 Keputusan Walikota Yogyakarta Nomor 297 Tahun 2019 tentang Daftar Warisan Budaya Daerah Kota Yogyakarta [Decree of the Mayor of Yogyakarta Number 297 Year 2019 on the List of Cultural Heritage in the Municipality of Yogyakarta]. https://jdih.jogjakota.go.id/asset/naskah/2019_10_22_14_50_47-1147497970.pdf Kim, K., Uysal, M., & Sirgy, M.J. (2013). How does tourism in a community impact the quality of life of community’s residents? Tourism Management, 36, 527-540. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2012.09.005 King, V.T. (2016). World Heritage in Southeast Asia: Issues, prospects and problems. UNESCO in Southeast Asia, 1-34. Kubontubuh, C.P., & Martokusumo, W. (2020). Meeting the past in the present: Authenticity and cultural values in heritage conservation at the fourteenth-century Majapahit heritage site in Trowulan, Indonesia. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 26(5), 469-479. https://doi.org/10.1080/13527258.2019.1652923 Kunto, H. (1996). Balai agung di Kota Bandung: Riwayat Gedong Sate dan Gedong Pakuan [Great halls in Bandung: Histories of Gedong Sate and Gedong Pakuan]. Granesia. Leader-Elliott, L. (2005). Community heritage interpretation games: A case study from Angaston, South Australia. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 11(2), 161-171. https://doi.org/10.1080/13527250500070493 Leeds-Hurwitz, W. (2009). Social construction of reality. In S. W. Littlejohn & K.A. Foss (Eds.), Encyclopedia of communication theory (pp. 891 - 894). Sage Publications, Inc. Lewicka, M. (2008). Place attachment, place identity, and place memory: Restoring the forgotten city past. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 28(3), 209-231. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2008.02.001 Li, M., Wu, B., & Cai, L. (2008). Tourism development of World Heritage Sites in China: A geographic perspective. Tourism Management, 29(2), 308-319. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2007.03.013 Lis, M. (2014). Contemporary “Wayang Beber” in Central Java. Asian Theatre Journal, 31(2), 505-523. https://go-gale- com.proxy2.cl.msu.edu/ps/i.do?p=ITOF&u=msu_main&id=GALE%7CA382950790&v=2.1 &it=r&sid=summon 242 López-Guzmán, T., Sánchez-Cañizares, S., & Pavón, V. (2011). Community-based tourism in developing countries: A case study. Tourismos: An International Multidisciplinary Journal of Tourism, 6(1), 69-84. http://www.chios.aegean.gr/tourism/VOLUME_6_No1_art04.pdf?origin=publicati. Low, S. M. (1992). Symbolic ties that bind: Place attachment in the plaza. In I. Altman, & S. M. Low (Eds.), Place attachment (pp. 165–185). Plenum Press. Low, S.M., & Altman, I. (1992). Place attachment. Plenum Press. Lowenthal, D. (1979). Environmental perception: Preserving the past. Progress in Human Geography, 3(4), 549-559. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F030913257900300404 Lukito, Y.N., & Rizky, A.N. (2017). Engaging the past of the city through the conservation of heritage building. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 99(1), 1-8. https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1755-1315/99/1/012030/meta Lynch, K. (1972). What time is this place? MIT Press. MacLean, T. (1998). The making of public history: A comparative study of Skansen open air museums, Sweden; Colonial Williamsburg, Virginia; and the Fortress of Louisbourg National Historic Site, Nova Scotia. Material Culture Review, 47(1), 21-32. https://journals.lib.unb.ca/index.php/MCR/article/view/17734 MacRae, G. (2017). Universal heritage meets local livelihoods: ‘Awkward engagements’ at the world cultural heritage listing in Bali. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 23(9), 846- 859. https://doi.org/10.1080/13527258.2017.1339107 Macrotrends. (2021). Bandung, Indonesia metro area population 1950-2021. Retrieved June 15, 2021 from https://www.macrotrends.net/cities/21447/bandung/population Macrotrends. (2021). Yogyakarta, Indonesia metro area population 1950-2021. Retrieved June 15, 2021 from https://www.macrotrends.net/cities/21480/yogyakarta/population Maeer, G. (2014). The values and benefits of heritage: Do economists think about more than money? ATP Bulletin: The Journal of Preservation Technology, 45(2/3), 57-63. http://www.jstor.org/stable/23799528 Manzo, L. C. (2003). Beyond house and haven: Toward a revisioning of emotional relationships with places. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23(1), 47–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-4944(02)00074-9 Marmion, M., Wilkes, K., & Calver, S. (2009). Heritage? What do you mean by heritage?. In G.C. Pigliasco, S. Lira, R. Amoêda, & C. Pinheiro (Eds.), Sharing cultures 2009. International Conference on Intangible Heritage (pp. 575-584). Green Line Institute. Martha, S. (2017). The analysis of geospatial information for validating some numbers of islands in Indonesia. Indonesian Journal of Geography, 49(2), 204-211. http://dx.doi.org/10.22146/ijg.12792 243 Martokusumo, W., Poerbo, H.W., Sarwono, J., Sudarsono, A., Nitidara, N.P.A., Djimantoro, M.I., Arifiana, A., & Poetry, F.A. (2019). Soundscape and the understanding of historic districts in Bandung. Tata Loka, 21(2), 371-380. https://doi.org/10.14710/tataloka.21.2.371-380 Martokusumo, W., & Zulkaidi. (2015). Some notes on area-based conservation: Lesson learned from Bandung. International Journal of Built Environment and Sustainability, 2(2), 125- 130. https://doi.org/10.11113/ijbes.v2.n2.67 McGimsey, C.R. (1972). Public Archaeology. Academic Pr. McKercher, B., & DuCross, C.H. (2002). Cultural tourism: The partnership between tourism and cultural heritage management (1st ed.). Taylor & Francis Group. McKercher, B., Ho, P.S.Y., & Du Cross, H. (2005). Relationship between tourism and cultural heritage management: Evidence from Hong Kong. Tourism Management, 26(4), 539-548. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2004.02.018 McKercher, B., Ho, P.S.Y., Du Cross, H., & So-Ming, B.C. (2002). Activities-based segmentation of the cultural tourism market. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 12(1), 23-46. https://doi.org/10.1300/j073v12n01_02 Meilani, Witabora, J., & Adidharma, K.S. (2019). The use of principles and elements design for designing mobile application to promote Indonesia culture heritage for digital native. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1175(1), 1-5. https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1742-6596/1175/1/012258/meta Merriam-Webster. (2021). Merriam-Webster.com dictionary. Retrieved June 15, 2021 from https://www.merriam-webster.com/ Merriman, N. (1992). The social basis of museum and heritage visiting. In S.M. Pearce (Ed.). Museum studies in material culture (pp. 153-171). Leicester University Press. Meutia, Z.D. (2017). Built urban heritage conservation in Islamic societies: Study case in Banda Aceh, Indonesia. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 70, 1-6. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/70/1/012066 Meutia, Z.D., Akbar, R., & Zulkaidi, D. (2018). Heritage planning and rethinking the meaning and values of designating heritage sites in a post-disaster context: The case of Aceh, Indonesia. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 158, 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/158/1/012039 Miles, M.B., Huberman, A.M., & Saldaña, J. (2019). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook (4th edition). SAGE Publication. Milman, A. (1991). The role of theme parks as a leisure activity for local communities. Journal of Travel Research, 29(3), 11-16. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F004728759102900302 Mitchell, D. (2008). New axioms for reading the landscape: Paying attention to political economy and social justice. In J.L. Wescoat, Jr. & D.M. Johnston (Eds.), Political economies of landscape change. Places of integrative power (pp. 29-50). Springer Science. 244 Mtapuri, O., & Giampiccoli, A. (2019). Tourism, community-based tourism and ecotourism: A definitional problematic. South African Geographical Journal, 101(1), 22-35. https://doi.org/10.1080/03736245.2018.1522598 Mumuni, A.G., & Mansour, M. (2014). Activity-based segmentation of the outbound leisure tourism market of Saudi Arabia. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 20(3), 239-252. https://doi.org/10.1177/1356766714522258 Munjeri, D. (2004). Tangible and intangible heritage: From difference to convergence (Revisiting our understanding of the concept of ‘heritage’). Museum International, 56(1-2), 12-19. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1350-0775.2004.00453.x Murphy, P.E. (1983). Perceptions and attitudes of decision making groups in tourism centers. Journal of Travel Research, 21(3), 8-12. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F004728758302100302 Murphy, P.E. (1985). Tourism: A community approach. Routledge. Murti, D.C.W. (2020). Performing rural heritage for nation branding: A comparative study of Japan and Indonesia. Journal of Heritage Tourism, 15(2), 127-148. https://doi- org.proxy2.cl.msu.edu/10.1080/1743873X.2019.1617720 Nagaoka, M. (2015). ‘European’ and ‘Asian’ approaches to cultural landscapes management at Borobudur, Indonesia in the 1970s. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 21(3), 232- 249. https://doi.org/10.1080/13527258.2014.930065 Nagari, B.K., Suryani, S., & Pratiwi, W.D. (2020). TOD tourism heritage district livability: User satisfaction in Kali Besar Corridor in Jakarta, Indonesia. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environment Science, 532, 1-12. https://iopscience-iop- org.proxy2.cl.msu.edu/article/10.1088/1755-1315/532/1/012004/pdf National Association for Interpretation. (N.D.). What is interpretation? Retrieved June 15, 2021 from https://www.interpnet.com/NAI/interp/About/About_Interpretation/nai/_About/what_is_inter p.aspx?hkey=53b0bfb4-74a6-4cfc-8379-1d55847c2cb9 Nitzky, W. (2012). Mediating heritage preservation and rural development: Ecomuseum development in China. Urban Anthropology and Studies of Cultural Systems and World Economic Development, 41(2/3/4), 367-417. http://ezproxy.msu.edu/login?url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/23339812 Nora, P. (1989). Between memory and history: Les lieux de mémoire. Representations 26(Spring 1989), 7-24. https://doi.org/10.2307/2928520 Novelo, V. (2005). El patrimonio cultural mexicano en la disputa clasista [The Mexican cultural heritage in the class dispute]. In X.C.S. Rodríguez & X.P. Pérez (Eds.), Patrimonio cultural: Politizaciones y mercantilizaciones [Cultural heritage: Politicization and commodification] (pp. 85-99). El Monte. 245 Nursanty, E., Suprapti, A., & Syahbana, J.A. (2017). The application of tourist gaze theory to support city branding in the planning of the historic city Surakarta, Indonesia. Place Branding and Public Diplomacy, 13(3), 223-241. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41254-016- 0037-3 Oh, C-O., Lyu, S.O., & Hammitt, S.E. (2012). Predictive linkages between recreation specialization and place attachment. Journal of Leisure Research, 44(1), 70-87. http://doi.org/10.1080/00222216.2012.11950255 Olick, J.K., Vered, V., & Levy, D. (2011). The collective memory reader. Oxford University Press, Inc. Oliver, P. (2001). Re-presenting and representing the vernacular: The open-air museum. In N. AlSayyad (Ed.), Consuming tradition, manufacturing heritage: Global norms and urban forms in the age of tourism (pp. 191-211). Routledge. Oxford University Press. (2021). Oxford’s learner’s dictionary. Retrieved June 15, 2021 from https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com Ozdemir, G. (2007). The role of resort planning in sustaining tourist destination image. Gazdálkodás: Scientific Journal on Agricultural Economics, 51(19), 246-250. https://doi.org/10.22004/ag.econ.58931 Özdemir, G., Yilmaz, M., Yalçin, M., & Alvarez, M.D.. (2015). Stakeholders’ perception of Istanbul’s historical peninsula as a sustainable destination. Tourism Planning & Development, 12(1), 87-98. https://doi.org/10.1080/21568316.2014.960596 Paradeise, C. & Thoenig, J.C. (2013). Academic institutions in search of quality: Local orders and global standards. Organization Studies, 34(2), 189-218. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0170840612473550 Park, H. (2010). Heritage tourism: Emotional journeys into nationhood. Annals of Tourism Research, 37(1), 116-135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2009.08.001 Park, H. (2016). Tourism as reflexive reconstructions of colonial past. Annals of Tourism Research, 58, 114-127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2016.03.001 Patria, T.A. (2014). Telusur Bandung [Tracing Bandung]. Elex Media Komputindo. Patria, T.A. (2015). Dinamika perkembangan pariwisata pusaka: Tinjauan dari sisi penawaran dan permintaan di Kota Bandung [The dynamic of heritage tourism growth: A review from the demand and supply sides in the city of Bandung]. Binus Business Review, 6(2), 169- 183. https://doi.org/10.21512/bbr.v6i2.960 Pearson, M., & Sullivan, S. (1995). Looking after heritage places: The basics of heritage planning for managers, landowners and administrators. Melbourne University Press. Peraturan Daerah Daerah Istimewa Yogyakarta Nomor 6 Tahun 2012 tentang Pelestarian Warisan Budaya dan Cagar Budaya [The Local Government Regulation of the Special Region of Yogyakarta Number 7 Year 2012 on Cultural Heritage Conservation]. https://www.bphn.go.id/data/documents/perda6-2012.pdf 246 Peraturan Daerah Kota Bandung Nomor 7 Tahun 2018 Tentang Pengelolaan Cagar Budaya [The Local Government Regulation of The Bandung Municipality Number 7 Year 2018 on Cultural Heritage Management]. https://www.disbudpar.bandung.go.id/files/regulasi/7_2018_PENGELOLAAN_CAGAR_BU DAYA.pdf Permana, A.Y., Susanti, I., & Wijaya, K. (2020). Architectural tourism development model as sustainable tourism concept in Bandung. IOP Conference Series: Earth Environment Science, 409, 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/409/1/012005 Permatasari, P.A., Qohar, A.A., & Rachman, A.F. (2020). From web 1.0 to web 4.0: The digital heritage platforms for UNESCO’s heritage properties in Indonesia. Virtual Archaelogy Review, 11(23), 75-93. https://doi.org/10.4995/var.2020.13121 Poria, Y., Butler, R., & Airey, D. (2003). The core of heritage tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 30(1), 238-254. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0160-7383(02)00064-6 Power, A., & Smyth, K. (2016). Heritage, health and place: The legacies of local community- based heritage conservation on social wellbeing. Health & Place, 39, 160-167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2016.04.005 Pretty, G. H., Chipuer, H. M., & Bramston, P. (2003). Sense of place amongst adolescents and adults in two rural Australian towns: The discriminating features of place attachment, sense of community and place dependence in relation to place identity. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23(3), 273–287. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272- 4944(02)00079-8 Quinn, B. (2019). A comment on: Arts festivals, urban tourism and cultural policy. Journal of Policy Research in Tourism, Leisure and Events, 11(S1), s8-s12. https://doi.org/10.1080/19407963.2018.1556855 Rabotic, B. (2014). Special-purpose travel in ancient times: ‘Tourism’ before tourism? Turisticko Poslovanje, 2014(14), 5-17. https://doi.org/10.5937/TurPos1414005R Rachman, Y.B. (2017). The use of traditional conservation methods in the preservation of ancient manuscripts: A case study from Indonesia. Preservation, Digital Technology & Culture, 46(3), 109-115. https://doi.org/10.1515/pdtc-2017-0006 Réau, B. (2011). Les Français et les vacances. Sociologie des pratiques et offres de loisirs [The French and vacations. Sociology of leisure practices and offers]. CNRS Éditions. https://doi.org/10.4000/lectures.6024 Rico, T. (2014). The limits of a ‘heritage at risk’ framework: The construction of post-disaster cultural heritage in Banda Aceh, Indonesia. Journal of Social Archaelogy, 14(2), 157-176. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1469605314527192 Romero, F.G. (2013). Sports tourism in ancient Greece. Journal of Tourism History, 5(2), 146- 160. https://doi.org/10.1080/1755182X.2013.828784 247 Rössler, M., & Lin, R.C. (2018). Cultural landscape in world heritage conservation and cultural landscape conservation challenges in Asia. Built Heritage, 2, 3-26. https://doi.org/10.1186/BF03545707 Ruggles, D.F., & Silverman, H. (2009). From tangible to intangible heritage. In H. Silverman & D.F. Ruggles (Eds), Intangible heritage embodied (pp. 1-14). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-0072-2_1 Ruggles, D.F., & Silverman, H. (2009). Intangible heritage embodied. Springer, ISBN: 978-1- 4419-0071-5. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-0072-2 Sachs, J. (2005). Aristotle: Motion and its place in nature. The Internet Encyclopaedia of Philosophy, ISSN: 2161-0002. https://philpapers.org/rec/SACAM-2 Salazar, N.B. (2012). Community-based cultural tourism: Issues, threats and opportunities. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 20(1), 9-22. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2011.596279 Saldaña, J. (2021). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (4 th ed.). SAGE Publications Ltd. Sandholz, S. (2017). Urban centres in Asia and Latin America – Heritage and identities in changing urban landscapes. Springer. Sari, P., Munandar, A., & Fatimah, I.S. (2018). The main elements of historical objects as “Spirit” of cultural heritage in Yogyakarta City. International Conference on Architectural Education in Asia, 41, 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1051/shsconf/20184104007 Sastramidjaja, Y. (2014). This is not a trivialization of the past: Youthful re-meditations of colonial memory in Jakarta. Bijdragen tot de Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde/Journal of the Humanities and Social Sciences, 170(4), 443-472. https://doi.org/10.1163/22134379- 17004002 Savelsberg, J.J., & King, R.D. (2007). Law and collective memory. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 3, 189-211. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.lawsocsci.3.081806.112757 Scott, C. (2014). Sharing the divisions of the colonial past: An assessment of the Netherlands- Indonesia shared cultural heritage project, 2003-2006. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 20(2), 181-195. https://doi.org/10.1080/13527258.2012.738239 Setiawan, B., & Timothy, D.J. (2000). Existing urban management frameworks and heritage conservation in Indonesia. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, 5(2), 76-79. https://doi.org/10.1080/10941660008722075 Simpson, M.C. (2008). Community benefit tourism initiatives – A conceptual oxymoron? Tourism Management, 29(1), 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2007.06.005 Siregar, J.P. (2019). Heritage and the change of meaning: Understanding the urban heritage in Yogyakarta, Indonesia. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 340 012025, 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/340/1/012025 248 Smith, H., & Luque-Azcona, E.J. (2012). The historical development of built heritage awareness and conservation policies: A comparison of two World Heritage Sites: Edinburgh and Salvador do Bahia. GeoJournal, 77, 399-415. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10708-010-9391-5 Smith, L., & Akagawa, N. (Eds.) (2009). Intangible heritage. Key issues in cultural heritage. Routledge. Smith, L., Morgan, A., & Van der Meer. (2003). Community-driven research in cultural heritage management: The Waanyi women’s history project. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 9(1), 65-80. https://doi.org/10.1080/1352725022000056631 Smith, M.K., Egedy, T., Csizmady, A., Jancsik, A., Olt, G., & Michalkó, G. (2018). Non-planning and tourism consumption in Budapest’s inner city. An International Journal of Tourism Space, Place and Environment, 20(3), 524-548. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616688.2017.1387809 Solikhah, N., & Kurnia, A.S. (2017, October 4-5). Development of Art Deco architecture in Indonesia. The 3rd International Conference on Engineering of Tarumanagara (ICET) 2017, Faculty of Engineering, Tarumanagara University, Jakarta, Indonesia. http://repository.untar.ac.id/13777/1/buktipenelitian_10311017_6A132303.pdf Suprapti, A., Pandelaki, E.E., Indriastjario, Sardjono, A.B., Tomohiko, Y., Masao, Y., & Higashino, A.P. (2017). Towards a harmonious development between nature and culture on Walisanga religious site, Indonesia – learning from the best practices in Japan. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 99 012035, 1-11. http://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/99/1/012035 Swensen, G., Jerpåson, G.B., Sæter, O., & Tveit, M.S. (2013). Capturing the intangible and tangible aspects of heritage: Personal versus official perspectives in cultural heritage management. Landscape Research, 38(2), 203-221. http://doi.org/10.1080/01426397.2011.642346 Taylor, K. (2013). The challenges of the cultural landscape construct and associated intangible values in an Asian context. In K.D. Silva & N.K. Chapagain (Eds.), Asian heritage management: contexts, concerns, and prospects (pp. 189-211). Taylor & Francis Group. The Australia ICOMOS Charter For Places Of Cultural Significance. (2013). The Burra Charter 2013. Retrieved June 15, 2021 from http://openarchive.icomos.org/id/eprint/2145/ Thompson, M. (1979). Rubbish theory: The creation and destruction of value. Oxford University Press. Tiberghien, G., Bremner, H., & Milne, S. (2017). Performance and visitors’ perception of authenticity in eco-cultural tourism. Tourism Geographies, 19(2), 287-300. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616688.2017.1285958 Timothy, D. (2021). Cultural heritage and tourism: An introduction (2nd Edition). Channel View Publications. 249 Timothy, D.J. (2018). Making sense of heritage tourism: Research trends in a maturing field of study. Tourism Management Perspectives, 25, 177-180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tmp.2017.11.018 Timothy, D.J. & Boyd, S.W. (2003). Heritage tourism. Pearson Education Limited. Timothy, D.J., & Boyd, S.W. (2006). Heritage tourism in the 21 st century: Valued traditions and new perspectives. Journal of Heritage Tourism, 1(1), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1080/17438730608668462 Tirtosudarmo, R. (2019). The politics of migration in Indonesia and beyond. Springer. Tom, B. (2013). Jiirnnoddharana: The Hindu philosophy of conservation. In K.D. Silva, & N.K. Chapagain (Eds.), Asian heritage management: Contexts, concerns, and prospects (pp. 35-48). Routledge. Towner, J. (1995). What is tourism’s history? Tourism Management, 16(5), 339-343. https://doi.org/10.1016/0261-5177(95)00032-J Towner, J. (1996). An historical geography of recreation and tourism in the western world: 1540- 1940. Wiley. Tuan, Y.F. (1977). Space and place: The perspective of experience. University of Minnesota Press. Undang-Undang Republik Indonesia Nomor 11 Tahun 2010 tentang Cagar Budaya [The Law of The Republic of Indonesia on Cultural Property – Number 11 of The Year 2010]. Retrieved June 15, 2021 from http://118.98.228.242/Media/Dokumen/5cff5ee7b646044330d686cd/668a3e526d704015c cb1fbeee8b5ef81.pdf Undang-Undang Republik Indonesia Nomor 5 Tahun 1992 tentang Cagar Budaya [The Law of The Republic of Indonesia on Cultural Property – Number 5 of the Year 2005]. Retrieved June 15, 2021 from http://www.bphn.go.id/data/documents/92uu005.doc United Nations Educational, Science and Cultural Organization. (2003). Text of the convention for the safeguarding of the Intangible cultural heritage. Retrieved June 15, 2021 from https://ich.unesco.org/en/convention United Nations Educational, Science and Cultural Organization. (2017). About the convention on the protection of cultural property in the event of armed conflicts and its two protocols. Retrieved June 15, 2021 from http://www.unesco.org/new/en/culture/themes/armed- conflict-and-heritage/convention-and-protocols/ United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. (2017). What is meant by “cultural heritage”? Retrieved June 15, 2021 from http://www.unesco.org/new/en/culture/themes/illicit-trafficking-of-cultural-property/unesco- database-of-national-cultural-heritage-laws/frequently-asked-questions/definition-of-the- cultural-heritage/ 250 United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. (1962). Recommendation concerning the safeguarding of beauty and character of landscapes and sites. Retrieved June 15, 2021 from http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php- URL_ID=13067&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html Van Hoorn, A. (2008). A short introduction to subjective well-being: Its measurement, correlates and policy uses. In Statistics, Knowledge and Policy 2007: Measuring and Fostering the Progress of Societies (pp. 215-230). OECD. Van Roosmalen, P.K.M. (2013). Confronting built heritage: Shifting perspectives on colonial architecture in Indonesia. Architecture Beyond Europe Journal (Online), 3(2013). https://doi.org/10.4000/abe.372 Varine, H. (2006). Rethinking the museum concept. In J.A. Gjestrum, M. Maure, & Conseil international des musées (Eds.), Økomuseumsboka-identitet, økologi, deltakelse (pp. 33- 40). ICOM: Tromsø Museum; Totens Bokhandel. Vecco, M. (2010). A definition of cultural heritage: From the tangible to the intangible. Journal of Cultural Heritage, 11(3), 321-324. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.culher.2010.01.006 Wall, G., & Black, H. (2004). Global heritage and local problems: Some examples from Indonesia. Current Issues in Tourism, 7(4-5), 436-439. https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500408667998 Wallach, B. (2013). European architecture in Asia. The Geographical Review, 103(1), 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1931-0846.2013.00183.x Welty, P.T. (1966). The Asians, their heritage and destiny. Lippincott. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge University Press. Werdiningsih, Y.K., & Umaya, N.M. (2017). Variasi nama Tuhan dalam teks Serat Sastra Gendhing, kajian akulturasi terhadap Sastra Suluk [Variation of God’s name in Serat Sastra Gending scripture, an acculturative examination of Sastra Suluk]. El Harakah, 19(1), 79-93. http://dx.doi.org/10.18860/el.v19i1.3827 Wijayanti, A., & Damanik, J. (2019). Analysis of the tourist experience of management of a heritage tourism product: Case study of the Sultan Palace of Yogyakarta, Indonesia. Journal of Heritage Tourism, 14(2), 166-177. https://doi.org/10.1080/1743873X.2018.1494182 Williams, D. R., Patterson, M. E., Roggenbuck, J. W., & Watson, A.E. (1992). Beyond the commodity metaphor: Examining emotional and symbolic attachment to place. Leisure Sciences, 14(1), 29–46. https://doi.org/10.1080/01490409209513155 Williams, D.R., & Stewart, S.I. (1998). Sense of place: An elusive concept that is finding a home in ecosystem management. Journal of Forestry-Washington, 96(5), 18-23. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233596913_Sense_of_Place_An_Elusive_Conc ept_That_is_Finding_a_Home_in_Ecosystem_Management 251 Wiltcher, G., & Affandy, F.B. (1993). Bandung Society for Heritage Conservation – A case study illustrating the involvement of an NGO for heritage management in Indonesia. International Scientific Symposium on Cultural Tourism - 10th General Assembly. Colombo, ICOMOS Srilanka. https://www.icomos.org/publications/93sy_tou25.pdf Winter, T. (2009). The modernities of heritage and tourism: Interpretations of an Asian future. Journal of Heritage Tourism, 4(2), 105-115. https://doi.org/10.1080/17438730802366490 Winter, T. (2014). Beyond Eurocentrism? Heritage conservation and the politics of difference. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 20(2), 123-137. https://doi.org/10.1080/13527258.2012.736403 Winter, T. (2014). Heritage studies and the privileging of theory. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 20(5), 556-572. https://doi.org/10.1080/13527258.2013.798671 Worldometer. (2021). Asia countries by population. Retrieved June 15, 2021 from https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/asia-population/ Wulandari. R. (2016). Historical and heritage walk as an alternative tourism activity to enhance heritage promotion and public awareness: A case study of Bandung. In S.M. Radzi, M.H.M. Hanafiah, N. Sumarjan, Z. Mohi, D. Sukyadi, K. Suryadi, & P. Purnawarman (Eds.), Heritage, culture and society (pp. 215-220). CRC Press. Yapp, L. (2020). The future in the past: Colonial modernity as urban heritage in contemporary Indonesia. South East Asia Research, 28(2), 178-198. https://doi.org/10.1080/0967828X.2020.1768801 You, Z., & Hardwick, P.A. (2020). Intangible cultural heritage in Asia: Traditions in transition. Asian Ethnology, 79(1), 3-17. https://search-ebscohost- com.proxy2.cl.msu.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=ip,uid,cookie&db=edsglr&AN=e dsglr.A632854125&site=eds-live Yudhishthir, R., Viejo-Rose, D., & H.K., Anheier. (2011). Introduction. In H. Anheier & Y.R. Insar (Eds.), Heritage, memory, & identity (pp. 1-20). SAGE Publications Ltd. http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781446250839 Zhao, S., Nyaupane, G.P., & Timothy, D.J. (2016). Residents’ preferences for historic preservation criteria and their determinants: An American example. Journal of Heritage Tourism, 11(4), 395-410. https://doi.org/10.1080/1743873X.2016.1151428 Zhou, D., Yanagida, J.F., Chakravorty, U, & Leung, P. (1997). Estimating economic impacts from tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 24(1), 76-89. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0160- 7383(96)00035-7 252