Module #15 - Combinatorics 1 Chapter 6 The Inclusion-Exclusion Principle and Applications.
CHAPTER 6 INCLUSION AND EXCLUSION
Transcript of CHAPTER 6 INCLUSION AND EXCLUSION
191
CHAPTER 6 INCLUSION AND EXCLUSION
6.1 Introduction
With the expanding influences of heritage management affirming the role of interpretative
and associative spaces, it is argued in this research that the boundaries and relationships
between heritage scales are being redrawn. This thesis has illustrated in the previous two
chapters how heritage and heritage management practices at Angkor have been framed
and abstracted within politically and socially constructed scales. This chapter considers how
the social construction of heritage scales to facilitate heritage management and other
control mechanisms influences the material qualities of heritage space through the
inclusion and exclusion of aesthetics, behaviours and people. This will allow consideration
of the relationships between scales, through their shifting boundaries. This chapter will
illustrate the need to incorporate wider understandings of the geographical and cultural
landscape into GIS‐based management systems. In exploring spatial and aesthetic
perceptions of the Angkor landscape, consideration will be given to how boundaries are
constructed spatially through the presence, or absence, of certain land uses. In particular,
this chapter will discuss the construction of a ‘scale of modernity’ which functions as a
counterpoint to the scaling of valued spaces. The scale of modernity comes about through a
discourse within heritage management that ‘boxes’ off non‐heritage space, in particular
juxtaposing heritage with the modern, often negatively. At Angkor it is the urban spaces of
Siem Reap which have been excluded from valued and interpretative spaces, and
subsequently can be seen as defined as within a scale of modernity. Through a comparison
of urban and rural land covers, the consequences for landscape management of ontological
differences between stakeholders are highlighted. Finally, the chapter will illustrate how
boundaries are constructed and reconstructed through temporal interpretation of the
landscape through the dichotomy of ‘traditional’ and ‘contemporary’, and through
attitudes towards particular places and the behaviours and changes occurring there.
Understandings of ‘Angkor’ are constructed around particular aesthetic and functional
images. This thesis has outlined the different perceptions held by various key stakeholders
of the ‘appropriate’ appearance and behaviour for spaces and people associated with the
interpretation of Angkor. In seeking to advance the post‐positivist dialogue at Angkor, this
192
thesis examines methods to improve the representativeness of information about the
values and meanings attached to Angkor. A key part of the management of Angkor’s
archaeological and urban landscape has been the use of Geographical Information Systems
(GIS) (Parry 1996; UNESCO Principal Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific 1999). Though
the application of spatial analysis technologies at Angkor was intended as a tool to support
management (Box 1999), the reality of their use has been as a powerful visual political tool,
the results of which are at times viewed uncritically. While lengthy reports may be
produced to explain and justify maps and data (for example The Siem Reap Urbanisation
and Tourism Report and Master Plan (JICA 2004), it is the maps (lacking supporting
documentation) that are usually disseminated. The nature of the data collected and utilised
is such that villages and people have become dots and population counts. Land use data are
collected, but there has been little open critique of the type of data or the implications for
the image created of Siem Reap‐Angkor. There have been more recent attempts by APSARA
and others to add local community information, such as local values for objects on the
landscape and information about villages beyond numbers of people and buildings
(Sokrithy 2008; Moylan, Brown et al. 2009). However, in a post‐positivist era of cultural
heritage management, it could be argued that an emphasis on ‘positivist’ documentation
controlled by professionals within a technology that is inaccessible to the local population
could, in fact, be counter‐productive (Towers 1997).
6.2 Angkor City
The modern town of Siem Reap has been placed in juxtaposition to the Angkor heritage
area by local community and APSARA interviewees. Siem Reap ‐ province, town and
tourism area ‐ is the contemporary settlement that, in addition to supporting its
population, provides the infrastructure and facilities for those visiting and using Angkor.
The role of the temporal terms of ‘traditional’ (positive) and ‘modern’ (negative) in defining
and interpreting heritage spaces has been previously illustrated (Chapter 5). In seeking to
investigate the boundaries and relationships between scales, this section will explore
definitions of the scale of modernity from the perspectives of the local community, APSARA
staff, and the ICC contributors. Firstly, it will consider how Siem Reap is perceived by
different stakeholders. It will then examine the role assigned to modern urban space in
relation to the Angkor landscape. Finally, it will consider how people differentiate between
193
urban and rural areas, illustrating how different understandings of ‘urban’ and ‘rural’ have
the potential to shift the boundaries of modern and heritage spaces at Angkor.
6.2.1 What is Siem Reap?
It was acknowledged early in the contemporary management process for Angkor that Siem
Reap should be integrated into the heritage management process to ensure successful
control of a predicted growth in population and tourism (Wager 1995). Attitudes towards
urban areas are often driven by our perceptions of their size (Roseland 2000). Compact
cities of Europe are often viewed positively, whereas towns that sprawl across previously
agricultural land are despised as eyesores (Hayden 2006). Siem Reap has undergone a sharp
transformation since the inscription of Angkor on the World Heritage List (Ballard 2003).
Much has been made of the threat to Angkor from uncontrolled development and urban
sprawl in the region (Barré 2002; Durand 2002), thus it was considered appropriate to
determine the scale (in this context size) at which Siem Reap was perceived by various
stakeholders.
6.2.1.1 ICC Documents
Analysis of the spatial references to Siem Reap within the ICC Documents acknowledged
both the urban and provincial nature of ‘Siem Reap’ (Table 6‐1). The rural and urban nature
of Siem Reap province was acknowledged in 1993, by foreign and Cambodian ICC
contributors, through indirect references to urban areas within the region of Angkor. This
may suggest that the size and dominance of Angkor overshadowed any modern settlement.
Within APSARA, the Department of Urbanisation and Development (DUD) was established
in 1995 specifically to deal with controlling the nature and extent of urbanisation in Siem
Reap. This department is the only department within APSARA whose responsibilities and
activities lie almost entirely outside the Angkor Park. Its early presence within the
management structures suggests there was awareness amongst the heritage professionals
working at Angkor of the relationship between Angkor and the modern landscape.
194
1993 ‐ 10
documents
2003 ‐ 8
documents
1993 ‐ 59
documents
2003 ‐ 50
documents
18 11 10 53 92
Downtown Area 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 4.0% 1.6%
His toric Siem
Reap10.0% 25.0% 1.7% 8.0% 6.3%
Centra l Area Of
Siem Reap10.0% 12.5% 1.7% 2.0% 3.1%
Urban Siem
Reap30.0% 12.5% 1.7% 12.0% 8.7%
Siem Reap
Town10.0% 37.5% 1.7% 22.0% 12.6%
Siem Reap City 10.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.0% 1.6%
Region Of
Angkor0.0% 0.0% 1.7% 0.0% 0.8%
Region Of Siem
Reap30.0% 12.5% 1.7% 10.0% 7.9%
Siem Reap
Province20.0% 25.0% 3.4% 20.0% 12.6%
APSATIAL Siem Reap 20.0% 0.0% 1.7% 10.0% 6.3%
Siem Reap
Development20.0% 0.0% 0.0% 4.0% 3.1%
Growing 20.0% 12.5% 1.7% 12.0% 7.9%
TOTAL NUMBER OF REFERENCES
Cambodia ForeignTOTAL ‐ 127
documents
REFERNCES TO
SIEM REAP
FOUND WITHIN
ICC
GROWTH
REGION
URBAN AREA
CORE URBAN
AREA
SPATIAL AREA
Table 6‐1. Analysis of references to Siem Reap within the Cambodian government and international ICC contributions involved identifying all descriptions of 'Siem Reap', often documents used more than one description, changing the underlying spatial reference.
By 2003, contributions within ICC documents referred to Siem Reap as both a ‘province’
and a ‘town’. References to ‘Siem Reap Region’ implied a larger spatial entity, though it was
not clear if this corresponded to the province or reflected the area influenced by the urban
settlement. Angkor was portrayed as being located within this region. However, discourse
surrounding descriptions of the urban settlement of Siem Reap continued to have the
effect of making the town appear smaller than, or subordinate, to Angkor, by placing it
within (or as only a part of) the Angkor region. Whilst two documents did reference “Siem
Reap City” (Cambodia: ICC October 1993), other contributors sort to defy such an image,
referring to Siem Reap as a unique ‘garden town’, describing it as: “a garden town...Richly
endowed with trees, the town has a number of reservoirs or trapeang that serve to regulate
variations in the water level throughout the year while lending a distinctive touch to the it
landscape. Elegant colonial buildings, old pagodas and interesting examples of vernacular
195
architecture give an undeniable heritage value to the ensemble” (UNESCO: ICC November
2003). There was also a strong image of Siem Reap possessing a core and a periphery.
“Downtown Siem Reap” or “central Siem Reap” referred to areas along the river and around
the Phsar Chas area, with other areas receiving less attention. If perceptions of urban
settlement size are attached to particular attitudes, the focus on the “historic core” could
be interpreted as highlighting the small town that Siem Reap was prior to the World
Heritage inscription of Angkor.
An image of a growing settlement is dominant, with change a key part of the descriptions.
In both 1993 and 2003 references were made to its ‘growth’ and ‘development’. In 1993,
urban growth was referred to by one document as “sprawling suburban areas” (UNESCO:
ICC September 1993). Descriptions in the 2003 ICC documentation had become more
specific, discussing both the intensification of urban structures in existing areas and the
expansion of the urban fabric, generally out from the central core into agricultural areas.
While the ICC documents often utilise neutral terminology, a discourse that highlights
urban intensification and extension leaves the reader with a concern for the impact on the
historical core of the town and on the Angkor Park to the north.
6.2.1.2 APSARA Interviews
When questioned about their spatial perceptions of Siem Reap, APSARA interviewees gave
a variety of responses. Most suggested that Siem Reap was either a town or a city, with
smaller numbers describing a ‘village’, ‘tourism area’ or ‘province’ (Figure 6‐1). Some
interviewees gave two responses, acknowledging that there is a province with a town, both
of which are called ‘Siem Reap’: “It is a province and it has… the city is a town that most of
tourist want to come to visit” (APSARA Interviewee 5). Such responses demonstrate an
awareness of the non‐urban areas and population of the province. There was also
acknowledgement of the village characteristics of Siem Reap. Despite its size, one
interviewee considered Siem Reap as a large modern village and discussed, with regret,
how it was becoming more like a city than a village: “it is a modern, big village not a town,
not yet because it is small not like in Phnom Penh...a modern village....from 1998/1999 the
city change a lot. It become like a modern and big, big village. The aesthetic is… a garden
you have the villa the big house and around you have the garden with the fruit trees and
196
flower and… you have the pagoda, it was the main building in the city” (APSARA
Interviewee 6).
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Village Tourism Area Town City Province
Number of Interviewees
Perceived size of Siem Reap
Figure 6‐1. APSARA staff interviewees perceived Siem Reap as both a town and a city, with some interviewees acknowledging that it is both a town and a province.
The reasons behind perceptions of Siem Reap as a town were linked to change and growth.
For some APSARA interviewees, Siem Reap was a town because it was not small in size, but
also not the largest city in Cambodia. Others saw it as having developed beyond a village, in
terms of lifestyle of the population and the aesthetics of the buildings: “I think Siem Reap is
quite a big town. I mean after Phnom Penh, I think Siem Reap is the biggest town in
Cambodia and because of Angkor, because of tourists, and development, in terms of hotels
and so on and so I think it’s the second biggest in Cambodia after Phnom Penh” (APSARA
Interviewee 1). These interviewees often made note that in classifying Siem Reap as a town,
they did not feel that it had yet achieved the size or characteristics (including area, size,
lifestyle and appearance) that would mean that it was a city. Those that did think that Siem
Reap had reached ‘city’ status felt that it was large (based on area and population size) and
that the lifestyle was developed, crowded and busy. Thus the feelings attached to the size
of Siem Reap, by many APSARA interviewees, reflected an attitude that ‘smaller is better’. If
197
Siem Reap was a city then it would be too busy, noisy and dirty, whereas a village (or a form
resembling that) was conveyed in a positive light.
6.2.1.3 Local Community
Amongst local interviewees, Siem Reap was mostly understood as being a town (Figure 6‐
2), with the second most common perception being that it was a ‘province’. Smaller
numbers of interviewees saw Siem Reap as a ‘tourism area’ or as a ‘city’. Perceptions of
Siem Reap ‘town’ focused on it as a big town, with urban development being a motivating
reason. “Siem Reap is now a big town. Before it was small, but now it has spread out” (Local
Community Interviewee 7). Those who considered Siem Reap as a small or medium town
often viewed it favourably, even preferring it that way. “[Siem Reap is] very good, better
than Phnom Penh… Phnom Penh is a big city, very crowded. Siem Reap is a small town, but
with space” (Local Community Interviewee 20). This suggested that like the APSARA
interviewees, local residents’ perceptions of size were also influenced by emotions.
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
tourism area town city province
Number of Interviewees
Perceived Size of Siem Reap
Figure 6‐2. Analysis of interviews revelaed that most of the local community interviewees perceived the size of Siem Reap as that of a town, though many also emphasised that the province was also called 'Siem Reap'.
198
Another common comparison by local interviewees was that Siem Reap was seen, with
pride, as the second biggest town or city after Phnom Penh. Perceptions of Siem Reap ‘City’
were also the result of positive emotional linkages to observations of progress, buildings
and landscape changes. “Siem Reap is a city. Everything is a progress: good roads, buildings,
so it is a city” (Local Community Interviewee 56). In comparison, many of those who
considered Siem Reap as a province, whilst viewing development positively, did not see it
as having progressed sufficiently so as to make Siem Reap a town, only a province. “I know
that it’s a province, [as] the population increases and develops it will become a town” (Local
community Interviewee 23).
6.2.1.4 Siem Reap Defined
Analysis has demonstrated that most stakeholders perceived Siem Reap as either a ‘town’
or a ‘province’, both of which were commonly seen as experiencing urban growth.
References collected from the ICC documents suggested ICC contributors perceived a
transformation from a village towards a ‘town’ or a ‘city’. Amongst comments from APSARA
staff interviewed, and also evident in the ICC documents, was negativity towards large
urban spaces. In contrast, local interviewees expressed positive feelings towards growth,
perceiving it as symbolic of progress and socio‐economic development. “There are new
buildings around Phsar Chas and across the road. The Baray Singnam, with the new
university and market, it is a new town. There are two other universities, the Build Bright
University and ICU. The new buildings and the government earn lots of money from tourists;
there are more jobs. Pay more money in Siem Reap” (Local Community Interviewee 3). In
trying to understand the construction and relationship of the scale of modernity to the
scale of value and interpretation, this analysis has demonstrated that urban space was
associated with more negative attitudes. The analysis which follows will illustrate how
these attitudes have led to its exclusion from spaces (and scales) of value and
interpretation.
199
6.2.2 The Role of Modern Space
To determine the relationship between the scales of value, interpretation and modernity,
an understanding of the role played by modern spaces is required. In this case interviewees
were questioned, and the contributions to the ICC documents were analysed to determine
the role, or importance, of Siem Reap town in relation to the Angkor heritage area.
6.2.2.1 ICC Documents
Within both the Cambodian and International ICC documents, Siem Reap town was
primarily seen as the area within the Siem Reap‐Angkor region, providing services and
support for heritage tourism at Angkor (Table 6‐2). In 1993, the international ICC
documents discussed the need for Siem Reap to develop to meet this necessity so that the
Angkor Park would not be faced with modern intrusions. “One of the most serious potential
threats to the Angkor monuments is the probability that, once the political problems have
been resolved, tourism will become a major source of revenue for Cambodia, the impact of
increased tourist facilities around the monuments could be catastrophic if they are allowed
to encroach too closely” (ICC Document: ICOMOS September 1992).
Cambodia ICC international ICC All ICC
(18 documents) (110 Documents) (128 Documents)
DOCUMENTS DESCRIBING
ROLE OF SIEM REAP 9 29 38
ROLES DESCRIBED
Provide Servi ces for Touri sm 5 9 14
Enhance Experience of
Vis i ting Angkor 1 4 5
Ensure Economic
Development6 9 15
Ass i s t Angkor with the
Provi s ion of Services0 3 3
Gateway to Angkor 2 4 6
Home for Loca l Popula tion 1 1 2
Infra s tructure to Support
Monuments0 4 4
Control Development to
Protect Monuments1 1 2
Table 6‐2. Descriptions of the role of the Siem Reap urban settlement found within the ICC Documents were sparse with discussion in only one quarter of documents. Most references emphasised its roles in economic development and in providing services for tourism.
200
Within the 2003 ICC documents it was evident that Siem Reap town had grown in
significance, and was functioning as a service and welcome centre for visitors to Angkor.
The emphasis on tourism was greater within these documents, reinforcing the role of the
modern space is to serve the heritage spaces. “As for the Siem Reap town program, this
crossroads between tradition and modernity is to continue developing around two pillars:
safeguarding and showcasing the urban core with its Khmer tradition and colonial touch
along with controlled development of its intake services to be rounded out by culture, art
and leisure facilities” (ICC Document: Cambodia June 2003). The relationship between Siem
Reap town and Angkor was one where the modern urban settlement has been functioning
as the service of the heritage space, indicating that the scale of modernity was subordinate
to both the scale of value and the scale of interpretation.
6.2.2.2 APSARA
When queried on whether Siem Reap town was important for Angkor, two of the APSARA
staff interviewed felt that the appearance and atmosphere of the town was not important
for Angkor, and that the town and the temples should remain separate. From this
perspective the modern space appeared less important that the older spaces of Angkor. In
contrast, the other 85% of APSARA interviewees felt that the image (or appearance) of Siem
Reap town, particularly that which was presented to foreigners, was important for Angkor.
They felt that if the town changed, or modernised, it would have negative consequences for
Siem Reap and for Angkor. Within this understanding, the modern space is perceived as less
important, but was not considered insignificant as it could be harmful if altered. “Siem Reap
is very important for Angkor. Very, very important, because if Siem Reap becomes like
Bangkok it makes no sense. Nobody come, no tourist come and visit Siem Reap. They visit
Angkor and go out” (APSARA Interviewee 6).
Many APSARA interviewees felt the town needed to maintain a ‘traditional’ appearance to
ensure its role as the gateway to Angkor. In addition to its appearance, they also felt that
there was an understanding across Cambodia of the inseparable emotional link between
the town and Angkor. “You know, Siem Reap for me, I think it is, at the same time we
201
thinking about [Siem Reap], we imagine about the ancient city, as we have a lot of temple,
and we thinking about the activity in that time, and its present about the natural quality in
that time, its, you know, just imagine about that, and my friend also in Phnom Penh, they
thinking every time Siem Reap is the green town. We have always that imagination to visit
the Siem Reap‐Angkor, so the core of, the main point of view of the Cambodian people
outside of Siem Reap imagine in that image” (APSARA Interviewee 13). As discussed within
the ICC documents, many of the APSARA interviewees (8 of 13) recognised that Siem Reap
town provided services that Angkor could not. “The good thing that the house located in the
town, it is good because most of the foreigner the tourist they stay not in Angkor but they
stay in the house in this area, if there is no house, where are the tourist to stay” (APSARA
Interviewee 5). However, it was also stressed that these services needed to be kept at
distance from the Angkor Park monuments, or controlled, to protect the heritage area.
During the interviews with APSARA staff, the concept of ‘Angkor City’ (or ‘Angkor Town’)
arose. This idea was discussed by eight of the thirteen APSARA interviewees, and expressed
the idea that Siem Reap town functioned as the modern day urban settlement of Angkor. “I
think that the Siem Reap is a city. I always call it Siem Reap city. Because Siem Reap is a lot
of temple for people come to visit, so this area a lot of people for live and to come visit. I
always call City Angkor” (APSARA Interviewee 11). A similar understanding was discussed
earlier (see Section 5.2.4), where perceptions of Angkor’s position inside or outside of Siem
Reap town highlighted the potential for a psychological link between town and temples.
Because of the connections in functionality across the landscape, Angkor and Siem Reap
could not be separated: “Angkor use the city and the city use Angkor” (APSARA Interviewee
3). The appearance and character of the town was important, because if the contemporary
urban environment was altered then so would its relationship with Angkor. Thus the
modern urban area of Siem Reap not only played a service role, but also had strong
connections with the temples in the opinion of many APSARA interviewees.
6.2.2.3 Local Community
A role for Siem Reap town in the context of Angkor was recognised by approximately a
quarter of the local community interviewees, with a further three expressing the opinion
that the contemporary urban area had no importance for the heritage site. The
202
explanations given by local community interviewees focused on the appearance and
function of Siem Reap town. They felt that if the urban settlement did not look nice or grew
too large, it could physically (and thus aesthetically) damage the forests surrounding the
temples. The motivation behind these responses often lay with Angkor’s function as an
economic space. Heritage and modern spaces were linked by the local community
interviewees through a concern that tourists were provided for (accommodation and
restaurants), and that their (tourists’) aesthetic desires should also be satisfied. “Both
Angkor and Siem Reap very important. When tourists come they will visit the temples, when
they rest they should have a good place and safety” (Local Community Interviewee 35).
Some respondents acknowledged that foreign tourists and Cambodians viewed things
differently, expressing a need to keep ‘traditional houses’ for the tourist market and for the
image of Ankgor. “[Siem Reap is] not important for value of Angkor but it is for tourists.
They want to see Cambodian lifestyle and the business of the people” (Local Community
Interviewee 50). Another respondent expressed the opinion that there had to be evidence
of modern development, otherwise Siem Reap would appear too old and unattractive for
tourists.
6.2.2.4 A Modern Space for a Heritage Space
It was evident from the analysis of different stakeholders that the modern urban landscape
performed important functions within the heritage landscape of Angkor. Heritage is now
seen as serving a functional purpose as a cultural and economic resource (Loulanski 2006).
The findings within this section suggest that it is the role of modern spaces to support the
practical and functional uses of heritage. At Angkor, the modern urban landscape of Siem
Reap plays a vital role in providing services which the heritage area is unable to supply due
to restrictions on aesthetics and activities within the scales of value and interpretation
(Figure 6‐3). The services provided by the urban area to residents and tourists ensure
people are able to utilise and interpret Angkor. Thus whilst some may have explicitly stated
that Siem Reap town was not part of the heritage landscape, it is functionally, if not
aesthetically, embedded within it.
203
Figure 6‐3. The urban settlement of Siem Reap services the heritage tourism industry and provides employment and business opportunities to the local community and others.
6.2.3 Approaches to defining urban and rural
A key part of understanding the boundaries that define the scales of interpretation and
modernity is the differentiation between ‘traditional’ and ‘contemporary’ or, in the case of
Angkor, between ‘urban’ and ‘rural’ areas. In managing Angkor, these terms have generally
been treated as unproblematic, and have never been actively defined. Within the data
created for the Angkor ZEMP (Wager and Englehardt 1994; Jelen 2004), ‘urban’ and ‘rural’
occur as oppositional classes when describing population and land use. There has been
little explanation of how these categories were differentiated by those analysing and
representing the landscape, other than the adoption of Cambodian government
approaches which classify and divide populations and spaces according to existing
administrative (or district) boundaries (Rao, Than et al. 2002). It is widely acknowledged
within urban geography literature that urban and rural are not straightforward
classifications, but are subjective, relative and context specific (Hugo, Champion et al.
2003). The ambiguity and potential inappropriateness of land use and land cover
204
classification could lead to the social manipulation of boundaries around the various
heritage and interpretative spaces. This section undertakes a comparison of the
descriptions that different stakeholders utilise to differentiate between urban and rural
areas. In doing so, it forms the foundation for the spatial analysis that will follow, where the
implications of these different ontological understandings will be examined.
6.2.3.1 ICC Documents
The ICC documents were analysed for text that provided information on how the terms
urban or rural were defined or differentiated by both international and Cambodian
representatives to the ICC. Sometimes references were overt, such as, “Siem Reap town has
a wide selection of hotel facilities” (UNESCO: ICC December 2003). At other times the
comparison was more subtle: “The rural population in the Angkor region are not
sustainable by the resource base at its present disposal, using only the prevailing
agricultural technologies” (UNESCO: ICC December 1993). Such a statement possibly
implies that wealth is a definitive criterion between ‘urban’ and ‘rural’ landscapes.
In both the international and Cambodian contributions to the ICC, there was greater
differentiation of urban areas through descriptions of the built environment than by
describing the populations (Table 6‐3). The built environment of urban areas was expressed
through descriptions of buildings and infrastructure. In defining ‘urban’ using people,
attention was drawn to wealth, population sizes and growth, lifestyles and employment.
Other attributes that were used to describe and differentiate these areas included their
function and their use of resources. This was also linked to a perception that urban areas
damage the environment. Contributions made by the Cambodian government in the ICC
documents, emphasised the need for urban areas to be controlled and managed because
they could be hazardous to the heritage environment. The implication given in many of
these contributions was that rural areas live in harmony with the environment. A similar
attitude was also present in the foreign contributions to the ICC documents, but they also
drew attention to the disadvantage of rural populations. Their text conveyed an image of
urban areas that had experienced growth, developed infrastructure, and had an economy,
whereas rural areas were suffering neglect and economic disadvantage.
205
CRITERIA REFERRING TOCAMBODIA (18
DOCUMENTS)
INTERNATIONAL
(110 DOCUMENTS)
ALL ICC (128
DOCUMENTS)
Li festyle 6% 4% 4%
Wealth 17% 6% 8%
Industries 22% 6% 9%
Bui ldings 17% 6% 8%
Function 6% 3% 3%
Infras tructure 6% 3% 3%
Urban Growth 11% 6% 7%
Urban Needs To Be
Managed11% 5% 5%
Environment 6% 5% 5%
Resources 6% 4% 4%
Population
Bui l t
Environment
Natura l
Environment
Table 6‐3. Distinguishing features of 'urban' and 'rural' collected from Cambodian and international contributions within ICC documentation.There was greater differentiation of urban areas through descriptions of the built environment than by describing the populations.
6.2.3.2 APSARA Interviews
APSARA and local community interviewees were asked how they differentiated between
urban and rural spaces. APSARA interviewees placed a strong emphasis on the number and
lifestyle of people in defining urban areas, though they also described differences in the
number and appearance of buildings (Figure 6‐4).
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
People Lifestyle Buildings Roads Atm osphere Environment
Number of Interviewees
206
Figure 6‐4. Techniques for distinguishing between urban and rural spaces as perceived by interviewed APSARA staff. Analysis showed an emphasis on people and their lifestyles, as well as physical attibutes such as buildings and the environment.
In describing the inhabitants of an area, many APSARA interviewees moved beyond
descriptions of the size and wealth of the population, to also discuss differences in
employment, education and lifestyle. Urban populations were often perceived as being
modern, possessing an ease of life, and having a higher level of (and access to) education.
Rural areas suffered the opposite: “The countryside most of the people is poor, they make
the house by the wooden and they in the town we see about the brick, the house. And they
have…car, the motorcycle in the town. And in the countryside now they only have the
motor, because some people they sell the land, because they no money and the people
living in the town, they buy the land, from the countryside people” (APSARA Interviewee 8).
This quote also demonstrates how often observations of the population were linked closely
to descriptions of the built environment.
Comparisons of the built environment in urban and rural areas involved the juxtaposition of
large buildings versus small buildings, and high density versus low density of structures.
Interviewees also highlighted the qualitative characteristics of buildings, such as the
architecture. Rural areas were seen by APSARA interviewees as having ‘traditional’ wooden
architecture, whereas modern concrete apartments were dominant in urban areas. “Town
has a lot of building that make from the stone [concrete] and countryside has a lot of the
house and separate house, house, house, house. And the countryside make from the tree
and the leaf of the palm and another…” (APSARA Interviewee 8). Similarly, the functions of
the buildings were perceived as different. Urban areas were perceived as being the centre
of tourism and business, and rural areas were primarily residential. Other aspects of the
built environment discussed by APSARA staff included infrastructure, particularly roads.
Many APSARA (and local community) interviewees recognised their arrival in the town
when seeing improved (better) roads.
The final attributes of urban‐rural differentiation described by APSARA interviewees were
more intangible, and often very qualitative, descriptions of aesthetics. These descriptions
207
were very negative towards urban spaces and people, and reinforced an idea of a ‘rural
idyll’ (Rigg 1994; Rigg, Allott et al. 1999), where rural spaces were perceived more
favourably than modern urban spaces (Mitchell and Coghill 2000; Rigg and Ritchie 2002).
Urban areas were seen as the cause of environmental problems, especially pollution. In
contrast, rural areas were described as being clean, quiet and relaxing. A sense of space,
connected to scenery and availability of land, was also a defining characteristic of rural
areas. APSARA interviewees’ definitions of urban and rural areas were a mixture of positive
and negative attributes. They acknowledged the positives of modern development evident
in urban areas, but also highlighted the negatives of urbanisation. As with the analysis of
the ICC documents, APSARA interviewees emphasised the increasing intensification and
growth of urban areas and their potential to destroy the rural landscape and way of life. As
‘rural’ is a key element in defining the scale interpretation at Angkor, it is not surprising that
heritage professionals hold such attitudes. If ‘urban’ space belongs to the scale of
modernity, and rural space to the scale of interpretation, then the boundary between these
two spaces will form the material boundary between these scales. However, the
recognition of a historic urban core within Siem Reap town has become a potential source
of tension within the wider heritage management of Angkor‐Siem Reap (Esposito and Nam
2008; Rabe 2008). The promotion (and expansion) of this space has the potential to
destabilise and reconstruct the scales of interpretation and modernity.
6.2.3.3 Local Community
Local community interviewees were asked to directly describe how they separated the
town and countryside. Additional information was also collected during analysis of other
sections of the interviews, particularly when respondents described the spatial limits of the
town, or why they saw the town as (dis‐)connected with Angkor. As with APSARA staff
interviewed, members of the local community often used more than one method of urban‐
rural definition, particularly as many of the categories were very interlinked: “Town people
[are] very rich, have stone houses. Country living is poor, have wooden house.” (Local
Community Interviewee 30: rural resident) For the local community interviewees,
describing characteristics of the population were the most popular method of
differentiating between urban and rural spaces (Figure 6‐5). “[In the countryside] people live
differently. They have different clothes. In the countryside, they dress not very clean or
208
modern because poor and only cultivate rice. In the countryside if they have water they can
get water, else they have no money. In the town, they earn money or have business and
therefore buy clothes” (Local Community Interviewee 32: rural resident).
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
People Lifestyle Buildings Roads Atmosphere Environment
Number of Interviewees
Figure 6‐5. Local community interviewees' techniques for distinguishing between urban and rural spaces alternated between the characteristics of people and characteristics of buildings environment.
When ‘people’ were described, it was in reference to occupations (town versus country
jobs), population density (lots versus a few), and wealth (rich versus poor). To a lesser
extent, some respondents also commented on the level of education and accent
differences between urban and rural populations. “In the town is electricity. [There are] rich
people. [It is] modern, easy life. The character and speaking is different” (Local Community
Interviewee 54: rural resident). Descriptions of lifestyles by rural interviewees were often a
comment on the perceived modernity of people’s lives in urban areas, such as the ease of
life, material possessions of the population, and other aspects of their daily lives. “The town
has big concrete houses, car, motorbike, and modern products they use in everyday life”
(Local Community Interviewee 41: rural resident).
209
Differentiation using the material landscape was the second most popular method used by
the local community interviewees. The size of buildings, their purpose and density were all
used to differentiate between the town and the countryside. “In the town we notice many
big buildings – hotels, guesthouses and restaurants… In the countryside there are small
houses, maybe some medium‐sized houses.” (Local Community Interviewee 36: rural
resident) Many respondents also commented on the style of architecture and the materials
used in construction. Urban buildings were perceived as being of a modern, concrete style,
and rural buildings were of wooden traditional, or Khmer, style. These characteristics were
often used to describe why the Angkor Park was, and would remain, rural: “[Sras Sraeng
area is] countryside because APSARA not allow to develop, so people have to follow the
traditional house, not concrete or modern” (Local Community Interviewee 31: rural
resident). Other descriptions of the material landscape were directed at the size (large in
the town, small in the countryside) and the quality of the roads. Town roads were described
as good or formal, and the countryside roads as bad or dusty, though urban roads did
possess one negative characteristic: traffic. “In the town all day there is more people, more
crowded, and bad traffic. In the countryside only the daytime is crowded, in the night time it
is quiet” (Local Community Interviewee 59: rural resident). The descriptions of
‘infrastructure’ suggested a perception by the local community interviewees of urban as
connected and accessible, and rural as isolated.
The atmosphere and environment of urban and rural areas were discussed by only a few
local community interviewees. Descriptions of the environment related to the scenery,
pollution, sense of space, and the cost of land. ‘Atmosphere’ incorporated descriptions of
noise and tradition: “The countryside has good fresh air, and no pollution. The town is noisy
and has pollution” (Local Community Interviewee 56: rural resident). ‘Scenery’ was perhaps
the most subjective, and therefore most complex, differentiating factor. Some interviewees
talked of the countryside as beautiful and the town as visually harsh. Others saw the town
as nice and clean, and the countryside as dirty. But, in general, the town was portrayed
negatively for its environmental attributes, while the natural elements of the landscape in
the countryside were often emphasised positively. Approximately half of the interviewees’
210
descriptions of the ‘environment’ connected with agriculture, specifically the growing of
rice: “[The countryside has] big fields to grow rice and vegetables… it is green” (Local
Community Interviewee 55: rural resident) Other characteristics of the ‘environment’ used
to differentiate between urban and rural areas included land prices (town land was
considered expensive), the ‘space’ of the countryside, and the presence of ‘forest’ in the
countryside. A key intangible attribute of urban and rural areas was atmosphere. Responses
within this category were all given by interviewees that positioned themselves within the
countryside. They portrayed a negative aspect of the town, which could be summed up by
one response: “I don’t like the town and couldn’t live there. It’s boring and crowded.” (Local
Community Interviewee 27: rural resident)
It was evident from many of the comments and descriptions given by local community
interviewees that a person’s personal circumstances influenced the way that they defined
and described the differences between urban and rural areas. Thus it was appropriate to
examine how various groupings of interviewees perceived the landscape. For example, did
rural people perceive greater variation in wealth? Did those in the town view buildings as a
key difference? The attributes of interviewees chosen for analysis were the current urban‐
rural situation, and the urban‐rural background, of respondents (Table 6‐4).
Urban Rural Town Suburban Countryside
People 8% 22% 12% 3% 17%
Lifestyle 5% 12% 9% 1% 9%
Buildings 9% 18% 12% 2% 15%
Roads 1% 4% 1% 2% 3%
Atmosphere 0% 3% 0% 0% 3%
Environment 4% 12% 8% 1% 9%
CURRENT RESIDENTIAL LOCATIONBACKGROUNDMETHOD OF
DIFFERENTIATION
POPULATION
BUILT
ENVIRONMENT
NATURAL
ENVIRONMENT
CLASS
Table 6‐4. Comparison between Siem Reap interviewees currently from rural and urban areas and those from rural and urban backgrounds, to explore how personal circumstances may influence the manner in which urban and rural areas are distinguished.
Those who had classified themselves as residing in the town perceived differences in the
material landscape such as the number and type of buildings, whereas those who placed
themselves in the countryside demonstrated an awareness of the wealth and lifestyle
211
differences between themselves and town people. The small number (five) of interviewees
who classified themselves as in the suburbs gave similar responses to those in the
countryside, seeing ‘people’ as a key difference. They also focused their discussion on roads
as a marker of difference: “Here is suburb and countryside is further because the national
road comes through here” (Local Community Interviewee 38: suburban resident).
Similar patterns emerged when considering the urban or rural background of interviewees,
with those from an urban background primarily describing attributes of ‘buildings’, and
those from a rural background emphasising characteristics of ‘people’. Differences between
the perceptions of urban (current town residents and those originating in urban areas) and
rural observers (current countryside residents and those originating in rural areas)
suggested that for those with an urban ‘gaze’ (Urry 1990), the visible changes in the
material landscape of the town and countryside were the most significant difference: the
town is large, modern and concrete, and the countryside is small, wooden and traditional.
Contrasting with this was a rural ‘glare’, with those ‘looking in’ from the countryside
perceiving the wealth, jobs, and lifestyles of the town.
6.2.4 Angkor as an Urban or Rural Landscape
Definitions of what is urban and rural may influence not only the way that the relationship
between Angkor and Siem Reap town is understood, but also the perceived problems and
requirements for management of the Angkor landscape. While maps of Siem Reap have
been produced by APSARA, various tourist agencies and the international community (for
example, Palmer and Martin 2005; Ray and Robinson 2008; Cramer 2009), little was known
about how the Local Community perceived contemporary changes in the landscape. This
section has demonstrated that many stakeholders understood differences between urban
and rural areas through changes in the population. Whilst lifestyles and wealth may have
material consequences, it is concerning that the dominant method of determining urban
and rural space for Angkor’s planning and management have been centred on building
density and the results of aerial photography and remote sensing land cover analysis. With
‘urban’ and ‘rural’ a key element in forming the boundary between heritage and non‐
heritage spaces, different understandings potentially affect the construction and
relationships between the various scales of heritage.
212
6.3 Geographies of Inclusion and Exclusion
The scales of heritage are socially constructed through individual and collective
understandings about the role and position of a heritage site or object in a particular
temporal or geographical context. This thesis considers the relationship between scales as
an important part of defining each scale. The point at which scales interact, their
boundaries, becomes of key interest when exploring these relationships (Jackson 1984;
Howitt 1998). Throughout this thesis, a key component of exploring the scaling of heritage
at Angkor has been to consider how scales become manifest physically. Value is scaled to
encompass three physical extents: Angkor Wat, the Angkor Archaeological Park, and the
apparently unbounded Angkor landscape. The scale of interpretation was demonstrated to
be the result of the temporal and geographical contextualisation of the scale of value. It
incorporated spaces judged to have associative values, and excluded spaces, like modern
urban areas, deemed to be inappropriate by the stakeholder. Urban growth, development
and change have often been perceived as potential intrusions into spaces of value. As a
counterpoint, the scale of modernity was similarly linked to, and defined by, the limits of
urban space. All these understandings and perceptions were influenced by individual and
collective social, economic and political agendas that created geographies of inclusion and
exclusion (Lanegran 1986; Sibley 1992).
Demonstrating the importance of participatory, pluralistic approaches to GIS and spatial
analysis, this section will consider how the boundaries between scales are created in
physical space through attitudes and behaviours. It firstly examines how the spatial limits of
the scale of modernity are defined, demonstrating the need to adopt a pluralistic approach
to boundary definition. Secondly, this section explores the influences of perceptions of
behaviour and attitudes towards the functions of particular spaces for different
stakeholders. Finally, it examines the material consequences of the constructed scales of
heritage by exploring the consequences of different attitudes towards the material
landscape. This section will focus on the perceptions of APSARA staff interviewed and the
local community as contributions to the ICC documents did not discuss the issues within
this section with sufficient detail for analysis to be incorporated in this context.
213
6.3.1 The Extent of Siem Reap
Through a juxtaposition of ‘traditional’ and ‘contemporary’, the boundaries of modern
space at Angkor have been constructed (scaled) to correspond with urban spaces. Thus
perceptions of the physical extent of Siem Reap town will be analysed as the foundation for
investigating the material consequences for Siem Reap. All interviewees were asked to
define the northern, southern, eastern and western extents of the town. Responses were
either very spatially defined or were broader, more qualitative descriptions of localities.
These differences, combined with variation in the number of responses, might reflect
different levels of usage and knowledge by interviewees (Albert 1997; Al‐Kodmany 2001). If
someone travels through or uses an area more often, they may notice and recall smaller or
less obvious structures (Lynch 1960). If they don’t use a route frequently, then knowledge
may be limited to major, or distinctive, landmarks (Lynch 1960).
6.3.1.1 Northern Extent
All interviewees (APSARA staff and local community) were able to provide a location for
where they felt the northern extent of Siem Reap town lay (Figure 6‐6). These locations
extended from the now‐demolished stadium in the south to beyond the Angkor Park. Many
interviewees gave qualitative descriptions, such as “the big temples”, “Angkor complex”,
“the temples” and “Angkor”, which were not easily identifiable geographical locations so
were incorporated within in a category ‘Angkor Combined’, represented as the centre of
the Angkor Park. Almost all of the APSARA staff interviewed felt that the border was either
south of the ticket office or no further than the Angkor Wat moat. From the local
community interviewees, responses were clustered around three locations: the ticket office
of the Angkor Park; the Angkor Wat and the Angkor Complex; and past the temple complex.
This last cluster is noteworthy in the face of arguments put forward by heritage
professionals that the town must remain south of the temple (Esposito and Nam 2008), as
more than twenty percent of local interviewees described Siem Reap town as already
extending past the main tourist areas of Angkor Park.
214
Figure 6‐6. APSARA and Local Community perceptions of the northern extent of Siem Reap town. Frequency of responses for each extent location are represented by the dot size.
To determine whether familiarity with an area affected the responses given, the northern
spatial sample group (those who live within the Angkor Park) was compared with other
interviewees (Figure 6‐7). The northern group’s responses were clustered around the
215
Angkor Wat moat and Ticket office, south of their homes. In contrast, other interviewees
gave more dispersed answers, with two distinct clusters, one around the ticket office and
the other concentrated around locations to the north of Angkor Park. The more spatially
ambiguous responses gathered within the ‘Angkor Combined’ category came mostly from
the interviewees residing outside the Angkor Park. Those from within the park were more
likely to specify a specific locality within the park, such as the south gate of Angkor Thom,
Preah Khan, or the “road that runs along the moat of Angkor Wat” (Local Community
Interviewee 25). These findings support the notion that a person’s mental map is enhanced
by frequent use of an area (Lynch 1960; Goodey 1974).
216
Figure 6‐7. Comparison of interviewee perceptions of the northern extent of Siem Reap town, demonstrating differences between APSARA and the local community interviewees, and between those who live inside and outside of the Angkor Park.
217
6.3.1.2 Southern Extent
Responses given by both APSARA and local interviewees produced a pattern for the
southern extent of the town was focused on three locations (Figure 6‐8)I:
The crocodile farm (just south of the old market area;
Halfway along the road to the lake, and;
At Phnom Krom, on the edge of the lake.
In between these, there were also a small scattering of references to locations, mostly
around the middle of the south road towards the flood line, where changes in the
landscape can be considered more subtle.
The southern spatial sample group had a wider range of responses than those from other
areas (Figure 6‐9). They were often more specific about the location, for example: “Wat
Kommoy” (Local Community Interviewee 43: south resident) compared to “halfway to
Phnom Krom” (Local Community Interviewee 14: central resident). The entire southern
spatial sample group provided a response to this question, compared to only 50% of other
local interviewees, and 90% of APSARA interviewees. For those from the South, the border
was either around the start of the South Road (linking Phsar Chas to Phnom Krom) or
halfway along this road. Other respondents had a strong perception of the town extending
to Phnom Krom (44%), with a lesser perception of the urban‐rural border being at the
crocodile farm, or between there and Phnom Krom (Figure 6‐10). This would suggest that
lack of knowledge of the area focused responses on the large landmarks.
218
Figure 6‐8. APSARA and Siem Reap Community perceptions of the southern extent of Siem Reap town. Frequency of responses for each extent location are represented by dot size.
219
Figure 6‐9. Comparison of interviewee perceptions of the Southern extent of Siem Reap town, demonstrating differences between APSARA and the local community interviewees, and between those who live inside and outside of the Angkor Park.
220
Figure 6‐10. Phnom Krom, to the south of Siem Reap town.
6.3.1.3 Eastern Extent
Perceptions of the eastern extent of Siem Reap town presented a very different pattern to
those for the northern and southern extents (Figure 6‐11). After the northern extent,
knowledge of the east was the next highest with only 15 non‐responses – “I don’t know” ‐
and all answers referred to specific spatially‐identifiable locations. Four main points were
nominated as the eastern extent of Siem Reap town. These were:
Phsar Leu ‐ the largest market in Siem Reap which serves as a wholesale market for
all the stall holders and other market areas within the Siem Reap town area;
Chongasu Truck/Bus Stop ‐ primarily a road junction where buses and trucks depart
for Phnom Penh and provinces and towns to the south and east;
The Baray Singnam ‐ a large, new development of ‘shophouses’, apartments, a
university, markets, and hotels, and;
Svay Thom ‐ the last significant settlement area along the National Route 6 until
after Roluos. Other settlements such as Lolei, and Roluos itself, are located off the
main highway.
221
Figure 6‐11. APSARA staff and local community interviewees' perceptions of the Eastern extent of Siem Reap town. Frequency of responses for each extent are represented by dot size.
In addition, several APSARA interviewees nominated locations much further east towards
the Roluos group. For the local community, the likelihood of a location being selected
decreased with distance away from the urban core, with Phsar Leu being the most popular
and Svay Thom being the least popular, whereas the responses of APSARA staff clustered
further east amongst the peripheral settlements of Svay Thom and Chongasu. Interviewees
in the Eastern sample group all resided east of Chongasu, and perceived themselves as
living in the countryside (Figure 6‐12), with the border placed to the west of their homes.
Interviewees from other areas gave a wide variety of responses, with Phsar Leu market and
the Chongasu Truck Stop being the most popular choices.
222
Figure 6‐12. Comparison of ASPARA staff and local community interviewees' perceptions of the Eastern extent of Siem Reap town, demonstrating differences between residents from the East of Siem Reap and elsewhere.
223
6.3.1.4 Western Extent
The western extent had the most clearly defined border of all the four directions (Figure 6‐
13). From the local community, half of interviewees identified the airport, with an
additional 10% referring to the turn‐off road to the airport. Other locations nominated by
local respondents were to both the east and west of the airport (and the airport road). The
Kortoklok hotel is one of the older large hotels in Siem Reap. Puok and Teukville are semi‐
urban settlements to the west and south of the Western Baray. The APSARA interviewees
similarly had responses clustered around the airport (Figure 6‐14), but their responses were
skewed towards the West Baray reservoir. There were also some outlying locations,
including Puok and the Cambodian Cultural Village (a cultural theme park). Due to a
dominating perception of the airport as the urban limit, there was little variation
determined between respondents from different locations.
Figure 6‐13. APSARA and Local Community perceptions of the Western extent of Siem Reap town. Frequency of responses for each extent location are represented by dot size.
224
Figure 6‐14. Comparison of APSARA staff and local community interviewee perceptions of the Western extent of Siem Reap town.
6.3.1.5 The Urban Area of Siem Reap
From the analysis of the directional extents of Siem Reap town described by local and
APSARA interviewees, it is clear that defining a spatial limit to ‘urban’ space is a complex
225
matter. When travelling, large landmarks, such as the airport, Phnom Krom, Angkor Wat
and Phsar Leu, mark progress, and therefore changes, across the landscape (Lynch 1991).
However, it is more likely that urban and rural slowly blend into each other (Hugo,
Champion et al. 2003). Some local community interviewees discussed the presence or
absence of people at various places as a marker of whether or not a location was urban.
Each of the key locations selected to the north, south, east and west can be considered
active spaces which draw significant traffic (people and vehicles), and thus movement from
the centre of town. After passing one of these nodes, a sharp decline in the number of
people can be observed. The use of ‘people’ to define urban‐rural spaces was also a key
technique utilised by those who considered Angkor as part of Siem Reap town (Figure 6‐
15). APSARA interviewees also selected some of their border locations according to
characteristics of the population, but they referred more often to the number of buildings
and their appearance (i.e. new or old, wooden or concrete). To the east, their responses
were particularly defined by perceptions of urban growth, with half of APSARA interviewees
expressing a feeling that it was difficult to choose an eastern extent of the town as it was
continually moving, and it would be impossible to say where the eastward expansion of the
town would eventually end. “The east is moving too much right now. For me the east is
about somewhere here (the river road near DMA2), somewhere like the road to Phnom
Penh. But now the limit of the city it’s farther east” (APSARA Interviewee 01).
226
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
No Response Outside of Town Inside Town Both Inside and Outside of Town
Percentage of All Interviewees
Spatial Relationship of Angkor to Siem Reap Town
environment
atmosphere
roads
buildings
lifestyle
people
Figure 6‐15. Comparing perceptions of Angkor's relationship with Siem Reap town and the techniques used to distinguish between urban and rural areas illustrated that those who considered Angkor as part of the town concentrated on the environment and the lifestyle of the people in differentiating between urban and rural spaces.
In most of the urban studies at Siem Reap‐Angkor to date, the occurrence and daily
movement of local people across the landscape has not been considered, and has definitely
not been included as part of any official definition of urban and rural areas. One potential
impact of this is the dehumanisation of the landscape (Melissinos 2005). Management
practices would be based around a landscape of buildings, roads, and vegetation, rather
than a living landscape used and occupied by people. Increasingly, participatory
management practices have been employed at Angkor to ensure that the activities and
livelihoods of the population are taken into consideration during spatial zoning practices
(Mackay and Sullivan 2008). The findings presented in this chapter have so far indicated
that the processes which define the boundaries between spaces of value, interpretation
and modernity vary between different stakeholders. When Angkor is scaled through the
definition of social spaces, it is linked to the activities of people on the ground, or land use,
rather than a landscape scaled from above which considers the attributes of buildings and
other aspects of land cover.
227
6.3.2 Behavioural boundaries:
Contemporary perceptions of heritage as a cultural resource result in definitions of value,
authenticity and significance being linked to the use, or functionality, for the present day
population (Loulanski 2006). Heritage exists for a purpose (Harvey 2001). In Chapter Four,
data regarding the use of ‘Angkor’ were analysed to demonstrate how the acceptance of
certain uses (and users) of Angkor constructed a social scale of value. An extended
exploration into the use of space and place could reveal locations that are important to
interviewees, as well as areas for which they have additional knowledge. This section will
explore the relationships between the scales of heritage by exploring the utilisation (and
therefore functionality) of different spaces in Angkor‐Siem Reap by interviewees from
APSARA and the local community. Information about the manner in which places are
positively or negatively perceived gives insight into possible problems and conflicts.
Interviewees were asked about their use and behaviour within the Angkor‐Siem Reap
region in a number of ways:
Places visited regularly;
Places which are attached to positive perceptions and attitudes, and;
Places which are attached to negative perceptions and attitudes (for example,
unsafe or unattractive).
Many of these responses included spatial information which could be incorporated within a
GIS, thus assisting in improving the social representativeness of the spatial data and
analysis used in the management of Angkor (see section 3.2.4).
6.3.2.1 Places visited regularly
All interviewees were asked to list places that they visited regularly during their free time.
Different occupations required people to visit different locations, but they were not
necessarily choosing to use, or interact, with these places. For example, moto drivers can be
observed visiting the floating villages on the Tonle Sap, but they will often wait in their tuk
tuks or stand around and chat while their tourists are on boat trips. By focusing on free
time, an assumption was made that interviewees were providing information on places that
they choose to visit. However, three local interviewees did stress that work was the only
228
reason for visiting places outside of the town as they had no free time. These people had
been sent to Siem Reap by their companies, and they seemed to be some of the poorer
interviewees. They worked seven days a week with little free time, with one sleeping at the
back of the company office. “[Each day from] 5.30am‐8pm I work at the shop, 7 days a
week. Then I sleep at the back of the shop” (Local Community Interviewee 4)
The most visited place (Table 6‐5) was Angkor Wat, with the more generic response of
‘Angkor’ also being popular. The reasons and frequency of this visitation were discussed in
detail in Chapter 4. Other places that were highly visited by interviewees included:
The West Baray – used as a picnic place, swimming place and community space.
“I am happy to go visit [the West Baray] and my children want to go swimming”
(Local Community Interviewee 47)
Phnom Kulen – to picnic and swim at the waterfalls and to visit the temples in the
mountains which are a protected environmental space.
“If it is a national day, like New Year, I will go to the mountains. There it is cool,
there are waterfalls to swim, and that area has magic powers, it is a special place”
(Local Community Interviewee 2)
Phnom Krom – Restaurants/bars for Khmers at the base of the hill, used most often
during the wet season when the Tonle Sap is flooded.
“Often I go to Phnom Krom mountain, especially in the rainy season, when it has the
water full. I like the fishing and eating... To sit there, because good looking and
good environment, good fresh air... Sometime with friends and drink beer. Because
have many song there, for Karaoke.” (ASPARA Interviewee 8)
229
Places visited
Siem Reap
Community (61
Interviewees)
APSARA (13
Interviewees)
Grand Total (74
Interviewees)
Angkor 8.2% 53.8% 16.2%
Angkor Wat 23.0% 46.2% 27.0%
West Baray 11.5% 30.8% 14.9%
Roluos 0.0% 7.7% 1.4%
Temple 0.0% 7.7% 1.4%
Phnom Kulen 9.8% 15.4% 10.8%
Phnom Krom 11.5% 23.1% 13.5%
Kbal Spean 1.6% 7.7% 2.7%
Work Place 4.9% 0.0% 4.1%
Cambodian Cultural 3.3% 0.0% 2.7%
Phsar Chas 3.3% 0.0% 2.7%
Visit Friends 1.6% 0.0% 1.4%
Countryside 1.6% 0.0% 1.4%
Puok 1.6% 0.0% 1.4%
Karaoke Bar 3.3% 0.0% 2.7%
Markets 1.6% 0.0% 1.4%
House 1.6% 0.0% 1.4%
Tonle Sap 1.6% 0.0% 1.4%
In The City 1.6% 0.0% 1.4%
Phsar Leu 1.6% 0.0% 1.4%
Everywhere 0.0% 7.7% 1.4%
Don't Go Out 1.6% 0.0% 1.4%
Table 6‐5. The places which APSARA staff and local community interviewees described visiting in their free time revolved around sites belonging to the Angkor World Heritage area.
The places mentioned by respondents were mapped (Figure 6‐16) to show the spatial
distribution illustrating that most people interviewed choose to spend their time outside
Siem Reap town. APSARA staff particularly only made mention of going to Angkor‐related
locations, and did generally not discuss using ‘modern’ spaces, such as bars. Several
descriptions were too general (the countryside, visiting friends, work, markets, karaoke bar,
house) to be mapped. Though many of these places were associated with urban areas, their
inclusion would still not have counteracted the visible spatial pattern of Khmer recreational
space as being outside the central ‘urban’ areas of the town. Defining value based on its
social functions draws heritage into the everyday lives of those using it. These results
demonstrate that when Angkor is scaled according to social values it is incorporated within
the functional space of the town. Highlighting the use of Angkor Wat by almost all
230
interviewees, these results illustrate that Angkor does indeed fulfil the role as the central
public and social space for local residents of Siem Reap.
Figure 6‐16. Places which APSARA and Local Community interviewees mentioned visiting regularly. Frequency of response is represented by dot size.
231
6.3.2.2 Places Perceived Positively
Attitudes towards space can be manifest in a number of ways. In addition to not using
spaces physically, attitudes can also act as indicators of inclusion and exclusion of places
and people (Jamal and Getz 1995). To gauge local and APSARA opinions of certain places
interviewees were asked about places they considered good and bad. Responses were
collated under either ‘positive’ or ‘negative’ and then mapped to identify hot spots.
To determine places perceived positively, four questions were asked:
What places are important to you?
What is your favourite place?
What places do you like?
What places would you save from destruction?
Places that the Siem Reap community saw as positive included Angkor (generally), and
Angkor Wat (specifically), Phnom Kulen, and the Tonle Sap (Table 6‐6). Other places that
were mentioned by a number of respondents were Banteay Srei, the West Baray and
workplaces. The latter were viewed positively as they were seen as important for an
individual’s economic well‐being. APSARA interviewees also listed Angkor and Angkor Wat,
as well as Phnom Koulen. The responses of both the Siem Reap Community and APSARA
interviewees were very much focused on the areas outside the town (Figure 6‐17).
232
Figure 6‐17. Hotspot analysis of places perceived positively by all interviewees. Darker areas indicate a place was spoken of more frequently in a positive manner, than those areas indicated with a lighter spot (less frequently).
233
Places described Positively Places Visited Regularly
Angkor Angkor
Angkor Wat Angkor Wat
Around Phsar Chas Phsar Chas
Cambodian Cultural Village Cambodian Cultural Village
Countryside Countryside
Phnom Koulen Phnom Kulen
Phnom Krom Phnom Krom
Ton le Sap Ton Le Sap
West Baray West Baray
Roluos Roluos
Kbal Spean Kbal Spean
Work Work Place
Entry road to Angkor Visit Friends
Favourite buildings Puok
Markets Markets
Home Home
Banteay Srei In the City
Town Phsar Leu
Phsar Chas Karaoke Bar
Tourists
Royal Palace
School
Restaurant
Jayavarman VII hospital
Nature
Table 6‐6. A comparison of places visited by interviewees in their free time with those places perceived and described positively by interviewees.
In discussions on Angkor’s importance for the local Siem Reap community (in Chapter 4),
Angkor was demonstrated as being perceived as an important economic resource.
However, Angkor was also perceived positively as a place that people would like to save
due to its value as part of their own and the national identity, and as a place that they like
to visit to relax and socialise. Further analysis of the reasons behind selection of positive
places, indicated that many places were linked to their value as resources (economic or
natural), and because people visited them (often). Many people also favoured places for
their appearance, or because they were relaxing: “Before I liked to go to the top of Angkor
234
Wat in the evening because it was cool and can look at the flowering trees. I also liked to go
to a Durian fruit farm with friends. The farm belongs to the monks and is north of the
Angkor complex” (Local Community Interviewee 5).
6.3.2.3 Places Perceived Negatively
The analysis of perceptions of negative places involved four interview questions. These
were:
What places do you dislike?
What places do you consider dangerous or not safe?
What places are unattractive?
What places don’t/wouldn’t you go?
The responses to these questions were collated and revealed that the most common
response was ‘nowhere’ (Table 6‐7), perceived by 70% of interviewees. A justification was
given for this response by most respondents, demonstrating that the response was thought
out: “None [places disliked], everywhere is very safe, no trouble compared to Phnom Penh
where it is crowded and traffic jams and cramped so tourists and local people don’t like
living in Phnom Penh cause it is difficult to travel” (Local Community Interviewee 41).
235
Negative PlacesLocal Community (61
interviewees)
APSARA (13
Interviewees)
All Interviewees
(74 Interviewees)
Nowhere 67% 85% 70%
Don't Know 18% 0% 15%
River 21% 8% 19%
Bars 10% 0% 8%
Brothel Areas 7% 8% 7%
Far Place 2% 23% 5%
Markets 7% 0% 5%
Pol lution 5% 8% 5%
Traffi c 5% 8% 5%
Countrys ide 5% 0% 4%
Phnom Kulen 3% 8% 4%
The Town 2% 15% 4%
Bui ldings Close To Road 3% 0% 3%
Gangster Place 2% 8% 3%
Kbal Spean 3% 0% 3%
Uncontrol led Development 0% 15% 3%
Apratment Bui ldings 0% 8% 1%
Apsara Rd 2% 0% 1%
Banteay Srei 0% 8% 1%
Begging 2% 0% 1%
Fishing Vi l lages 2% 0% 1%
Hotels 0% 8% 1%
Krol Ko 2% 0% 1%
Land Subs idence 0% 8% 1%
Landmine Areas 2% 0% 1%
Phsar Nge 2% 0% 1%
Place With No Resort 2% 0% 1%
Place With No Road 2% 0% 1%
Road To Svay District 2% 0% 1%
Sinking Boats 2% 0% 1%
Vacant Land 0% 8% 1%
Everywhere 2% 0% 1%
Table 6‐7. When Local Community and APSARA Interviewees were asked about their perceptions of negative locations in the Angkor‐Siem Reap region, most felt that there were no such places.
Negative places that were mentioned included the river, bars, brothel areas and markets.
There were some similarities between the responses from APSARA staff and the local
community interviewees. The river (Figure 6‐18) received attention as a place of negative
association because of pollution, buildings close to its bank, its unattractiveness, and
236
people not feeling safe around it. Many of the respondents commented with dismay about
the loss of the aesthetic values along the river as a result of people throwing rubbish into it.
Bars and brothel areas (and snooker areas) were viewed negatively as they are seen as sites
of social corruption: “[I dislike] the snooker area near the river. This place encourages
gambling by the children, which makes the children become bad. This place can cause
robberies and encourage thieves” (Local Community Interviewee 9). Other ‘places’ that
were perceived negatively by interviewees included the countryside, traffic and ‘pollution’:
“Ugly: along the river the whole river it is dirty and lots of litter” (Local Community
Interviewee 12).
Figure 6‐18. Squatter settlements and rubbish, which line the banks of the Siem Reap River in the north of the town, were the focus of negative perceptions by interviewees.
The locations of places with negative associations were mapped in the same manner as
positive places. One problem that arose in the mapping process was the number of un‐
mappable negative places. This was often because people tended to dislike the idea of
something, or an activity, rather than a specific location. For example, “I don’t like bars but I
don’t know where they area. These are not good places” (Local Community Interviewee 10).
In order to facilitate the mapping process, it was determined that several of these un‐
mappable places could be linked to more generic locations (Table 6‐8). These connections
were based on the descriptions provided within the various interviews. Many of the un‐
237
mappable places described attributes of urban space, with fewer describing the countryside
(which itself was at times still too generic to be incorporated). For this analysis, the spatial
location of the ‘town’ was chosen so as to most closely reflect the negative attributes
described (based on the researcher’s extensive observation of the Siem Reap urban and
peri‐urban landscape). The resulting map (Figure 6‐19) illustrated the strong negativity
associated with the town, and thus with the ‘modern’ landscape and a modern lifestyle.
Non‐locational Description Feature Linked to Mapped
Apartment buildings
Bars
Begging
Traffic
Uncontrolled Development
Markets
Hotels
Gangster places
Countryside places
Places with no road
Land mine areas
Vacant land
Land subsidence
Place with no resort
Buildings close to the road
Pollution (town and countryside)
Buildings close to the river RIVER YES
TOWN YES
COUNTRYSIDE NO
OTHER NO
Table 6‐8. The classification of aspatial descriptions of negative places perceived by all interviewees used to facilitate spatial analysis.
238
Figure 6‐19. Hotspot analysis of places perceived negatively by APSARA staff and local community interviewees. Darker areas were spoken of more frequently in a negative manner, whereas those which are lighter were mentioned infrequently.
6.3.2.4 Attitudes towards Place
The final step of the analysis of attitudes towards place was to compare the hotspots of
positive and negative perceptions (Figure 6‐20). From this comparison emerged an image of
239
a landscape, in which Angkor is the hot spot of positive perceptions. Additional locations
(i.e. the Jayavarman VII Children’s Hospital and the Cambodian Cultural Village theme park)
were dispersed around the urban periphery demonstrated that some positive attitudes
were directed towards the modern urban environment. However, the town in general is a
very strong receptacle for negative responses. The only other negative attitudes towards
specific locations were directed at Route 60 on the north‐eastern edge of the town. Here
there were many drink halls (local bars) observed, and as the local community interviewees
often listed bars as negative, this may reflect the underlying feeling here.
Figure 6‐20. A comparison of positive and negative perceptions of Angkor‐Siem Reap.
Daily life involves spaces of requirement (i.e. work, home, market shopping) and spaces of
leisure (Hall and Page 2002). The latter allows for more personal choices (Witten, Exeter et
al. 2003). In this study, it was unsurprising that people choose to utilise places that they
perceive positively. However, it is noteworthy that these places are predominantly outside
the urban core, or the ‘town’ as it appeared within the ICC documentation. No interviewee
240
discussed using public space inside the town, lending weight to observations that local use
of public space in Siem Reap town had been in decline and that Angkor was filling the gap.
This means that barriers between modern and heritage spaces breakdown as each is
rescaled by different stakeholders. Business owners and APSARA staff are working to
ensure that the core of Siem Reap maintains its historic atmosphere and aesthetic (Rabe
2008), so that it complements and enhances a particular interpretation of the Angkor Area.
This would see the ‘historic core’ become part of the scale of interpretation, and the
contemporary urban areas occupied by the local population excluded and potentially
targeted as negative intrusions. Thus the scale at which interpretation occurs is being
reconstructed so that spaces which would previously have been framed as non‐heritage, or
modern, such as the urban core are being relabelled ‘historic core’ and the everyday
modern users relocated. The elimination of local spaces within the urban core has meant
increasing reliance on the Angkor Park for modern purposes.
6.3.3 The landscape of Angkor – Siem Reap
The intent of this chapter has been to investigate the material consequences of the scales
which stakeholders construct to understand, interact and manage Angkor. Already the scale
of value has been demonstrated as having three constructions each satisfying different
economic, political or social agendas which alter the way people frame what they value on
the material landscape. Similarly, the supporting spaces that facilitate interpretation were
also scaled in different ways influencing the meanings and values stakeholders place on the
site. Through the interpretation of an appropriate temporal and spatial context for Angkor,
stakeholders constructed a third scale which incorporated modern, or non‐heritage, spaces.
Importantly the relationships and boundaries between all these scales would also be
different. Throughout the thesis, data have been presented which define the different ways
particular land uses are included or excluded to construct these scales (Table 6‐9). For
different stakeholders, these material elements had different roles and importance, thus
there was strong potential to include and exclude different spatial areas and populations
within each scale. This section will consider the physical manifestation of different
constructions of the scales of value and interpretation at Angkor. In doing so, it will also
allow for the creation of more detailed and less positivist spatial models of the scales of
heritage. The strong focus on spatial analysis and the use of GIS will demonstrate the
importance of ensuring GIS methodologies incorporated into cultural heritage management
241
are participatory and recognise different perspectives of the landscape in a post‐positivist
manner.
SCALE OF HERITAGE MATERIAL CHARACTERISTICS
Sca le Of Value (Socia l , Economic, And Scienti fi c) Monuments Or Temples
Nature, Especia l l y Forests
Tradi tiona l Vi l lage Landscapes
Not Urban Landuse
Urban
Modern
Touris t Services
Sca le Of Moderni ty
Sca le Of Interpretation (grounded and elevated)
Table 6‐9. Perceptions of the appropriate aesthetic and atmospheric qualities of the Scales of Heritage as discussed by local community and APSARA interviewees. The tangible characteristics that were linked to each scale could then be used to assist with their spatial definition.
To determine the spatial patterns and material consequences of the construction of scale,
spatial analysis was conducted on various key attributes of the scale of interpretation. The
key categories considered were vegetation, people, and the built environment. The
Japanese International Co‐operation Agency (JICA) created, as part of their Siem Reap
Urbanisation and Tourism Plan (JICA 2004), a comprehensive GIS dataset of the Angkor
Archaeological Park and Siem Reap Town (and surrounds). These data were used in
combination with extensive and detailed fieldwork data to determine the aesthetic
attributes of land in and around the scales of value.
6.3.3.1 Vegetation
Vegetation types that were identified by local community and APSARA interviewees as
appropriate when constructing interpretative space for Angkor were forests and rice
(agriculture). Extensive field observations (see section 3.4.3) revealed that most of the
Angkor floodplain consists of land for rice production and scrub land that is used for grazing
cattle or other food crops (Figure 6‐21). In stark contrast stands the main entrance of the
Angkor Park, with its lush green forests creating an illusion of deep dense forest cover
242
(Figure 6‐22). A land cover layer representing forests and agriculture was created using data
collected during field observation, and compared with the location of the monuments
(Wager and Englehardt 1994) and the scales for value. The forest cover of the Angkor
floodplain was found to be almost entirely confined within the Angkor Archaeological Park
(Figure 6‐23). In contrast, rice fields and other forms of agricultural land use were spread
across the entire study area (Figure 6‐24). The spatial representation of the social scale of
value, Angkor Wat, was located within the forest. It also was apparent that other
monuments of high tourist interest were located within the forested areas. This was
confirmed through a comparison of forest cover surrounding the high interest monuments
compared to that around those monuments of lesser tourist interest (as indicated within
the ZEMP documentation (Wager and Englehardt 1994). The former possessed a higher
mean forest density value than the latter. In contrast, the high interest monuments tended
not to be located with the rice fields (only 37.5% were), whereas the majority (70.6%) of
low interest monuments were located amongst rice fields.
Figure 6‐21. Agricultural land use is predominantly for grazing and rice croping.
243
Figure 6‐22. The entrance to the Angkor Park is marked by the appearance of forests to the north of the Ticket Office.
Figure 6‐23. Forest landcover interpolated from field observation data.
244
Figure 6‐24. The presence or absence of rice in areas surrounding Angkor interpolated from field observation data .
6.3.3.2 People
One of the more controversial elements of Angkor’s interpretation was whether people
should be permitted or excluded from living around the Angkor monuments. For some
interviewees, Angkor needed to be surrounded by nature and devoid of people. For others,
people were an important part of the geographical and temporal context of the
monuments. The dominant opinion of most stakeholders was that as long as there was no
uncontrolled population growth and no intrusion of modern urban aesthetics, it was
acceptable for people to live around the temples. Traditional village lifestyles, low
population density, older style housing (wooden, not concrete), employment in non‐urban
professions such as agriculture and handicrafts, and the use of space were all felt
appropriate for areas surrounding Angkor. People had become an important part of the
interpretative space, but their occurrence was rarely linked to a built environment. It was
not possible to conduct spatial analysis on all of these, as field data were not collected on
some attributes, such as the production of handicrafts. As part of their attempts to increase
245
the representation of local ideas about Angkor, APSARA has developed a database of
vernacular cultural heritage for residents within the Angkor Park (Sokrithy 2008). Whilst this
database continues to equate ‘local’ with the rural villagers of the Angkor Park, it will,
hopefully, facilitate future incorporation of more qualitative population descriptions. In this
research, population distribution and utilisation of space were considered under the
category of ‘people’, with descriptions of housing incorporated within the analysis of the
built environment.
To determine population distribution, a density layer was firstly produced from an APSARA
census conducted in 1998 (Figure 6‐25). This dataset was the most recent population count
conducted across the region. Whilst the population may have increased, the spatial pattern
it creates is still valid as no new villages were observed during fieldwork, thus the
distribution was assumed to be similar. Across the Angkor‐Siem Reap region, there was a
continuous low density population. The highest density population was located in the area
described by interviewees as Siem Reap town, and continued along Route 6, the east‐west
axis of Siem Reap province (and town). Within spaces identified as having heritage value,
there was a significant population cluster to the west of Angkor Wat, as well as other
clusters linked to villages at Sras Srang (east of Angkor Thom), to the north of Angkor Thom
and at Preah Dak (on the road to Banteay Srei). However, the major population mass which
could perhaps be considered ‘urban’ was to the south of the Angkor Park.
246
Figure 6‐25. The population is spread across the Angkor‐Siem Reap Region, with the highest density in Siem Reap town and along Route 6 to the west. High density settlements in the Angkor Park, occur in the large villages that are scattered scross the Park.
The population density layer was created using points representing the centres of village
which do not account for the spatial limits of those villages. It was observed during
fieldwork that the distribution of village populations tended to focus around a central point
and then decrease in density when moving away from the village. Therefore where the
layer may indicate a continuous area of low density population it may alternatively be that
villages are higher density clusters and separated by vast agricultural spaces. To assess the
validity of the spatial patterns represented in the density layer, a comparison was
conducted using fieldwork data collected through methods outlined in Chapter 3.
Observations of building density were compared with the density layer using the ArcGIS
Geostatistical Analysis General QQ Plot5 tool. The results demonstrated that there was a
relationship between a low observed building density and low population density, and high
5 This scatter plot displays the difference between the predicted and measured values Ibid.. In this case the observed density was the predicted and the density of the building layer was the measured layer.
247
observed building density and high population density. Thus it appeared that the
population density layer was a reliable representation of the spatial distribution of the
population.
In analysing patterns of human activity within the scales of value and interpretation, a
starting point was to investigate economic, or livelihood, connections between different
spaces. All interviewees were in some way linked to the Angkor Park whether directly or
indirectly. Stall holders within the Park focused on the entrances to the temples, even when
only servicing the local population. The responsibilities of APSARA staff interviewed
connected them to a wider area, as they were required to consider Angkor’s position within
a wider landscape. There were also many local community interviewees who were
employees in restaurants and shops, who serviced the tourist market in town. Their
activities, whilst not physically occurring within the valued (or interpretative) spaces, were
connected to the economic scale of value. Without Angkor to draw tourists, many of the
jobs (including many within APSARA) would not exist. Several staff who ran small stalls or
businesses within the core urban areas expressed the direct and indirect importance of
Angkor for their business and livelihoods.
The utilisation of space was also analysed by comparing places visited by interviewees in
their free time with spaces identified as valuable, or assisting with the interpretation of the
Angkor site (see Figure 6‐17). This analysis demonstrated that the most heavily used
recreational places (Angkor and Angkor Wat) fell within the areas that had been scaled as
valuable. Though there were also some in areas identified as modern. Particularly
important here was the focus by interviewees (local community and APSARA) on Angkor
Wat, or the social scale of value. The spatial pattern demonstrated in this analysis should
not be surprising, given the focus of this questioning was to determine space used for
recreational or social time. It also confirmed the manner in which Angkor (Wat) has
assumed the role of main public space for the Siem Reap population (see Section 4.3.4).
The economic functionality and linkages between Angkor and the interviewees were
reinforced through interview comments about the reliance on Angkor (tourism) for the
existence of the whole of Siem Reap. For example: “Angkor and Siem Reap are one big
landscape. Because like I explain to you that in Angkor Wat site we can’t live inside, we can’t
248
build big house, a shop, hotel, restaurant, and there is no infrastructure. And Angkor Park
site is like a resort area for Siem Reap, and Siem Reap town is the place for services. You
know, it’s like in a hotel you have the rooms. The rooms is Angkor, near the swimming pool,
in the garden. Then you have the reception, the reception where you can find all the
services, all the information in Siem Reap” (APSARA Interviewee 8).
By examining the functional aspects of the landscape, this analysis has demonstrated that
when heritage value is scaled based on its social position, the heritage space becomes a
part of the modern space. The hierarchy between scales is therefore altered.
6.3.3.3 Built Environment
The final component of the scale of interpretation discussed within the ICC documents and
the APSARA and local community interviewees was the nature of the built environment
that surrounded Angkor. Some stakeholders did not want any contemporary structures in
areas surrounding the Angkor monuments, whilst others were accepting of traditional,
wooden villages. The following analysis builds on data from the Siem Reap Urbanisation and
Tourism Master Plan (JICA 2004), as well as utilising data collected during fieldwork (see
Section 3.3.4). The JICA project created a GIS layer representing all buildings in their study
area6, which equated to the current project study area (as defined by the field observation
points). The distribution of buildings (Figure 6‐26) demonstrated a similar pattern to that of
the population, with most buildings occurring outside of spaces scaled as economically or
socially valuable. There were some clusters of modern buildings within the Angkor Park,
and these correspond to the villages identified in the population density analysis.
6 This layer was created by tracing buildings evident on aerial photographs captured in 2003 JICA (2004). The Study on Integrated Master Plan for Sustainable Development of Siem Reap/Angkor Town in the Kingdom of Cambodia. Siem Reap Province JICA..
249
Figure 6‐26. Presence of modern buildings across the Angkor‐Siem Reap region as mapped by JICA (2005).
More complex analysis firstly explored the density of the contemporary structures, as it was
the density rather than the existence of buildings that was often of concern to
stakeholders. The building density was calculated using the centre points of the existing
polygon features (Figure 6‐27). To assess the validity of this density layer, it was compared
with the field observations using ArcGIS Geostatistical Analysis tools (ESRI 2006). There was
a strong association between observation of building density and interpolation of building
density. For example, a high density observed in the field coincided with a high interpolated
density (Figure 6‐28). The highest density of structures occurred inside Siem Reap Town,
and outside the economic and social scales of value. Within these valued spaces, there
were only lower density settlements. Therefore it appeared that contemporary buildings,
whilst not completely excluded, did occur in lesser numbers within the heritage space than
in areas identified as modern.
250
Figure 6‐27. Density of modern buildings derived using the ArcGIS kernel density technique. Density level indicates the relative area covered by modern buildings (as defined by the JICA 2005 architecture map) per 250 square metres.
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
No
Buildings
Scattered Scattered
‐ low
Low Low‐
Medium
Medium Medium ‐
High
High
Average Interpolated Building Density
Derived From ArcGIS QQPlot
Observed Building Density
251
Figure 6‐28. Accuracy assessment for interpolated fieldwork observational data, comparing the interpolated building density layer (based on JICA (2005) building data), and the building density layer interpolated from field observations .
In defining the appropriate setting for Siem Reap, almost all stakeholders felt that the built
environment surrounding Angkor should reflect ‘traditional’ village lifestyles, with smaller
wooden houses, and not the dense tall concrete buildings found in urban areas. Thus
analysis was undertaken to determine the spatial patterns of this atmosphere. Field
observations concerning use, style, age and height of buildings were combined with the
JICA building data to provide a more detailed dataset. The reliability of the combined layer
was considered appropriate for purposes of this research, due to the close association
between the observed and interpolated densities (see Figure 6‐28). Attributes that were
included as part of the interpretation of Angkor included: older buildings (not new), village
architecture, low height (2 storeys or less), and residential. New buildings, urban
architecture, tourist facilities (i.e. hotels) and tall buildings (3 storeys or more) were
analysed to explore attributes which were excluded in perceptions of appropriate spaces of
interpretation by stakeholders (Table 6‐10). The key relationship between the scale of
modernity and other heritage scales, is that modern spaces incorporate the service facilities
for foreigners (and other visitors), whereas a ‘traditional’ landscape would service
Cambodians. Therefore users of buildings were also analysed (Cambodian, foreign and
both).
INCLUDED IN SCALE OF
INTERPRETATION
EXCLUDED FROM SCALE OF
INTERPRETATION
Short Bui ldings Ta l l Bui ldings
Vi l lage Architecture Urban Archi tecture
Older Bui ldings New Bui ldings
Res identia l Touris t Faci l i ties (Accommodation)
Table 6‐10. Landscape features which were specifically included or excluded by local community and APSARA interviewees from within the scale of interpretation at Angkor.
The results of the analyses within this section (Figure 6‐29; Figure 6‐30; Figure 6‐31)
illustrate that attributes of the built environment considered a part of the interpretation of
252
Angkor occur across the Siem Reap‐Angkor region. They are not confined to spaces seen as
valuable, nor are they confined to Zone 1 or Zone 2 of the ZEMP. The implication being that
interpretation of Angkor as a landscape could, theoretically, extend across the entire Siem
Reap‐Angkor region. By contrast, the built environment attributes that are excluded from,
or seen as hindering, interpretation of Angkor, do not occur within the defined the Scales of
Value. There is some intrusion of new buildings in the east of the Angkor Park, around the
village of Preah Dak, but these buildings are in a non‐urban, village style. Thus if one is
standing on the ground in front of Angkor Wat, or another Angkor Park temple, there will
be little of modern Cambodia to see (except for the tourists).
Figure 6‐29. The distribution of four attributes of the built environment considered acceptable to be found surrounding the Angkor monuments. These include: (1.) Short Buildings (defined as under 3 storeys in height); (2.) Older Buildings (defined as over approximately 10 years in age); (3.) Village Style Architecture (defined as wooden houses, often on stilts); and (4.) Residential Use.
253
Figure 6‐30. Analysis of landscapes excluded by interviewees from the setting of Angkor involved four attritbutes of the built environment: (1.) Tall buildings, (2.) Newer Buildings, (3.) Urban Style Architecture, (4.) Tourist Accommodation. The results illustrate that these are mainly found to the south of the Angkor Park, and not in the spaces considered of most value by stakeholders.
254
Figure 6‐31. Buildings of the JICA (2005) map, classified by main users ‐ Cambodian, Foreigner and Both, as observed during field observations. Most buildings for the use of Foreigners are found outside of areas considered valuable for economic or social reasons. Those found inside the Angkor Park tend to be services, such as food stores and restaurants, servicing both Khmer and Foreign markets .
6.4 The Material Landscape of a Scaled Angkor
The interpretation of Angkor heritage and its values occurs from at least two viewpoints,
grounded and elevated. These two positions recognise (and reject) different elements on
the Angkor landscape. Similarly, in constructing the boundaries for the management of
interpretative space, different aesthetic and physical attributes are included or excluded by
different stakeholders (Powell, Selman et al. 2002). Spatial analysis, field observations and
interview analysis in this chapter have all revealed how Angkor‐Siem Reap is not a
homogenous landscape; rather it consists of a variety of spaces that service foreigners and
locals. Many parts of the study area could be considered as consistent with the ideal
landscape for the interpretation of Angkor. As one APSARA interviewee described it, even
parts of the town are village: “a modern and big, big village” (APSARA Interviewee 6).
255
The results of the spatial analysis presented in this chapter illustrated that the natural and
the built environment surrounding the Angkor monuments conformed to the image of an
appropriate temporal and geographical context for Angkor perceived by the various
stakeholders. The strongest spatial marker for a limited interpretative space is the forest
cover, which was confined to the areas surrounding the main monuments of tourist interest
(i.e. Angkor Wat, Angkor Thom and Ta Prohm). Forest cover was also the attribute of
Angkor’s setting that had the most support from all stakeholders. Perhaps this linkage is
driven by perceptions of the uniqueness of the forests in the region, as the next nearest
forests are in the mountains to the far north, and much of the other surrounding vegetation
is low‐lying scrub or agricultural land (Figure 6‐32). To place this in a methodological
context, Lynch (1960) identifies the key characteristics of spatial mental images as
consisting of paths, edges, districts, nodes, and landmarks (see Section 3.3.2.3). The forests
of Angkor function as both an edge to the interpretative space, through the distinctive
change from dense tall forest to low ‘bare’ rice fields and urban land, and as a district
providing a common identifying character to the spaces surrounding the temples.
Figure 6‐32. Angkor Wat captured from the air, illustrating the dense forest cover that surrounds Angkor Wat and is in sharp contrast to the agricultural and commercial landuses that exist elsewhere in the region.
256
The discourse surrounding the forested image of Angkor is created through a tourist’s
camera lens from the front of Angkor Wat. The forests are placed within an interpretative
space scaled from the ground. In contrast, the role and inclusion of people and landscape of
human habitation could be considered part of an interpretative space scaled from above.
Not many of the frequently visited (tourist) monuments lie within inhabited landscapes,
indeed this is actively discouraged. Instead, the monuments are found amongst the dense
forests and the inhabited landscape is found further afield and is part of an interpreted
landscape which APSARA interviewees referred to as “Living Angkor” (APSARA Interviewee
13). Interpretative space is therefore scaled to include features that harmonise with the
heritage, and exclude features that are perceived as modern intrusions. Those features that
were seen as possessing interpretative value were widespread across the Siem Reap region,
whereas ‘harmful’ features were primarily confined to the ‘urban’ areas of Siem Reap. Even
within modern space they are not always dominant, but often ‘traditional’ and
‘contemporary’ combine as part of a mixed evolving landscape of old and new, village and
urban, Khmer and foreign.
By interpreting Angkor within a particular temporal context, heritage management
practices must ensure that the geographical context supports and enhances the
appropriate meanings and values. It is from this position that modern spaces become
subordinate and excluded. With discussion of Siem Reap’s ‘historical core’ (Vann 2003;
Rabe 2008), a particular architecture of French Colonial shophouses has been encouraged
as it is seen as complementing and enhancing the interpretation and experience of Angkor
by foreign tourists (Winter 2002; JICA 2004; Esposito and Nam 2008; Mackay 2008; Rabe
2008). This has two possible implications for understanding heritage interpretation as a
wider inclusionary, or exclusionary, process. Firstly, by encouraging a particular aesthetic
and atmosphere within urban spaces, these urban spaces are rescaled as spaces of
interpretation (as perceived by heritage professionals). Shifting the boundaries between
interpretative space and modern space will alter the relationship between the scales of
interpretation and modernity. If Siem Reap town becomes part of the former scale, then
the latter scale will have to be spatially reconstructed. Secondly, the inclusion of urban
areas within the scale of interpretation has a potential exclusionary impact on the
257
population of those urban areas. While this is a common occurrence in tourism areas
(Henderson 2001; Dredge 2004; Chang and Huang 2005), the reality at Angkor is that the
creation of a particular aesthetic has encouraged the reconstruction of a colonial landscape
(Esposito and Nam 2008). As a result gentrification of the urban core appears to be
following.
There was little conflict amongst stakeholders in the ‘grounded’ interpretation of the
monuments of Angkor. It is the construction of ‘elevated’ interpretations that result in
inclusionary and exclusionary spatial practices, and thus have the potential to cause conflict
within the heritage management process. Part of the reason behind this is that the
aesthetic qualities of the landscape and heritage, more generally, often overshadow its
functionality. This chapter has illustrated how the boundaries between scales, as well as the
scales themselves, can be variously constructed depending on the perceptions and
understandings of the viewer, and that these constructions influence the physical landscape
and people upon which they are applied.
258