Influence of Social Behaviors toward Cultural Heritage Sustainability in World Heritage Site, Melaka

Nur Izzati Mohd Rodzi; Saniah Ahmad Zaki; Syed Mohd Hassan Syed Subli

doi:10.21834/e-bpj.v1i1.218

Authors

Nur Izzati Mohd Rodzi Faculty of Architecture, Planning and Surveying, Universiti Teknologi MARA, 40450 Shah Alam, Malaysia
Saniah Ahmad Zaki Faculty of Architecture, Planning and Surveying, Universiti Teknologi MARA, 40450 Shah Alam, Malaysia
Syed Mohd Hassan Syed Subli Faculty of Architecture, Planning and Surveying, Universiti Teknologi MARA, 40450 Shah Alam, Malaysia

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.21834/e-bpj.v1i1.218

Keywords:

Social Behavior, Intangible Cultural Heritage, World Heritage Site, Threatened

Abstract

Cultural heritage is a symbiotic relationship involving society, norms and values. These are the pillars, the triangle relationship to form a smart partnership to sustain cultural heritage (Munjeri, 2004). On the other hand, symbols, technologies and objects are tangible evidence of fundamental norms and values (Bouchenaki, 2003). This two (2) statements show the inevitable association between Tangible Cultural Heritage (TCH) and Intangible Cultural Heritage (ICH) in envisioning the cultural shape and significance towards the community or society. The characteristic of ICH that relies on TCH and the possessors reflects the vulnerability of the elements. As the conservation of TCH is positively achieved, the effort of safeguarding ICH seems missing. The finding in a study by Othman and Hamzah (2013) has confirmed that the preservation and safeguarding effort of ICH is less emphasise in the MWHS. Figure 1 is an illustration on the association of the individual, community, and society, with cultural heritage. These components are important variables of this research.

References

Bakar, A. A., Mariana, M. O., Syahriah, B., & Mansor, I. (2014). Analysis on Community Involvment Level in Intangible Cultural Heritage: Malacca cultural community. Procedia-Social Behavioral Sciences, 286-297. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.10.062

Bouchenaki, M. (2003). The interdependency of the tangible and intangible cultural heritage. Zimbabwe: ICOMOS.

CAPAM. (2010). Overview of Case Study Models and Methodology. Ottawa: Commonwelth Association for Public Administration and Management.

Congdon, J. D., & Dunham, A. E. (1999). Defining the Begining: the importance of research design. In K. L.

Eckert, K. A. Bjorndal, F. A. Grobois, & F. Donelly, Research and management techniques for the conservation of sea turtles (pp. 83-87). Washington: IUCN/SSC Marine Turtle Specialist Group Publication.

ICOMOS. (2008). Evaluations of Cultural Poperties . Canada: UNESCO.

Johnson, R. B., Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Turner, L. A. (2007). Toward a Definition of Mixed Methods Research. Journal of Mixed Methods Reseach, 112-133. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689806298224

Munjeri, D. (2004). Tangible and Intangible Heriatge: from difference to covergence. Museum International, 13-20. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1350-0775.2004.00453.x

Othman, R. N., & Hamzah, A. (2013). Interdependency of Cultural Heritage Assetes in Old Quater, Melaka Heritage City. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 577-588. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.11.061

Powell, E. T., & Steele, S. (n.d.). Collecting evalutaion Data: Direct Observation. Retrieved May 14, 2014, from http://learningstore.uwex.edu/assets/pdfs/g3658-5.pdf.

Remenyi, D. (2011). Field methods for academic research - interviews, focus group and questionnaires. United Kingdom: Ridgeway Press.

Simon, M. K., & Goes, J. (n.d.). Scope, limitations and delimitations. Retrieved January 13, 2013, from www.dissertationrecipes.com.

Szolnoki, G., & Hoffman, D. (2013). Online, Face - to - face and telephone surveys: Comparing different sampling methods in wine consumer research. Wine Economy and Policy, 2 , 57-66. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wep.2013.10.001

UNESCO (2009). List of Intangible in Need of Urgent Safeguarding. Canada: UNESCO.