Built Heritage Maintenance: A Malaysian Perspectives - ScienceDirect

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

Procedia Engineering 20 (2011) 213 – 221

The 2nd International Building Control Conference 2011

Built Heritage Maintenance: A Malaysian Perspectives A.F. Mohd-Isa*, Z. Zainal-Abidin, A.E Hashim FSPU, Universiti Teknologi Mara, Perak Campus,Seri Iskandar 31750 Tronoh, Perak FSPU, Universiti Teknologi Mara Shah Alam 41450 Shah Alam Selangor,Malaysia

Abstract Heritage building conservation in Malaysia is fairly new. Recent phenomenon witnesses its acceptance as an important national policy. Essentially in 2008 Melaka and Goergetown the historical cities were enrolled as UNESCO’s World Heritage Site. However being internationally recognized World Heritage Site come with international accountability. This paper comprised critical review of existing literature and highlighting some fundamental principles in conservation of historic building in relation to the maintenance needs. It also reported the early stage of proposed ongoing research in Universiti Teknologi MARA which focuses on the maintenance practice of Malaysian conserved heritage building at UNESCO’s World Heritage Site. Findings suggest that maintenance is most significant in order to conform with the conservation good practice. At least with the following key themes: clear maintenance policy, regular and plan maintenance, appropriate maintenance programme, regular condition survey and reports and providing maintenance manual and logbook help to support good maintenance practice. It is also found that in Asia’s heritage is generally under-protected. The theory and practice of maintenance needs for historic building in Malaysian are still not duly addressed. Good maintenance practice is one of the important perspectives that still leave a gap in effective management strategies. This research finally aims to establish Malaysian conserved heritage building best maintenance practice guidelines.

© 2011 Published by Elsevier Ltd. Open access under CC BY-NC-ND license. Selection and/ or peer-review under responsibility of Universiti Teknologi MARA Perak and Institution of Surveyors Malaysia (ISM) Keywords: Heritage Building; Conservation Values; Maintenance

* Corresponding author E-mail address: [email protected].

1877-7058 © 2011 Published by Elsevier Ltd. Open access under CC BY-NC-ND license. doi:10.1016/j.proeng.2011.11.158

214

A.F. Mohd-Isa et al. / Procedia Engineering 20 (2011) 213 – 221

1. Introduction Building conservation is the way to protect built heritage in retaining its physical authenticity that represents a society’s history and root. It can be in the form of any structure, ruin of a building as proposed by ICOMOS Washington Charter 1987 [1]. Built heritage is universally recognised with a wealth of esthetical, archeological, architectural, cultural, historic, documentary, social and even political and spiritual or symbolic values [2]. Heritage building conservation in Malaysia is fairly new. It humbly began in the 70s [30] and flourished in the 80s [4][5]. Despite the positive efforts there are still major challenges and issues in dealing with the conservation of historic buildings in Malaysia [6][7][8]. Recent phenomenon however suggests an attractive popular support mainly from government agencies which witnesses their acceptance as an important national policy. It merely began with the introduction of the National Heritage Act 2005 which claimed to be a comprehensive legislation to govern heritage building issues in the country [9]. This was followed with the creation of a new portfolio that specifically dealt with all kinds of Malaysian heritage management at the federal level. It was reported that in total, one hundred million ringgit has was spend for the purpose of built heritage conservation under the 9th Malaysian Plan (2006-2010) [5]. The proclamation/declaration of Melaka and Goergetown as UNESCO’s World Heritage Site in 2008 may also trigger this phenomenon. It is expected to stimulate the nation’s income from the tourism perspective that worth more than forty billion ringgit as reported by Bank Negara Malaysia in 2008. The elderly nature of the built heritage makes them constantly vulnerable to some degree of deprivation and decay which suggest that they should be systematically maintained. Though maintenance is recognised as the most significant conservation practice [10][11][12] concurrently among other challenging issues in Malaysian’s built heritage conservation is the maintenance aspect [8][5]. Nevertheless the implications of being internationally recognized as a World Heritage Site also mean an international accountability [12] thus the outstanding universal value, the conditions of integrity and/or authenticity at the time of the declaration must be maintained and enhanced in future otherwise if there is any threat detected, it can be added to the List of World Heritage Sites in Danger and further the deleted from the World Heritage Site [13]. 2. Heritage building conservation The Burra Charter defines conservation as being all of the processes of looking after a place so as to retain cultural significance [1]. This suggests that it has to go through several procedures in order to retain the cultural significance of the places. Cultural significance of a place is defined as a complete range of social and cultural values that make every place has a unique identity and gave its significance to the society [10]. It is the perception of values on why the historic places matter and for whom as decided by diverse stakeholders including the community [14]. Obviously it is more than just architectural consideration but it involve economic and social issue which includes sustainable management of changes [15]. Furthermore it is also about what and how we protect a variety of values of the built cultural heritage in the most sustainable way. 3. Values in heritage building conservation Something is put into a place as a heritage because it is valued to be worth protected or the understanding of why the place is important and what about it that contributes to that importance [10]. Thus these values should only be interpreted by the experts with the involvement of the local community. The interpretation must also be rest upon concise conservation objectives, deep understanding of built heritage character’s exceptionality and the availability of data [15][17][15]. The physical fabric must also

215


be certified as authentic before the value can be put on testimony (Nara Document 1994 ICOMOS 2010) on the country, authenticity is always a vexing issue. For instance due to the responses of social, economic and technological change, historic buildings inevitably undergo many levels of alteration in their life time. Thus Bell [18] suggests that a definition of an area of authenticity must be obtained and evaluated first. It has to rely upon the accurate and reliable information and it leads to historically and emotionally satisfying, honest, appropriate and responsible result [19]. Thus with the understanding and measurement of values the level of concern can be determined on what and how to conserve [20]. Nevertheless conservation values represented by the built cultural heritage appear to be more diverse and complex in nature. Therefore the more values considered and analyzed the more significant it will be in benefiting the society especially the local community[21][10]15]. Meanwhile the process of looking after the places may be accomplished through many approaches or so called a degree of intervention. This is justified in order to preserve the objects for the future [2]. These may include a preservation, restoration, reconstruction, adaptation or compatible use, and maintenance [21][22]. The dominating issues however apparently emerge in justifying how far should the old sacrificed in order to give way for the current trend and changes. Conservation involves a continuing process of compromising between protecting the character while at the same time improving it in order to fulfil a legitimate present day standards that satisfied the public safety and comfort [19][17]. Therefore the best way to keep the minimum lost of cultural authenticity in managing those changes is by turning to the conservation principles outlined by many different international charters as reference [14]. Among the most influential charters is the Burra Charter which stress on a minimal intervention, legibility of new work and reversibility. Similar to Venice Charter the New Zealand Charter on the other hand stresses a minimal loss of fabric. Figure 3.1 shows the main criteria of conservation principle that lead to a good conservation practice as suggested by the different international charters. Table 1 illustrates good conservation practice attributes as elaborated by the literature. Table 1: Conservation criteria for international conservation charters Source : Author research 2002

Criteria/ Charters Burra Charter New Zealand Charter Venice Charter Amsterdam Charter Florence Charter

Minimal intervention

Minimal Reversibility Sustainability loss of fabric

Legibility

* *

* *

*

* *

* *

* *

216


Minimal intervention

Minimal loss of fabric

Careful recording and research

Minimum alteration

Respect for the quality of place

Categories of conservation values / The cultural significance:

Reversibility

Reversibility of intervention

Avoidance of beautification and improvement

Preference for original materials and workmanship

Educational Aesthetic Scenic and panoramic Architectural /technological Historical Associational Archaeological Economical

Preference for least possible loss

Long-term protection

Allowing correction for unforeseen problems

Good conservation Practice Avoiding conjecture and falsification of elements

Well-defined maintenance plan

Distinguishable use of new or additional materials

Longevity in the finished work

Legibility Sustainability Figure 1: Good conservation practice suggested by the various international charters.

4. Maintenance significances in conserved heritage building The common aim of maintenance of non-historical buildings is to retain continuity of function, but for historic buildings, apart from continuity of function, protecting the building fabric itself equally is important due to its cultural significance – the building itself is an artifact [23]. However in order to survive built heritage not only has to compete in inevitable ever-changing contemporary needs but is also threatened by the processes of natural decay and the wear and tear of use. The difficulties linger within their inimitable characteristics. Their distinctive materials can easily be destroyed or damaged even though during the course of maintenance. Any act which is potentially harmful to the character of the building should be prevented as this unnecessary disturbance is damaging rather than preserve the fabric [24][25]. This loss of authenticity may as well affect the history


verification [23]. Hence due to this vis-à-vis nature and value, there is a rationale for a different approach to the maintenance of historic buildings in comparison with the non-historic buildings [12]. Perhaps the most fundamental would be first to understand what constitutes a good conservation practice before concluding what would constitute a good maintenance practice for the built heritage. 5. Good maintenance practice for conserved heritage building In building conservation, maintenance is defined as the routine work which carried out regularly on a planned basis that is necessary to protect the fabric of the built heritage excluding the repairing process [26]. All international guidelines and charters emphasis the importance of regular maintenance based on the principle of minimal intervention for maintenance works. The Venice Charter 1969 [1] states, “it is essential to the conservation of monuments that they be maintained on the regular basis”. The New Zealand Charter [1] emphasis that, “a place of cultural value should be maintained regularly and according to plan…”, and British Standard (BS 7913) in The Principles of the Conservation of Historic Buildings [27] states that “systematic care base on good housekeeping is both cost-effective and fundamental to good conservation”. It is believed to be the most essential as it is capable of prolonging the cultural significance values and its usefulness [28][23][7][29]. Some modest spending needed but with regular maintenance more money can be saved eventually in longer period of time. Meanwhile in managing the historic site, The Education Guidelines (2) 1993 [1] and Council of Europe, Segesta Declaration 1996 [1] proposed that the management strategies among others emphasized on the sustainability of the conservation work. A well-defined maintenance plan should be clearly established therefore the appropriate level of maintenance and care upon completion can be prepared for the long-term protection. Literatures suggest that good maintenance practices would corroborate with overall good conservation practice and principles by mainly upholding at least the following ways [10][29][30]: a)

Clear maintenance policy that is cultivated within the aspiration of overall conservation plan at the maintenance management level. b) Systematic care based on good housekeeping by means of regular and plan maintenance by applying of an appropriate maintenance programmes and priority. This ensures the sustainability of the conservation work as emphasized by the Counsel of Europe. c) Produce an accurate building assessment and condition through regular condition survey and reports. It derives a clear information on the current situation and what should been done. d) Updated information and data integration system through maintenance manual and logbook that are regularly updated. These ensure that all the maintenance works are delivered accordingly to the level of significance and vulnerability of the building’s fabric. It minimise the loss of authenticity by promoting minimal intervention and minimal loss of fabric principles as stressed by the Burra Charter and the New Zealand Charter. The relationship between good maintenance practice and good conservation practice is illustrated in the figure 2.

217

218


Figure 2. The relationship between good maintenance practice key themes in supporting the good conservation practice

Those key maintenance good practice themes is the significant ingredients in achieving good conservation practice. It is a primary activity that supports key building conservation principles of retaining maximum cultural significance values through a process of minimal intervention [10]. Therefore the disentanglement from one of these key themes may result in the abandonment of the application of conservation principles by the organization in their conservation management regime. Eventually this leads the management far from the accomplishment of good conservation practice as commenced by the international guidelines. As a result it will assign invalid effect for heritage building particularly with the world heritage status buildings.


6. Issues The UNESCO experts collectively noted that the heritage in Asia is under increasing threat from a various of forces. They observed these threats have too often resulted in negative consequences such as a dilapidation and structural deterioration of the fabric of the region’s built heritage [30]. Built heritages in Malaysia also share almost the same anxiety. Kamarul and A Ghafar [29], in their survey suggest that majority of historic buildings in Ipoh, George Town, Kuala Lumpur and Bandar Hilir Malacca experience a sign of building in poor condition. They conclude that the historic buildings were not conserved properly according to the basic principles and conservation guidelines. Amir and Robiah [8] insist that there were weaknesses in the approach of maintenance adopted for the conserved building in Malaysia. They identified that the processes recommended for good maintenance practice for built heritage seems to be disregarded. Thus Robiah and A Ghafar [31], presume that the non-existence of specific guidelines and an example of an established maintenance plan as a standard guideline that can assist the maintenance department is also overlooked. These anxious prodigies intrigued the following questions: a) Do the cultural significance values well identified, understood, clearly stated and disseminated at all level among the stakeholders especially the building’s owner and local community? b) What is the owner or occupiers attitude toward any actions carry out for their building as accordance to the understanding of cultural significance values of their particular building? c) How dedicate are owners or occupiers in doing or not doing maintenance for their building and what damage has been done? d) If they are fully dedicated in maintaining their historic building how closed do they follow the regonised good maintenance practice key themes and what has been their establishment all this while? 7. Conclusion and Recommendation These suggest that conservation activity in Malaysia is not being deemed as holistical as it is projected, though some of its built heritage is listed in the World Heritage Site. Good maintenance practice is one of the important perspectives that still leave a gap in the effective management strategies and processes for the protection and enhancement of its built cultural heritage in a sustainable way. Hence Universiti Technologi MARA proposed a research focuses on the adaptation of good conservation practice principles particularly in the maintenance aspect. The final aim of the study is to establish Malaysian conserved heritage buildings best practice maintenance guidelines. This study uses examples of good maintenance practice key themes as recognized globally in achieving good conservation practice. It attempts to understands the maturity levels of the current maintenance practice. In doing so, the study contributes to the early stages in the development of good maintenance practice framework. The framework would cultivate understanding and serve as a tool for informed decision making for more effective maintenance in built heritage management. The research finding would be useful in the preparation and improvement of the World Heritage Site Management Plan for Malaysia’s World Heritage Sites.

219

220


References [1] ICOMOS (1987) The Burra Charter. Australia [2] Feilden, B.,Jokilheto, J., 1993, Management Guidelines for World Cultural Heritage Sites, ICCROM. Rome [3] Jimmy Cheok – Siang Lim (1986). “Conservation – A Malaysian Experience A Case Study – Gedung Raja Abdullah, Klang”Paper presented in the international Conference on urban conservation and planning Penang Malaysia 23 – 24 june 1986. [4] Siti Norlizaiha Harun (2005). Amalan Kerja Pemuliharaan Bangunan Bersejarah di Malaysia. Tesis Ph.D, Universiti Sains Malaysia Pulau Pinang. [5] A Ghafar, A (2010), Pemuliharaan Bangunan Warisan di Malaysia Pengalaman dan Cabaran. Universiti Sains Malaysia Pulau Pinang [6] Zakiyudin, Z. A Study of Conservation Methods Adopted in Malaysia. Msc.in Integrated Project Management. Universiti Teknologi Mara, 2001 [7] Amir F, (2002); Conservation Maintenance Management. MA Dissertation. Sheffield Hallam University [8] Amir, F. M. I. & Robiah A, R. (2007). Conservation Maintenance Management of Historic Building in Malaysia – a Call for Establishing a Framework, Paper presented at Seminar Kebangsaan Rupa Bandar Malaysia – Mengekal Warisan Membina Identiti, 28 – 29 November 2007, Fakulti Senibina, Perancangan Dan Ukur, Universiti Teknologi Mara, Kampus Seri Iskandar, Perak [9] Yahaya Ahmad (2006). Scope and Implementation of Heritage Law in Malaysia. Paper Presented at Research Conference Proceeding on Asian Approaches to Conservation 3-5 October 2006. Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok Thailand. Access from http://www.unescobkk.org/fileadmin/user_upload/culture/AAHM/Asian_Approaches_toConservation.pdf on December 2009 [10] Worthing, D and Bond, S. (2008). Managing Built Heritage: The Role of Cultural Significance. Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Oxford. [11] Dann, N & Cantell, T (2007). Maintenance in conservation. In Forsyth, M (edit.) (2007) Understanding historic building conservation. Blackwell publishing. Oxford [12] The University of the West of England, 2003. Maintaining Value. Final Report Submitted to Maintain our Heritage The University of the West of England Bristol. Access from http://www.maintainourheritage.co.uk/index.html on various dates from Jan. 2009 to April 2010 [13] UNESCO World Heritage Centre (2008 b). Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention. Place de Fontenoy, Paris. Access from http://whc.unesco.org/en/guidelines on various dates from Jan. to May 2010 [14] English Heritage 2008. Conservation Principles Policies and Guidance For the Sustainable Management of the Historic Environment. English Heritage. London. Access from http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/upload/pdf/Conservation_Principles_Policies_and_Guidance_April08_Web.pdf?1271474705 on May 2010 [15] Aylin Orbasli 2008. Architectural Conservation. Blackwell Publishing, Oxford [16] Cherry, M (2007). Architectural history and conservation. In Forsyth, M (edit.) (2007) Understanding historic building conservation. Blackwell publishing. Oxford [17] Robertson, M (2007). Conservation and authenticity. In Forsyth, M (edit.) (2007) Understanding historic building conservation. Blackwell publishing. Oxford [18] Bell, D. (1997). Historic Scotland Guide to International Conservation Charters, Technical Note 8 ICOMOS (1994). Historic Scotland Edinburgh [19] Forsyth, M (2007). The past in the future. In Forsyth, M (edit.) (2007) Understanding historic building conservation. Blackwell publishing. Oxford


[20] The Getty Conservation Institute 2000. Values and Heritage Conservation. Research Report. The Getty Conservation Institute, Los Angeles. Access from http://www.getty.edu/conservation/publications/pdf_publications/valuesrpt.pdf on various dates from 2009 to February 2010. [21] A Ghaffar A. (2007) Mengekal Warisan Dan Membina Identiti Bandar Bersejarah Di Malaysia. Paper presented at The Seminar Kebangsaan Rupa Bandar Malaysia – Mengekal Warisan Membina Identiti 28 – 29 November 2007, Fakulti Senibina, Perancangan Dan Ukur, Universiti Teknologi Mara, Kampus Seri Iskandar, Perak. [22] Dann, N and Wood, S (2004). Tensions and omission in Maintenance Management advice for historic building. Structural Survey, Volume 22, Issue 3 MCB University Press Edinburgh. [23] Pickard, R.D. (1996) Conservation In The Built Environment. Longman Harlow [24] Earl, J. (1996) Building conservation Philosophy. The College of Estate Management [25] English Heritage 2004. Grants for Historic Buildings, Monuments and Designed Landscapes. Maintenance Plans. Access from http://www.englishheritage.org.uk/upload/pdf/HBMDL_Maintenance_Plan.pdf?1272264501 on July 2010 [26] Brereton, C. (1995) The Repair Of Historic Buildings: Advice on Principles and Method. English Heritage Swindon British Standard Institute, 1998, A Guide to the Principles of Conservation of Historic Buildings BS 7913:1998, British Standard Institute London [27] Bill Martin 2009. Putting the principles into practice. Conservation bulletin, Issue 60, Spring 2009. Access from http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/publications/conservation-bulletin-60/ on various dates on October 2010 [28] Government Departments in Scotland (1994). The Care of Historic Buildings & Ancient Monuments. Conservation Unit, Department of National Heritage. Edinburgh. [29] Kamarul S K, A. Ghafar A (2008) Kajian Lapangan ke Atas Bangunan Bersejarah di Malaysia Dari Aspek Kecacatan Bangunan dan Pemuliharaan.Paper presented at Seminar Penyelidikan Siswazah Alam Bina. Fakulti Senibina, Perancangan Dan Ukur, Universiti Teknologi Mara, Kampus Seri Iskandar, Perak. [30] UNESCO Bankok (2009) Hoi An Protocol for Best Conservation Practice in Asia: Professional Guidelines for Assuring and Preservation the Authenticity of Heritage Sites in the Contex of the Cultures of Asia. UNESCO Bangkok [31] Robiah A. R. & A Ghafar A. (2008) Overview of Maintenance Approaches of Historical Buildings in Kuala Lumpur – A Current Practice, Paper presented at Proceeding of Post Graduate Research Colloquium, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Pulau Pinang

221