Spatial Mapping of ‘People–Place Ties’ as an Integral Part of Heritage Management Process

Abstract

Cultural manifestations of communities imbue deep-rooted meanings to places and establish intricate webs of relationships between people and places. These relationships cohesively add to the unique heritage of any place. In this era of urbanization, these webs are getting ruptured to make way for a globalized, homogenized and incoherent built environment leading to the loss of meanings, associations and identities. With the increasing recognition for the need of a holistic heritage management in both national and global platforms, a probe towards formulating a framework for such interventions becomes extremely essential today.

This article signifies the role of spatial mapping of ‘people–place ties’ in the heritage management process. The methodology of documenting community–place relationships, mapping and interpreting maps to form a basis for interventions is demonstrated by taking the case of Puri, India. A number of research methods such as mental maps, essays and precoded questionnaire surveys have been used. To visualize this qualitative aspect, choropleth maps have been generated with the help of Geographic Information System (GIS) to be compared for residents of various age groups to interpret built environment qualities which need to be conserved/intervened. Thus, this process could be a part of a framework designed to sensitively intervene in rapidly transforming morphologies of heritage cities and help in sustaining and reinforcing their ‘place identity’.

Keywords

People–place ties spatial mapping heritage cities perception

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Alexander

, Neis

, Anninou

, & King

(1987). A new theory of urban design. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Altman

, & Low

S. M.

(1992). Place attachment. New York, NY: Plenum Press.

Breakwell

(Ed.). (1983). Threatened identities. Chichester, UK: Wiley.

Canter

(1977). A psychology of place. London, UK: Architectural Press.

Census (2011). Puri Town City Census 2011 data. Retrieved 31 August 2017, from https://www.census2011.co.in/census/city/271-puri-town.html

Cross

J. E.

(2015). Processes of place attachment: An interactional framework. Symbolic Interaction, 38(4), 493–520.

ESRI (2016). ArcGIS for Desktop. Retrieved 8 August 2017, from http://desktop.arcgis.com/en/arcmap/10.3/tools/3d-analyst-toolbox/how-idw-works.htm

Greg

, & Palmer

(2010). Eventful cities. Oxford, UK: Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann.

Habraken

N. J.

(2000). The structure of the ordinary: Form and control in the built environment. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

10.

Hague

, & Jenkins

(2005). Place identity, participation and planning. Oxfordshire: Routledge

11.

Hayden

(1997). The power of place: Urban landscapes as public history. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

12.

IPE Global Pvt. Ltd, CRCI (India) Pvt. Ltd (2016). City HRIDAY plan for Puri (Vol. I, p. 64). New Delhi: NIUA and MoUD.

13.

Korpela

K. M.

, Hartig

, Kaiser

F. G.

, & Fuhrer

(2001). Restorative experience and self-regulation in favorite places. Environment and Behavior, 33, 572–589.

14.

Kyle

, Graefe

, Manning

, & Bacon

(2004). Effects of place attachment on users’ perceptions of social and environmental conditions in a natural setting. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24(2), 213–225.

15.

Kyle

, Mowen

, & Tarrant

(2004). Linking Place Preferences With Place Meaning: An Examination of the Relationship Between Place Motivation and Place Attachment. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24, 439–454.

16.

Lewicka

(2008). Place attachment, place identity and place memory: Restoring the forgotten city past. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 28(3), 209–231.

17.

Liu

J. H.

, & Hilton

D. J.

(2005). How the past weighs on the present: Social representations of history and their role in identity politics. British Journal of Social Psychology, 44(4), 537–556.

18.

MoUD

(2015). HRIDAY. Retrieved from http://hridayindia.in/

19.

Norberg-Schulz

(1979). Genius loci: Towards a phenomenology of architecture. New York, NY: Rizzoli.

20.

Proshansky

(1978). The self and the city. Environment and Behavior, 10(2), 147–169.

21.

Raban

(1974). Soft city. London, UK: The Harvill Press.

22.

Relph

(1976). Place and placelessness. London, UK: Pion.

23.

Seamon

(2013). Place attachment and phenomenology: The synergistic. In Manzo

L. C.

& Wright

P. D.

(Eds.), Place attachment: Advances in theory, methods, and applications (pp. 11–22). New York, NY: Routledge.

24.

Sepe

(2013). Planning and place in the city: Mapping place identity. Oxon: Routledge.

25.

Speller

G. M.

, Lyons

E. L.

, & Twigger-Ross

(2002). A community in transition: The relationship between spatial change and identity process. Social Psychological Review, 4(2), 39–58.

26.

Southworth

, & Ruggeri

(2010). Beyond Placelessness, Place Identity and the Global City. In Banerjee

& Loukaitou-Sideris

(Eds.), Companion to Urban Design (pp. 495–509). London and New York: Routledge.

27.

Stokols

, & Shumaker

S. A.

(1981). People in places: A transactional view of settings. In Harvey

J. H.

(Ed.), Cognition, social behavior and the environment (pp. 441–488). Newark, NJ: Erlbaum.

28.

Tuan

Y.-F.

(1974). Topophilia. New York, NY: Prentice-Hall.

29.

Tuan

Y.-F.

(1980). Rootedness versus sense of place. Landscape, 24(1), 3–8.

30.

Twigger-Ross

C. L.

, & Uzzell

D. L.

(1996). Place and identity processes. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 16(3), 205–220.

31.

UN (2016). HABITAT III. Retrieved from https://habitat3.org/programme/socio-cultural-urban-frameworks/

32.

UN-DESA. (n.d.). Sustainable development. Retrieved from https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/sdg11