Abstract
This qualitative case study article explicated the perspectives of the stakeholders regarding the urbanization of heritage properties, specifically the old, walled area of Intramuros in the city of Manila with respect to the construction of the Filipino-Chinese Friendship Bridge (or the bridge). This study begins with a documentation analysis involving the collection of researches related to the subject and in-depth interviews with the different stakeholders, specifically the national and local government, the private sectors and the host community in Intramuros and Binondo. The case study approach is incorporated in the study to discern the issues arising from the subject site, while a thematic analysis is used as the most suitable technique to analyse the findings. The outcomes reveal the different viewpoints of the stakeholders concerning the matters in constructing the Filipino–Chinese Friendship Bridge between Intramuros and Binondo. In this context, authorities such as the government and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) should establish regulations that seek to protect and conserve the different heritage properties, as well as balance the demands for rapid urbanization. Due to the urban development, the integrity and significance of heritage properties are being compromised, which may result in the degradation of the local properties’ identity and culture.
Keywords
Introduction
In order to accommodate the growing demands and needs of people, the inevitable act of urbanization takes place. Every country is mobilizing the benefits of brisk urbanization by making its cities more competitive, inclusive and supervised. In East Asia and the Pacific, the Philippines is now in the midst of making an impact on the world for being one of the fastest urbanizing and industrializing countries (Baker & Watanabe, 2017). Urbanization in heritage sites, globally and nationally, affects the identity of the people, physical integrity, ambiance and the locals in these sites (Shamsuddin et al., 2012). According to Zhang et al. (2018), in Asia, there has been a decline in the historic environment and built heritage, which was the result of a highly brisk and unsystematic urbanization. If the urbanization process is not well thought out and the planning does not take everything into consideration, it can harm different heritage infrastructure and other environmental resources of a society. Most Asian countries face the demand for urbanization but at times can neglect conserving and protecting their identity and to continue the flow of the grandness of their culture and heritage (Kiruthiga & Thirumaran, 2019). The replacement and adjustments of recently built infrastructures with new construction eliminates the cultural and social aspect of a destination and can possibly eradicate the local people’s identity and sense of place (Yung et al., 2017). Therefore, certain issues arising from urbanization greatly affect the cultural and social elements of a society. These issues must be addressed in order to find solutions on how to maintain a balance between urbanization and heritage sites’ preservation.
One of the main concerns of many countries is balancing the conflict between urbanization and conservation of heritage properties (Tam et al., 2016). Due to the rapid economic expansion, the protection of heritage sites worldwide has not been sufficiently given enough focus. Based on the statistical analysis of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), buildings and development is the second most serious hazard, after social and environmental hazards (Veillon & UNESCO World Heritage Centre, 2014). In this context, there are issues concerning the urbanization of heritage properties globally. Some examples include Dresden Elbe Valley and Waldschlösschen Bridge in Germany. In 2004, Dresden Elbe Valley was marked as a cultural landscape. Thus, the World Heritage Committee (WHC) decided to delete the said attraction from the UNESCO World Heritage List in 2009, because it failed to maintain the cultural significance of the area or the Outstanding Universal Value (OUV) (Georgia State University, 2019) due to the construction of a four-lane bridge at the core of the Dresden Elbe Valley (UNESCO, 2009). Second is the case of Oman’s Arabian Oryx Sanctuary, which was the first site to be removed from the World Heritage List. The sanctuary serves as a habitat for various types of flora and fauna and different endangered species. The WHC delisted the sanctuary from the list of UNESCO’s World Heritage Sites (WHSs) because of their decision of reducing 90 per cent size of the protected area, which neglects the operational guidelines provided by the Convention (UNESCO, 2007). In the Philippine setting, cases such as that of the Rizal Monument and Torre de Manila in Luneta Park faced criticism for spoiling the view from behind the statue commemorating the Philippines’ national hero, Dr Jose Rizal (Marquez & Garcia, 2015), together with the case of the San Pedro Church in Loboc, Bohol and the construction of the bridge which threatened its destruction, were among those disputed issues. In fact, the construction of the bridge did not push through due to the objections of the public (Sembrano, 2018). Indeed, urban development is not really destructive, but it has become a main concern because of poor planning, hazard growth and government actions that threaten the heritage properties (Tatarusanu & Iatu, 2018).
Stakeholders’ perspectives are important to determine and to consider, especially on conceptualizing and implementing programmes and projects for heritage development and urbanization. As stated by Convencido et al. (2019), considerations and analysis of stakeholders’ perspectives can enhance and develop development in a heritage property by balancing changes and conservation. In the context of heritage and urbanization, some of the stakeholders are: ‘national and local government; heritage property management body, local community, urban and rural developers; heritage conservation advocates, business and private sectors such as tourism; academic and expert group; media, architectural and engineering firms; and visitors and other people who appreciates heritage’ (Wang et al., 2019). Their perspectives must be documented, analysed and considered for conceptualizing programmes and projects for heritage properties, which will enhance the significance of sustainable development and conservation. This will strengthen the importance of value-based conservation of heritage properties based on the narratives, situations and experiences of the concerned stakeholders (Yildirim, 2015). In the course of rapid urbanization in heritage properties, it is highly significant to determine the perspectives and plans of the immediate stakeholders, especially those on balancing the contexts of development and conservation (Udeaja et al., 2020). From this sustainable action, one can comprehensively study the impacts and effects of certain development programmes in a heritage entity and provide appropriate actions that could benefit the economic, socio-cultural and environmental aspects.
After a successful establishment of the community in Cebu (or also known during that time as Ciudad de Santisimo Nombre de Jesus) in January 1571, the Spaniards, led by Miguel Lopez de Legazpi, moved up north of the Philippines because of problems in food supply and security (Javellana, 1997). At first, the Spaniards transferred to Panay island, but because of insufficiency in food supply, especially for foreigners, they decided to transfer to up north of the archipelago. In the same year, they explored Manila as a potential area to transfer to. After conquering the town, Legazpi ordered to build a fortification which is located at ‘a tongue of land at the mouth of the Pasig river’ (Javellana, 1997). Figure 1 is a figural representation of Intramuros built by the Spaniards. It is a 1734 map from Carta Hydrographica y Chorographica de las Yslas Filipinas by Pedro Murillo Velarde et al. (1734). The Spaniards retain the word Manila as the name of the town. Manila came from the word nilad, which means a flowering plant abundant in Pasig river (Javellana, 1997). The walled city, known today as Intramuros, is considered as the seat of governance, trade and commerce, education and Catholic religiosity during the Spanish era in the Philippines (Laya, 2001). This was developed through time by Spanish conquistadors due to the emerging need to develop a Spanish colonial town. Today, there are still tangible historical remains of Spanish colonization. One of these is the San Agustin Church and Monastery, which is declared as one of the UNESCO WHSs under the title of the Baroque Churches of the Philippines (Javellana, 2017). Intramuros is forever a tangible legacy of the Spaniards given to the Filipinos, which highly contributes as a tourist destination managed by the Intramuros Administration (IA) of the Department of Tourism (DOT) (IA, 2020), as a seat of Catholic religiosity under the Archdiocese of Manila (RCAM, 2020) and as one of Manila’s educational districts, having Colegio de San Juan de Letran, Lyceum of the Philippines University, Mapua University and the Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila.
The Filipino–Chinese Friendship Bridge (or the bridge) is already a finalized deal between the Philippine and Chinese governments in 2017 through a bilateral cooperation (Adel, 2019). In Figure 2, it provides a figural representation of the proposed Filipino-Chinese Friendship Bridge. This bridge is part of the 12 proposed bridges by the Department of Public Works and Highway (DPWH), which have the main purpose of alleviating the traffic in the country. It is an under-construction bridge worth 4.2 billion pesos and is funded by China through the Duterte administration’s Build, Build, Build programme. This project was undertaken to ease the traffic congestion in Manila, particularly in the Lawton area (Felipe, 2018). Based from different experts and specialists’ opinions on heritage conservation and development, the proposed bridge will affect the cultural integrity of the heritage properties in the walled area of Intramuros (Sembrano, 2018). Apart from that, it will also affect the current UNESCO designation that was given to San Agustin Church and Monastery, as Intramuros is the buffer zone of the Baroque Churches of the Philippines (Sembrano, 2018).
The research article focuses on highlighting the different perspectives of the stakeholders on the current issue of the urbanization of Intramuros with the current plan of the construction of the Filipino–Chinese Friendship Bridge. This article seeks to fulfil the following objectives: to identify the current issues arising from the construction of the Filipino–Chinese Friendship Bridge, specifically in the context of urbanization of Intramuros as a heritage property; to determine the perspectives of the stakeholders on the construction of the Filipino–Chinese Friendship Bridge with regard to Intramuros; and to discuss the recommendations of the stakeholders on the sustainability of Intramuros as a heritage property with regard to the construction of the Filipino–Chinese Friendship Bridge.
The research article raises to examine possible positive and negative effects and threats of urbanization in heritage properties. It aims to prioritize the preservation of the heritage sites and save them from destruction because of the development of several urbanization projects. This will also serve as a basis in establishing future plans and programmes regarding modernization in and around heritage properties of the country based on the perspectives of the stakeholders. The decision-making body should always consider development that would not be at the expense of the destruction of the culture and heritage of the country. It will also be beneficial to the local community in Intramuros, as their livelihood and lifestyle will be greatly affected by the sudden sustainable development. Lastly, this seeks to raise cultural awareness and sensitivity about heritage difficulties and conflicts and, afterwards, recommend strategies that can sustain the heritage sites’ integrity for the future generations of the country.
Materials and Method
Design
The research used a qualitative design, specifically using the case study approach to comprehensively highlight the perspectives of the stakeholders based on their own thoughts, opinions, knowledge, expertise and experiences. It concentrated on documenting the perspectives of stakeholders affected by the construction of the Filipino–Chinese Friendship Bridge. Table 1 is a summarized tabular representation of the research materials and methods used.
Tabular Representation of the Summarized Research Materials and Methods
Subject and Study Site
The participants in this study represented each stakeholder involved and affected by the construction of the Filipino–Chinese Friendship Bridge. All of them are credible administrators, chairpersons, heads and directors in their respective agencies or departments and are knowledgeable about the topic of balancing urbanization and conservation of heritage properties. Table 2 is a tabular representation of the research participants and their responsibility, contribution, expertise or connection in line with the construction of the bridge.
Tabular Representation of the Research Participants and Their Responsibility, Contribution, Expertise or Connection in Line with the Construction of the Bridge
Data Measure
In collecting data for a qualitative research, the most common method used by researchers is an interview. According to Barrett and Twycross (2018), an in-depth interview ‘provides the most direct and straightforward approach in gathering more about a person’s opinion in detailed and discovering new issues about a particular case in a thorough manner’ (p. 63–64). Results from the interview aided the researchers to have more understanding of each stakeholder’s perspective since they are the ones who know more about the issue. The researchers invited each stakeholder for a face-to-face interview. Another method that was used by the researchers was documentation analysis, wherein the researchers looked for journals related to their study and read it to know if there were certain topics that could help them by providing information that would be beneficial to the research. Printed or electronic written material could be used as a basis in reviewing topics related to the study that could help the researchers in incorporating information. It can be used to provide supplementary research data, background information and broad coverage of a certain topic, which are therefore helpful in analysing contexts related to the study.
Data Collection Procedure and Ethical Consideration
The researchers’ initial step in collecting information was to assess and identify all the stakeholders involved who have expertise regarding the study. Thereafter, organization and distribution of communication letters to the stakeholders were made possible. The letters were accompanied by interview questions for each stakeholder to be prepared before the interview process. The interview questions have undergone a face validity process to ensure that the questions asked were appropriate and would answer the objectives of the study. As soon as each of the stakeholders gave consent to participate in an interview during their preferred date and time, the researchers proceeded with the research field work. The research team was divided into two groups to immediately administer the in-depth interview to the 16 stakeholders. The researchers analysed what transpired during the interview by transcribing the answers of the stakeholders and highlighting all the significant details that were considered essential for the study. Immediately after, the findings were further examined and determined through the use of thematic analysis, with their explanation and interpretation manifested in research writing. Hence, anonymity and confidentiality were strictly followed to protect the subjects. Conditions for the request of anonymity were the following: they do not want to be held accountable for their statements; and their answers do not reflect the point of view of their respective cultural agency. Figure 3 is a figural representation of the data collection procedure of the research.
Data Explication/Mode of Analysis
According to Braun and Clarke (2006), thematic analysis is an extensively used method of analysis in qualitative research. It focuses on clustering the collected findings that are needed to be identified and defined. Given that the researchers sought to explain the perspectives of the stakeholders regarding urbanization of heritage tourism properties, thematic analysis was used as the most suitable technique for analysing the findings. Through thematic analysis, the researchers determined broad patterns regarding urban development and heritage conservation that led them in framing a more specific analysis (Boyatzis, 1998).
Findings
A Vicious Cycle: The Current Issues in the Construction of the Filipino– Chinese Friendship Bridge
In the context of any programme or project on the urbanization and conservation of a heritage property, it must consider the current issues arising from it, especially those based on the perspectives of the stakeholders. In the case of Intramuros and the construction of the Filipino–Chinese Friendship Bridge, it was highlighted that there are 11 major issues grouped into three categories based on the matrix of sustainable development: economic, socio-cultural and environmental aspects. Figure 4 is a summarized figural representation of the current issues in the construction of the bridge.
In the context of the economic aspect, there are four major issues: traffic management, employability, tourism and urbanization. Stakeholders mentioned that vehicular traffic would arise once the construction of the bridge is completed. According to the DPWH and the IA, the main purpose of the bridge is to alleviate traffic in metro Manila, specifically in Jones Bridge and Del Pan Bridge. However, it was concluded by most stakeholders that the bridge might not alleviate the traffic but rather aggravate it. In the Binondo area, the concerns about traffic congestion revolve around the schools and buildings that are situated along roads that are accessible from the bridge. There would be a direct effect on Intramuros, since there would be more traffic in the main road. In addition, vehicles would choose to pass through the smaller streets along the heritage properties in Intramuros and Binondo. Other negative insights on traffic is that diverting traffic into the country’s most important tourist attractions and historic sites in Manila may kill the tourist experience. Furthermore, the stakeholders stated that Intramuros is already an urbanized area; thus, no urbanization would take place anymore. It should not be influenced by the developmental pressures from inside and outside of Intramuros. Instead, heritage should always be a part of the development for economic success. One of the stakeholders believes that the past should be integrated with the present. People should always compromise their appreciation of heritage with the development of an urban setting or landscape. On the other hand, the local community of Binondo perceived that culture and heritage are not important anymore, and instead, more developments should be done and people should not dwell in the past, in order to have economic progress. On the other hand, the local community in Intramuros saw the construction as an opportunity of employment for some of their residents. Their residents were offered a job but were eventually dismissed since there was an increase in the number of Chinese workers. This meant that the livelihoods in Divisoria, a nearby commercial centre in Manila, would also thrive because of the easier access going in and out of that area.
The socio-cultural aspect is also important in determining the issues and concerns of the stakeholders. In the research, there are three highlighted issues, namely Filipino heritage and identity, heritage management and governance. In the context of heritage management, if a country has a declared UNESCO WHS, there exists an agreement to protect the core and the buffer zones of that site between the state party and UNESCO. The Philippine government is the one responsible, because it nominated the Baroque Churches of the Philippines as a UNESCO WHS, and not the churches themselves. Once San Agustin Church is delisted as a UNESCO WHS, the management of the church cannot take any action about it. The DPWH confirmed that UNESCO was aware about the bridge and that it was the National Commission for Culture and the Arts (NCCA) that communicated with them. According to the management of the San Agustin Museum, the construction of the said bridge contradicted the allowable level of development in Intramuros. Due to the violation of not protecting the buffer zone, San Agustin Church and Monastery, along with the other three churches (San Agustin Church in Paoay, Ilocos Norte; Nuestra Señora dela Asuncion in Sta. Maria, Ilocos Sur; and Santo Tomas de Villanueva Church in Miag-ao, Iloilo) under the serial property declaration as the Baroque Churches of the Philippines, is now on the road to be delisted as a UNESCO WHS. The delisting of San Agustin Church would adversely affect the tourist visitation in the area. In line with this, governance and responsibilities of the stakeholders are in a questionable state. The construction of the bridge was more complicated than other government projects because of its political aspect, since China was involved in the agreement, thus making it a priority project. Moreover, some of the stakeholders questioned the government as to why it is prioritizing the construction of the bridge when in fact the bridge would not bring any benefit at all. The stakeholders also placed emphasis on how the government and the cultural agencies should be accountable for all the consequences that the construction of the bridge would bring not only to the Baroque Churches of the Philippines or the walled area of Intramuros but to the entire country. The government clarified that it would shoulder any cultural damages only if it was proven that the bridge indeed contributed damages to the heritage structures in Binondo and Intramuros. Since it is part of the Build, Build, Build project of the Duterte administration, the stakeholders involved do not have a choice but to accept it, because the final decision would only depend on the higher-ups. As a result, the existence of the bridge became non-negotiable, since it is in the hands of the People’s Republic of China. The cultural agencies assumed that they did not have the right to oppose and could only provide advice. The bridge served as a grant from the Chinese government wherein the Philippines would not be spending or disbursing any amount of money. As stated by one of the stakeholders, the main reason why China opted to grant a bridge to the Philippines was so that the growth and development of China can be attributed mainly to building infrastructures such as bridges and roads. In addition, all stakeholders highlighted the importance of having a consultation first before proceeding with any construction projects. On the other hand, it was also evident that not all were knowledgeable about the bridge and the UNESCO WHS. Most stakeholders were informed but not consulted regarding the construction of the bridge, to avoid any opposition. Thus, they did not have any participation in the decision-making. However, the consultation is ongoing and has started since July 2018, as confirmed by an anonymous participant. One of the stakeholders emphasized that most of the recommendations fell on deaf ears and stated that dialogue with the concerned cultural agencies was useless because there was already a decision made. According to the DPWH, opposition letters were asked from the stakeholders regarding the construction of the bridge, but none of them opposed the construction. Permits from the different stakeholders were to be acquired and clearances from the city government of Manila, local communities and the IA were to be received. Certain policies were established to protect heritage properties in the country, such as Presidential Decree (PD) No. 1616. ICOMOS Philippines also added that the urban scale of 1890 should be observed during construction.
Finally, in the environmental aspect, the stakeholders highlighted four issues: location and jurisdiction, built heritage stability, disaster resiliency and conservation. One of the questions that needed clarification was determining under whose jurisdiction the construction of the Filipino–Chinese Friendship Bridge fell. This reflected the ways how cultural agencies and involved parties manage heritage properties of the country. One of the stakeholders stated that the bridge is legally outside of Intramuros. However, according to the DPWH, the IA still has the authority in the area. Moreover, some of the stakeholders supported this claim, since the effects of this bridge are within their jurisdiction.
Most stakeholders stated that one of the major issues with the construction of the bridge would have an indirect effect on the stability of the built heritage sites in Intramuros, which was the vibrations from the ongoing construction. Other than its effects on Intramuros, one of the stakeholders emphasized that a nearby historical building named Aduana is currently in a vulnerable condition and that there is a risk of liquefaction during piling. Other affected buildings were the Ayuntamiento building and the head office of the Bureau of Immigration. However, the government stated that the bridge would not do any physical damage to Intramuros and San Agustin Church, since the bridge is 500 m away from the church. The engineer also mentioned that the current design of the bridge would not affect the heritage structure, particularly the Aduana building, as they would adopt a split ramp so it would not directly hit the building. The structures along the way would serve as natural barriers that would not create any vibration. Figure 5 is a figural representation of the distances between the different heritage properties in Intramuros and the bridge.
The stakeholders also emphasized the importance of conducting a conservation management plan, physical investigation and environmental impact assessment before pushing through any development projects. One of the stakeholders also highlighted that incorporating these studies was usually a part of international best practice in heritage management. In contrast, the DPWH claimed that there had already been a feasibility study done before the construction of the bridge since the year 2016. But the IA confirmed that there was no heritage impact assessment or conservation management plan study before the construction of the bridge. Despite the lack of studies, the IA clarified that they had given the DPWH a conditional clearance which stated considerations. The IA also emphasized that the development was allowed as long as it conformed to PD No. 1616, which served as the framework for the preservation and protection of Intramuros. The DPWH mentioned that they even stopped the construction temporarily to comply with the conditions of the IA and UNESCO’s request for Intramuros’ conservation management plan.
A Culmination of Prospects: Perspectives of the Stakeholders on the Construction of the Filipino–Chinese Friendship Bridge and the Urbanization of Intramuros as a Heritage Property
On the context of urbanization and development, especially regarding the construction of the Filipino–Chinese Friendship Bridge, the stakeholders highlighted four aspects: sustainable development, cultural significance, socio-economic significance and heritage education. Figure 6 is a figural representation of the perspectives of the stakeholders. An effective heritage sustainable development of Intramuros is crucial and essential. The government claimed that the bridge would not damage the identity of Intramuros. Urban development was seen as permissible, in fact inevitable, as long as it conformed to the Filipino–Spanish architecture design of Intramuros. However, there would be an added challenge for the administration to complete the walls of Intramuros. All stakeholders share the same belief that the sustainable development of Intramuros is vital. The maintenance of the site is equated to the preservation of its cultural identity. The government also highlighted that heritage conservation in the midst of urban development can be achieved through proper impact assessment, advanced methodologies and effective implementation of the project with a keen focus on sustainable development. Heritage conservation must be seen as an opportunity to further develop tourism, and to generate income from it, not merely as a means to preserve identity and its material culture for the sake of urbanization. One of the stakeholders stated that development must not heavily compromise heritage. Intramuros, being a widely acknowledged heritage tourism property, indeed has a deemed cultural importance to the Filipinos.
The government stated that there is constant communication and consultation with all other relevant parties. According to the San Agustin Church, they had conducted a series of meetings and dialogues with the other Baroque Churches’ managements regarding the issue. San Agustin Church and the DPWH highlighted that before making any renovations at the site, it is important to conduct a conscientious consultation with all the relevant stakeholders involved. Since the cultural agencies all belonged to one united government, they have common sentiments regarding the construction of the bridge. They claim that the bridge would actually not affect the title of Intramuros being a National Cultural Treasure (NCT) and National Historical Landmark (NHL), since the titles cannot be revoked.
The local community of Intramuros also shared the same view, that the construction of the bridge would not have a significant damaging or detrimental effect on their community. One of the stakeholders also added that it would not increase tourism nor attract more tourists. Some stakeholders were neutral and had no objections regarding the Filipino–Chinese Friendship, since it was given free, but others think that it is better not to construct the bridge at all. Although there were stakeholders who were against the construction of the bridge, it was difficult to figure out how to get the public’s involvement to protest, especially when there was no direct and apparent benefit to them.
One of the stakeholders stated that Intramuros holds the historical and cultural heart and soul of the Philippine nation. It was best understood in relation to its surroundings—particularly the neighbourhoods of Binondo and San Nicolas. The academe also mentioned that preserving old buildings and attractions within the walls of Intramuros was crucial as they contribute to heritage tourism and heritage appreciation. However, according to San Agustin Church, there are a number of informal settlers who are the immediate community within the vicinity of Intramuros who simply cannot comprehend the importance of heritage. ICOMOS Philippines added that one of the biggest deterrents to heritage is apathy. In order for the local community to appreciate the importance of a heritage site, the agencies need to recalibrate their ways for a better understanding of its significance. Heritage appreciation is recognizing and paying tribute to the heritage. This means not only educating the local communities but also serving all the members of the community.
Vested Interest: Providing Power to the Best Course of Action
At the end of determining the stakeholders’ perspectives, it is important to know their recommendations, especially those regarding promoting sustainable development in a heritage property. Based on the research, the stakeholders highlighted seven general recommendations, which are related to management, legislation and policy, development, finance, conservation, stakeholders’ participation and education and interpretation. In Figure 7, it provides a figural representation of the recommendations of the stakeholders. Various stakeholders agree that it is important to hold consultations, meetings and conservation arguments with the involved parties of the project to know the preventive measures to be taken. With this, San Agustin Church called the attention of the three other baroque churches to create an official statement in order to address the issue about the construction of the bridge. There should be proper planning in any heritage management, because it will be very hard to make adjustments once the bridge is already built. San Agustin Church added that it is better to redesign the bridge so that it will conform to the architectural design of Intramuros.
Different heritage policies are emphasized in protecting and conserving Intramuros. Some of the stakeholders mentioned that all institutions should be aware about their policies and mandates and knowledgeable about what they are protecting in the first place in pursuing any urban development project. In addition, one of the stakeholders highlighted that there should be laws about restricting construction in a heritage property. An anonymous participant cited that the implementation of the heritage law is one of the ways of advocating heritage preservation. Encouraging local government units to install local markers on their own heritage sites and structures to physically express the sites’ significance can materialize the said law. Most stakeholders emphasized the significance of abiding by Republic Act (RA) No. 10066, which encompasses the protection and preservation of historical sites. Both the IA and the local community also agreed that PD No. 1616 should be followed and be the top consideration of all developments in Intramuros.
As for developing infrastructure in Intramuros, instead of constructing a new bridge in the middle of Jones Bridge and Del Pan Bridge, most stakeholders suggest that it is better to just expand or renovate the existing bridges. The local community expresses that the only solution for the problem of balancing heritage and urbanization is to build a small place or building for transferring a part of or the whole heritage forever to that building. San Agustin Church asserts that it is better to stop the construction or just transfer the bridge outside the buffer zone of the church. According to the local community of Intramuros and the academe, if the main purpose of the bridge is to alleviate traffic in Manila, it is much recommended to build a skyway at the port area. Most of the stakeholders highlighted to change plan of constructing a vehicular bridge and make it into a pedestrian bridge.
Every stakeholder does have different perspectives on how to conserve and protect heritage sites, especially Intramuros. Examples of such strategies are: converting entire Intramuros into a site museum, stopping the development and the introduction of modern structures. The decision-making bodies should go back to their roots and make their primary objectives as their guidelines in incorporating heritage as part of the development plan. The stakeholders must be convinced about preserving heritage because it contributes to their livelihood and well-being, and not the other way around.
With the emergence of issues in heritage management, the IA mentioned that they are continuously conducting various heritage management projects. The said agency also implements a community plan, which makes Intramuros more pedestrian-friendly. It should also be taken into consideration that the vitality of controlling the tourists who enter and exit a site will result in either increasing or decreasing the integrity of the site. The academe also highlighted that if every individual is aware of the carrying capacity of each area in Manila, then development can easily be controlled. Having a carrying capacity is an indication that you cannot go further and develop more than the limitations and restrictions of the site or attraction. Once the development goes beyond what is expected, the heritage site will certainly experience destruction or degradation.
Heritage preservation must be inclusive and should involve the environment and the community living in Intramuros. The local community must realize how relevant and major their role is in maintaining orderliness and cleanliness, because how they are as a community mirrors the identity of Intramuros in the eyes of the public. The cultural significance of Intramuros must be understood and be fully realized first for the locals to be active in conserving the walled area of Intramuros and the heritage structures being encompassed by it.
As perceived by the academe, the public’s participation in protecting the identity of Intramuros as an NCT and San Agustin Church as a UNESCO WHS can be reflected in their investments inside Intramuros, such as hotels and residences. These investments can be also used for bringing back Intramuros to the way it used to be.
Most stakeholders view heritage education as a must in conveying the cultural and historical significance of Intramuros. As stated by the academe, there should be visual documentaries showcasing the importance of the heritage sites for not only the local community but also all over the world. They also highlighted that schools should integrate the importance of preservation of cultural and historical sites. It is also important to emphasize that heritage issues should be seen more by the public by using different social media platforms such as Facebook, Twitter and Instagram, to ensure that everybody is informed and aware of the historical significance of Intramuros. The government conveyed the importance of Intramuros and other heritage properties by conducting a storytelling programme for the local community and showing results of years of maintenance and cleanliness in Intramuros. According to an anonymous participant, having regular programmes and conducting promotional activities such as seminars, workshops and exhibits in a museum were ways to encourage public participation.
Discussion
Various frameworks and policies are evident in the study, because it focuses on the preservation of the national heritage properties of the Philippines, specifically in Intramuros. The issue revolves around the construction of the Filipino–Chinese Friendship Bridge for the sole purpose of alleviating traffic in the areas of Intramuros and Binondo. The bridge provides pedestrian accessibility within the cities on both sides of the river and helps in the reduction of heavy traffic. However, these perceived benefits would greatly be undermined if the one-way traffic system were implemented. The provision of implementing different studies and researches implied by the stakeholders is supported by RA No. 10066 Rule IV Section 30 (Congress of the Philippines, 2010) and by the Historic Urban Landscape (HUL) (UNESCO, 2011) framework; the latter states the need to conform to heritage and archaeological studies before pursuing any development. The communication between UNESCO and NCCA is strongly highlighted in RA No. 10066 Section 6 requiring the appropriate cultural agency to cooperate with UNESCO regarding the preservation of heritage and culturally significant sites (Congress of the Philippines, 2010). There should be a close cooperation between UNESCO and the specified cultural agency to fulfil the agreement in safeguarding the heritage sites of the country, especially San Agustin Church and Monastery. The significance of consultation before pursuing developmental projects on heritage properties is highlighted in Article VIII Section 32 (Congress of the Philippines, 2010) and the proposed UNESCO recommendation on the HUL (UNESCO, 2011). Before implementing programmes and projects regarding the development of heritage sites, cultural agencies and the NCCA shall closely cooperate to confirm whether these programmes and projects are in conformity with this Act. These programmes should not adversely affect the involved parties but instead provide benefits for them. Community engagement can address certain issues and create cultural awareness among stakeholders. The sentiments of the local community reflect what is mentioned in the HUL (UNESCO, 2011). It is emphasized that the quality of life of locals can be improved through economic development projects such as the bridge. It is mandated in Section 32.e. of RA No. 10066 that the DPWH shall consider the impacts of constructing infrastructures on heritage sites to contribute to heritage conservation (Congress of the Philippines, 2010). The DPWH’s assurance of not contributing damage in Intramuros is manifested by its conforming to the guidelines to be observed set by the cultural agencies. Generally, the proposed UNESCO recommendation on the HUL strengthens the policy of safeguarding the significance and authenticity of existing heritage properties. The location of the bridge is a contradiction to Section 12 of RA No. 10066, which mentions heritage zones serving as a protection of heritage properties (Congress of the Philippines, 2010). Intramuros and Binondo are considered as heritage zones because they embody an area of rich historical significance. On the other hand, the IA was established by virtue of PD No. 1616 to facilitate and regulate the development and restoration of Intramuros (IA, 2020). In the context of the construction of the bridge, Sections 1 and 3. a of PD No. 1616 imply that the IA should ensure that the architectural design of the buildings and structures within Intramuros should conform to the general Filipino–Spanish architecture (IA, 2020). With that, the IA insisted that they strictly follow this framework by rejecting any project that is not in accordance with the Filipino–Spanish architecture. The other stakeholders, however, opposed this statement by mentioning that the cultural agencies, including the IA, easily accepted and did not even question the modern design of the bridge, which was clearly a shortcoming on the part of the administration. However, RA No. 10066 Article VII Section 31 (Congress of the Philippines, 2010) and PD No. 1616 (IA, 2020) were violated because the IA, together with some cultural agencies, is ineffective in carrying out their mandates to protect and preserve Intramuros since it is not taking any counter-measures to prevent the construction of the bridge, as commented by other stakeholders. The cultural agencies should be accountable for the end result of the construction of the bridge. Moreover, the agreement about the preservation of WHSs between state parties was addressed in the 1972 UNESCO World Heritage Convention (WHC) (UNESCO, 1972). Although this convention is not a legal and binding agreement, the Philippines is a signatory party; thus, she is obligated to abide by its prescriptions. It is explicitly stated in the 1972 UNESCO WHC that buffer zones, for instance Intramuros, set the limitations for any kind of development around a WHS. The purpose of establishing a buffer zone is not just to preserve the entire property but also to maintain its outstanding universal value. However, the Philippines violated this agreement by allowing the construction of the bridge that will land on Intramuros, the buffer zone of San Agustin Church, which is a UNESCO WHS. It is mentioned in the 1972 WHC that being entitled as a UNESCO WHS is an honour and a commitment (UNESCO, 1972). An increase in tourist visitation can be achieved at the expense of conveying the significance of the site to the public. Generally, the world-renowned title has a direct effect on the tourism industry of the country. One of the said effects is the increase in tourist visitation that leads to the creation of jobs for the locals (Su & Lin, 2014). Thus, the possibility of delisting San Agustin Church as a UNESCO WHS is seen as a long-term effect that would adversely affect the tourist influx in the country. In addition, the controversial four-lane bridge threatens the title of San Agustin Church and the other three churches under the serial declaration property of Baroque Churches of the Philippines, for it lands on Intramuros, the buffer zone of San Agustin Church. This is similar to the case of the Waldschlösschen Bridge in Dresden, Germany, which destroyed the scenic views and panoramas of the city, eventually altering its cultural landscape. It was also stated by Kulturnation, the cultural nation of Germany, that it is an international embarrassment when a UNESCO WHS has its title revoked. Most of the local communities in Binondo and Intramuros share the same perspective as the majority of the Dresden locals, that the protection of heritage sites, even a UNESCO WHS, should not be given that much importance (Schoch, 2014). In relation to this, Lee (2009) mentioned that Oman is the first country to be delisted from the UNESCO WHS list in 2007. Oman chose to prioritize oil exploration in the Oryx Sanctuary rather than conserving its significant value. However, due to the decline in oil price, the Omani government decided to restore the Oryx Sanctuary in order to promote tourism once again (Sreenivas, 2017). Moreover, it was emphasized in the article of Dasgupta (2016), wherein Marco Lambertini, Director of World Wide Fund for Nature, stated that the state members should focus on considering the long-term importance of heritage sites rather than short-term economic benefits. In contrast, Ocampo and Berondo (2005) cited the case of the unfinished bridge in Loboc, Bohol. Since the construction of the bridge would cause the demolition of the Loboç’s 400-year-old church, the opposition of the parishioners led to its suspension. Thus, it invigorated the hopes of most stakeholders to stop the construction. In addition, a stakeholder mentioned that when a site has been delisted, it speaks greatly about its management. The entire world will be aware of the inability and ineffectiveness of the site’s manager to preserve and protect their heritage sites. He also proposed the idea of reapplying the Baroque Churches of the Philippines as a UNESCO WHS once it was delisted. The possible delisting of the Baroque Churches of the Philippines, which could result in financial consequences, mirrors the same situation experienced by Germany. Another factor considered in the article is that grants from China reflect a strategy called debt-trap diplomacy. The said strategy highlights that the willingness of the Chinese government to grant aids may be an indication of a hidden political agenda.
Urbanization provides economic, social and cultural opportunities. But it should likewise recognize the unmanaged urban growth that can undermine the identity and integrity of its historical fabric (UNESCO, 2011). Through implementing sustainable development in Intramuros, the conservation and protection of such a heritage site can be achieved, even if it is within an urban setting. Thus, the government agencies should be aware of their mandates and involve the local community in the development projects in Intramuros to properly identify the possible threats to heritage properties as they provide policies and guidelines. The 1972 WHC highlighted that the local community should be aware about the significance of being a UNESCO WHS (UNESCO, 1972). It is imperative to engage the local community with different heritage programmes and activities for them to have a better recognition of its significance. However, heritage significance differs on universal, national, regional or local values (ICOMOS, 1999). In addition, the ICTC also emphasized the importance of the local community in planning sustainable goals, strategies and protocols regarding cultural practices in tourism as well as in preserving the integrity and authenticity of heritage properties. Heritage tourism motivates the local community to care and implement heritage preservation practices which result in benefits in marketing. The preservation of heritage sites should convey their importance for the benefit of the future generations. Intramuros, being significant, holds an intrinsic value to the Filipino people. Nevertheless, the construction of the bridge is viewed in a positive way, as it can provide more job opportunities to the people. According to PD No. 1616 Section 2, the authorities are responsible for the legislation and regulation of activities in Intramuros (IA, 2020). Moreover, in order to enhance the Filipino heritage identity, there should be a balance in preservation and the development of cultural landmarks. Interestingly, in contrast with the statement of other cultural government agencies, there is a procedure for the declaration and delisting of an NCT or ICP that can be seen in Section 8 of RA No. 10066 (Congress of the Philippines, 2010).
Various stakeholders involved voiced out their recommendations regarding the bridge. Accordingly, the propositions serve as a form of advice on what should be done in terms of balancing urbanization and conservation. As stated in the new international instrument, the proposed UNESCO Recommendation on the Historic Urban Development, proper public education is a tool involving the stakeholders that empowers them to protect and promote their own heritage (UNESCO, 2011). Encouraging the youth and minority groups to participate in heritage awareness is also emphasized. It is important to let the locals and tourists know the importance of heritage sites in order for them to be involved in proper planning that seeks a balance between urban growth and conservation to prevent heritage loss. In accordance with the ICTC, consultations and continuous research are important procedures to have a better understanding of heritage significance, which are agreed upon by the stakeholders (ICOMOS, 1999). In addition, conducting management plans and studies is indeed necessary to modify unacceptable changes to heritage immediately. For this reason, constant communication between the stakeholders should be incorporated in planning so that the probability of risks can be identified and addressed immediately. As one of the strategic objectives of the five C’s of WHC, communication is essential for the dissemination of best practices to strengthen the relationship within the concerned parties (UNESCO, 1972). Moreover, heritage tourism provides benefits to the local communities, thus empowering them to maintain standard cultural and heritage practices to attain sustainable tourism. By appreciating and recognizing the roles of the stakeholders, they will be more inclined to partaking in the protection of their own heritage. PD No. 1616 (Office of the President, 1979) and RA No. 10066 (Congress of the Philippines, 2010) include heritage policies that protect and conserve national cultural heritage. As mentioned in PD No. 1616 Sections 6 and 12, investments and commercial enterprises inside Intramuros are allowed as long as they conform to the historical design of Intramuros (IA, 2020). This statement was also highlighted by the IA. In conformity with RA No. 10066 Section 38, cultural education is the teachings of cultural concepts and processes incorporated in the Philippines’ basic education system (Congress of the Philippines, 2010). It is important to induce this knowledge in the curriculum of educational establishments to further understand its importance in our society. Thus, it advocates the protection and preservation of cultural heritage properties. By raising awareness in conserving and guarding heritage sites, it can strengthen the unity of the public and create a foundation which supports the preservation of the Filipino identity. Before making any changes in heritage properties, it is necessary to secure authorizations that allow you to create any changes so that it will be easy to locate the people who are liable for the damages that will be done. Furthermore, as stated in Article 5 Section 20, an immovable NCT can be relocated, rebuilt, defaced or changed as long as it is the only solution to save the property from destruction, which can only be done after securing a permit from appropriate cultural agencies (Congress of the Philippines, 2010). It was also highlighted in Article 4 Section 13 that the IA has the duty to maintain heritage zones inside Intramuros (Congress of the Philippines, 2010). As such, the IA should always see to it that the mandate is strictly followed so that the creation of PD No. 1616 would not have been in vain. According to Patra et al. (2018), carrying capacity refers to the number of people an area can hold within its environment. Therefore, carrying capacity maintains the level of activities of tourists in the area. For this purpose, it is highly recommended that the IA should monitor its carrying capacity in order to maintain the integral value of Intramuros being a city that was established way back and not to weaken its environment.
Conclusion
Intramuros is not just the epitome of the historical and cultural heritage but mostly it also embodies the identity and sense of nationhood of the Filipino people. Alongside Intramuros is the oldest Chinatown in the Philippines to which the Filipino and Chinese’s long-established roots can be traced. Today, the significance of heritage properties is being compromised, with the inevitable need for urban development. There must be no dichotomy between urbanization and heritage preservation. Heritage sites add character and distinctiveness, and as people are proud of their local history, these sites serve as a legacy and their contribution to the history of humanity. Moreover, to recognize the world’s greatest treasure, there is an existing agreement between UNESCO and the state party to include such sites in the WHS list. However, this agreement is evidently violated by the construction of the Filipino–Chinese Friendship Bridge. San Agustin Church, together with the other three Baroque Churches of the Philippines, can possibly be included in the list of WHSs in Danger. The bridge is a manifestation of the complexity of integrating heritage and urban growth. Since the project is funded by the Chinese government, it then becomes a priority project of Duterte’s administration to strengthen the ties between the two countries. In pursuing the development of infrastructures, various heritage policies had been disregarded. Relevant impact assessments and studies were not considered before undertaking this major project. Since the main purpose of the bridge is to provide better accessibility, more vehicles will make use of the infrastructure. As a result, it will aggravate vehicular traffic and ground vibration in the heritage tourism properties. It is disturbing that the standpoints of the affected stakeholders have been neglected due to the absence of consultation. Most stakeholders strongly encourage relocating urban development to other areas rather than having it in Intramuros. They perceived that it would be best to maintain Intramuros’ authenticity and integrity instead of eliminating heritage to give way to modern infrastructures.
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.