Exploring Heritage Value of a Malay Landscape

Built Environmental Journal Vol. 7, No. 1, 23-34, 2010

23

EXPLORING HERITAGE VALUE OF A MALAY LANDSCAPE1

Kamarul Bahrain Shuib, Ian Clark and Habsah Hashim

Faculty of Architecture, Planning and Surveying, Universiti Teknologi MARA, Shah Alam, Malaysia

ABSTRACT

The purpose of this study was to explore the heritage value of a Malay landscape as interpreted by

a group of respondents in a rural community. Cultural resource scholars argue that the underlying

factor that determines landscapes as heritage is partly driven by how people perceive or value

them. Unfortunately, very little is known about how people perceive a heritage landscape. Because

of increasing threat by land and technological development that impact upon the landscape, an

understanding of people’s perception will aid in the planning process for landscape conservation.

This study was taken in a Malay heartland of rural Kedah, Malaysia. The perceptions of the

community were studied using a Qmethodology with photographs of the landscape. The findings

suggest a distinct difference in the way the local community perceived their landscape. Some

valued the place to earn a living while others preferred places that characterised recreation, culture

and nature space. While there were significant differences, there were also common values held by

the community. Scenery, ecological systems and sustainable development were their shared

values. Policy should recognise the differences and similarities in heritage landscape values held

by the public in conservation planning. The research shows that both tangible and intangible

properties of the landscape are highly valued by people.

Keywords: heritage values, Malay landscape, Qmethodology

1. INTRODUCTION

What makes a particular landscape valuable, memorable and recognisable that it is highly placed in

the social standing of a society? A place or landscape derived its meaning or value when people attach

their importance to it. This attachment over time gives the place its strong meaning or value. Thus a

place becomes really significant as a heritage after a process of value making and is communicated in

a form of memory statement.

It is therefore acceptable to say that the importance of a place or landscape is partly dependent

upon people’s perception or values of such a place. Unfortunately, there is a surprising lack of

understanding of how peoples’ perception could help define the meaning of heritage significance for

such places in landscape conservation planning.

In the past, the process of recognising the heritage values of a place is by inventorying the

remnants of historical and visual material evidence of the landscape. Following that process a very

specific kind of planning and management guideline is developed for their conservation. Very often

this type of heritage evaluation and assessment might involve looking at an individual element within

a given place. While such an approach could offer important information on certain aspects of a

historical site, their applicability on a broader scale level such as a countryside landscape might omit

hard-to-define values inherent in the wider landscape, which when looking at a regional setting would

present a ‘sense of identity’ or distinctiveness about the place.

Research in landscape or place meanings can offer valuable insights about the tangible and

intangible meanings of place attributed through human perception. Only through the application of

both spatial inventory and the exploration of human perceptual dimension that is focused upon a place,

information on heritage and social values can be identified, analysed and understood systematically.

This initial step of understanding the value of a particular landscape could reduce the risk of

destroying the ‘sense of place’ that has evolved through the long presence of humans in the landscape

over time. What is even more surprising is the fact that the authority has tended to ignore this ‘sense of

ISSN 1675-5022

© 2010 Faculty of Architecture, Planning and Surveying, University Teknologi MARA (UiTM), Malaysia

Built Environment Journal

24

identity’ that has drawn visitors and tourists to such landscapes in the first place.

Therefore, an understanding of the perceptions of various stakeholders associated with countryside

landscapes will aid in the development of strategies for their conservation and integration into broad

patterns of use.

2. STUDIES IN LANDSCAPE PERCEPTION

Research on landscape perception and assessment has captured the interests of many professions and

disciplines particularly psychology, environmental studies, landscape architecture, forestry, geography

and recreation (Zube et al., 1982; Williams and Stewart, 1998; Williams and Patterson, 1999). These

streams of landscape research interests were largely in response to the mandatory legislative

requirements brought about during the 1960s in the UK and the USA to mitigate impacts brought by

humans on the environment. Examples of the laws are the Environmental Impact Assessment and

National Environmental Protection Agency.

However, Zube (1987) argued that most of these legislations have ignored the positive impacts of

human-environment relationship. With improved knowledge and the multi-disciplinary nature and

approach to landscape research has brought about better understanding of humans’ positive

relationship with the environment. Thus landscape research has been brought into the mainstream of

environmental management concerns that involve both humans’ negative and positive impacts.

The definitions of landscape have been frequently discussed in the literature (Lennon, 2006), and

some cultures do not even have a word for it (Phillips, 2002). Many scholars and researchers of

landscape have since attempted to study the meaning of landscape and its relationship to their research

disciplines. Within landscape research, there have also been attempts to study how humans shaped

their environment and the resultant outcomes of the interaction between culture and nature. Here,

humans have been accepted and viewed as an agent of change that has always shaped their

environment in relation to their surroundings, place and time. One of the disciplines that do this is

cultural geography. They have tried to identify and understand the environment from the perspective

of how humans have impacted their landscape from the socio-cultural perspectives. According to a

cultural geographer, Meinig (1979) there is a difference between the term environment and landscape.

He described environment as

an inherent property of every living thing, it is that which surrounds and sustains;

we are always environed, always enveloped by an outer world .

In contrast he described landscape as

less inclusive, more detached, not so directly part of our organic being. Landscape

is defined by our vision and interpreted by our minds. It is a panorama, which

continuously changes as we move along any route. Strictly speaking, we are never

in it, it lies before our eyes and it becomes real only as we become conscious of it.

(Meinig 1979, p. 3).

One example of an international definition of landscape that has emerged to differentiate landscape

from the environment was adopted in Europe. The European Landscape Convention (European

Council, 2000) defines landscape as an area

as perceived by people, whose character is the result of the action and interaction

of natural and/or human factors. The term “landscape” is thus defined as a zone

or area as perceived by local people or visitors, whose visual features and

character are the results of the action of natural and/or cultural (that is, human)

factors. This definition reflects the idea that landscapes evolve through time, as a

result of being acted upon by natural forces and human beings. It also underlines

that a landscape forms a whole, whose natural and cultural components are taken

together, not separately. (European Council, 2000, p. 1)

There are other meanings of landscape depending upon the disciplines and research focus. Clearly,

from the above examples, it can be said that landscape can be interpreted as a physical entity or

landform that was a result of human occupation upon nature; that landscape is a social construction of

the human mind about a place.

3. METHODOLOGY

The Malay heritage landscape is in the district of Kuala Muda in the state of Kedah in Malaysia. This

Exploring Heritage Value of Malay Landscape

25

study area is abundant in agricultural, natural and cultural resources (see Figure 1). The landscape is

characterised by a distinct flat plain in the middle ground, where paddy fields are common features

and is surrounded by mangrove and nipah forests in the background. The kampongs are scattered

throughout the area. The region is bounded in the south by the Muda River, in the north by the

Merbok River and in the west by the Straits of Malacca. The two rivers from the mountain range,

which forms the eastern boundary, meander gently through the landscape and into the sea.

Figure 1: The Study Area

Sampling Strategy

Two different samples are relevant to this study. One is the sample of the landscape and the other is the

sample of the respondents. For the research to produce valid results it was important to choose the

correct or most appropriate sample of the landscape. In landscape research, it is valid to use

photographs as surrogates to the real landscape. It was also important to ensure that the respondent

sample was sufficiently representative. This study has used Qmethodology. In Q methodology, the

qualitative information is collected from the respondents and is quantified using factorial analysis that

can then be described and interpreted in ways that reflect individual or group viewpoints about an

experience or perception (Brown, 1980; Mc Keown and Thomas, 1988; Van Exel and Graaf, 2005).

The Q process is designed for a systematic arrangement of responses in a format that allows

respondents to input their answers into a structure similar to a Likert-scale. Somewhat different to the

scaling method, where a respondent usually responds in a linear fashion from a numeric value of say 1

(lowest value) to 5 (highest value), this method replicates an inverted normal distribution curve.

A respondent has to place the photograph beginning from the left or the right side of the chart and

follows through until he or she finishes in the middle of the chart. The responder can of course begin

at any point he or she wishes. Another important dimension of this technique is that because of the

nature of the force-distribution, so intended by the creator of Q-method (Brown, 1980), the

respondents will have to discriminate their choices and make decisions relative to all photographs.

The criteria adopted from the International Union for the Conservation of Nature’s Protected

Landscape Guidelines (Phillips, 2002) were used in the selection of landscape images of the study


26

area. A total of 42 photographs that were used in the survey are listed in Table 1.

Table 1 : List of Malay Landscapes

No. Description No. Description

1 Sampans facing open sea 22 Tsunami transit houses

2 Fishermen boats near Sayak

Island

23 Beach at Kampong Sayak

3 Mangroves along riverside 24 Historical feature in town

4 Coastal pollution 25 Api-api trees along shoreline

5 Aquaculture on river estuary 26 Cattle grazing

6 Old fortress in town 27 Heritage museum

7 Malay women in front of

house

28 Mending of fishing net

8 Paddy field during growing

season

29 Urban skyline

9 Boys engaging in outdoor

activity

30 Recreation area

10 Nipah trees along roadside 31 Burning of paddy husk

11 Forest landscape 32 Rural farm

12 Farmer ploughs his field 33 Cottage industry

13 Ethnic house 34 Colonial heritage

14 Fishermen return from sea 35 Fishermen carrying fish

15 Egrets flocking for food 36 Coconut tree on paddy field

16 Malay sport called takraw 37 Aftermath of tsunami

17 Paddy field, kampongs and

hill

38 Merbok forest reserve

18 Town of Kota 39 Nipah trees along coastline

19 Drying of salt fish 40 Local economic activity

20 Typical Malay house 41 River transportation

21 Fish market 42 Local children

4. RESULTS

A total of 60 respondents were recruited for the landscape perception study. The majority (72 %) of

the respondents were male. In terms of age, more than a quarter of the respondents (27.4%) were

between the ages of 40 and 49. The lack of representation from the younger generation from among

the community, notably the age group of between 15 and 29 years old, was probably due to the way

that this study recruited the respondents. The open invitation process and the willingness to participate

were key factors in determining the responses from the younger residents.

All the respondents’ data have been analysed together. The methodological procedure that was

employed enabled the photographs perception ratings to be subjected to Q analysis. This procedure

allowed for a systematic output of diverse viewpoints or judgment of respondents into distinct factors

or concepts. These concepts, for the purpose of this study, are described as ‘Heritage Values’ because

they represent beliefs or opinions of heritage landscape that are similarly valued (either positively or

negatively) by the respondents.

Each of the concepts is factorially distinct from the others. These concepts are interpreted based

upon the characteristics and selection of photographs as sorted by respondents, detailed interviews

about the choice of photographs and additional information they provided in the survey sheet. This

type of description of results is consistent with studies that use Q methodology as their research

method.

Heritage Value of the Landscape

Concept 1: Historical and Past Meanings

Concept 2: Sustenance Meanings

Concept 3: Broad Landscape Setting

Concept 4: Links Nature and Culture

Concept 1

This concept that comprises 18 respondents has selected as their top-five photographs the old

fortress in town, the typical Malay house, the historical feature in town and the house that was


27

converted into a heritage museum (Figure 2). The concept also contained a photograph that showed

the paddy field, kampongs and hill setting, which was a common feature in a rural landscape.

The group also strongly believed that the remnants of history must be conserved and protected.

Interviews with them have confirmed that this group most valued the landscape because of the

historical elements, archaeological relics and strong rooting of their past. For example, they suggested

that the local history is to be made available by presenting it to the public.

Demographically, there were 13 males and 5 females’ respondents who were associated with

Concept 1. In terms of employment, the males were involved in a variety of occupations while 4 of

the females who belonged in this group were housewives and one was an ex-teacher. For the male

respondents, there was no distinct occupation type, with approximately equal numbers who were

farmers, fishermen and ex-army category. The ages of the males varied but most of them were in the

upper bracket between 40 and 70 years old.

Figure 2: Concept1: Historical and Past Meanings

Concept 2 represented another dimension of Malay landscape meanings as expressed by the

second group of respondents. Interpretations of their top-five photographs selection suggested that this


28

group valued tangible properties like the fish market as a point of interest to the local community and

also as a symbolic feature for the local community (Figure 3). Other examples of tangibility were the

traditional form of marketing, fishermen returning from the sea and the drying of salt fish. The

interpretation of this last photograph suggested that whatever fish that were left over could be dried

and sold to supplement the family’s income.

Despite using the local resources to make ends meet, they perceived the local heritage to

have an important value for present as well as future generations. They suggested that it was

important to keep the traditional Malay house and the local sport alive. Individuals who were closely aligned to this perception consisted of twelve (12) males and eight

(8) females. Six (6) of the male respondents were fishermen while seven of the female respondents

were housewives.

Figure 3: Concept 2: Sustenance Meanings

Concept 3: The third group has chosen their top-five photographs as those that defined landscape

values in broader and general landscape settings. Interpretation on their choice of photographs

suggested that this group valued scenery of large landscape or panoramic view.


29

For example, they highly valued photographs that showed a landscape scene with kampongs and

hills (Figure 4). Photograph scene of the forest mangroves along the shoreline was also highly rated

by this group.

Demographically, there were seven local residents who were represented in this group that

consisted of 6 males and 1 female. The males were of mixed-type jobs like taxi driver, farmer, ex-

army, self-employed and security guard while the only female in the group was a housewife.

The final concept was defined by the cluster of individuals who characterised the Malay landscape

by their strong liking or values of both the natural and cultural features. All 15 respondents aligned to

this concept have chosen the top-five photographs that showed nature, recreation and the past as their

most valued landscapes (Figure 5).

Figure 4: Concept 3: Broad Landscape Setting

Statistically, this group comprised of 12 males and 3 females. Fifty percent (50) of the male


30

respondents were farmers and fishermen while another fifty percent has a mixed-type of occupations.

Two (2) females were housewives while the other one was a trader.

Shared Concepts

Although the process showed distinct differences in the value orientation of the 4 sub groups there

was also total agreement about six landscapes represented by the photographs. This is to say that all

respondents perceived those photographs similarly and thus are considered to share similar values

about the six landscapes. Therefore the six photographs were not represented in any of the groups’

concepts.

Figure 5: Concept 4: Links Nature and Culture


31

For example, interpretation of results suggested that all 60 respondents chose the photograph of

paddy field during growing season among their top-rated photographs. They all viewed positively that

the paddy field was a state and local identity that should not be destroyed.

Summary of Valued Landscape Properties

The results of this study show that there were different properties and ways on how people are

attracted to and valued their landscapes. For example, as a distinct cultural group who lived and

worked in rural environments for a long time, the community value local history and the past,

landscapes that provide a source of living, broad rural landscape setting and some aspects that link

nature and culture. Clearly these landscapes that they value represent both tangible and intangible

properties of rural landscape. Therefore these landscape types that are mapped by the four distinct

groups within the community represent their most significant and valued landscapes (Table 2).

In addition to the above findings, the results have also shown that all 60 stakeholders that represent

the four themes of the community valued the photograph that showed the scenery of the rice field

during growing season. This aspect of rural landscape (traditional farm settings which were the results

of the work of humans upon nature) is a shared value agreed by them.

Table 2 : Community’s most significant landscape properties

Rural Community

Historical and Past Meanings (Intangible)

Sustenance Meanings (Tangible/Intangible)

Broad Landscape Setting (Tangible)

Links Nature and Culture (Tangible and Intangible)

5. DISCUSSION

There are differences and similarities in the way rural community perceive the Kuala Muda landscape.

They believe in the need to maintain and where degradation has occurs to restore rural landscape

characteristics together with its natural and cultural values. Looking at the intergroup perspective, the

findings showed that all 60 permanent residents highly valued the scene of large expanse of rice fields

during growing season. The Q analysis showed that this image is represented as a shared value of all

of the intragroups within the community. They perceive that this landscape property symbolises the

state and Malay identity and that this property must be maintained.

At the same time one group generally believes that rural community must be seen to be given better

access to the use of natural resources to sustain their living. The group also believes that the use of

natural resources will not significantly impact their landscape. Although this perception is not

commonly shared in intragroup perspective, this group strongly believes that local resources provided

them the opportunity to continue living and working in rural landscape as fishermen, livestock

breeders and farmers. The fact that 20 respondents represented Theme 2: Sustenance Meanings - the

largest group within the survey group strongly suggests that they value their landscape mainly as a

living and working place. They also felt that opportunities for access to resources have been dwindling

in recent years. This was probably due to the lack of government support and unclear directions of

agricultural, rural and regional development policies.

The concept of ‘sense of identity’ (Kaltenborn and Bjerke, 2002; Brown, 2005) relates landscape

perception to actual places where people have interacted with and give meanings to such places. What

the community perceived as valuable were in fact landscape properties that constitute the identity of

Kuala Muda rural landscape. Despite the community’s value orientation that distinguishes them from,

or associate them with, one subgroup with the other the landscape values and meanings they bring to

rural landscape needed further understanding, evaluation and attention by the government. This is

because if rural landscape is to have any significance as a cultural heritage as identified in the

National Physical Planning Council (Malaysian Government 2005) the authority needs to understand

what makes rural landscape special and valuable. By understanding these various landscape meanings

from stakeholders the government is better prepared to mitigate negative impacts and promote


32

positive values to sustain rural identity.

Cultural landscape conservation researchers as such Hamin (2001), Villalon (2004) and Lennon

(2006) have cautioned that this ‘sense of place’ is a holistic concept that binds rural landscape in its

form and function. Much like its urban counterpart, there are problems and challenges in

understanding its ‘sense of identity’ as Lynch (1960) argued in his book, The Image of the City.

Rural Malay landscape must therefore need community support and government backing in terms

of interpretation, definition and legal mechanism if rural characteristics are to be maintained and

presented for conservation, tourism and sustainable development. Villalon (2004), citing the World’s

first cultural landscape site in Asia as an example, warned that despite attaining World Heritage status

for cultural landscape, the Philippines’ rice terraces and the native tribal rural villages, north of the

country, faced considerable management problems because the authority and the community have

different understanding of the cultural landscape conservation terminology. Secondly the villagers in

the World Heritage site have given up their rural lives and wanted to migrate to urban areas for better

living.

By discouraging rural communities to participate in their day-to-day living runs counter to the

positive activities that have created this core landscape value .

The community has their special landscapes and what they believe are properties that are under

threat. These perceptions of important landscapes are dependent on the way certain issues are being

brought up and presented in the media and the impact these issues have on the community and

landscape. For example, the community highly valued mangroves along riverside and nipah trees

along coastline. This is not surprising as these tangible landscapes were seen to be very effective as a

natural buffer from the tsunami waves in 2004.

The research finding highlights the need to apply both the physical landscape assessment method

and the landscape perception method in landscape conservation studies, particularly with regards to

rural heritage landscape protection. In developed societies where information on perceptions that are

held by cultures is published continuously, there might not be a major problem to conduct a landscape

assessment study. For example, perceptions that are derived from historical records, paintings,

published works, influential persons, artists, the arts and literature could informed and shaped public

landscape perceptions. Therefore, the landscape assessment process is the dominant approach in

studies of landscape conservation.

However for countries where they were once under a series of colonial rules like Malaysia, public

landscape perceptions were influenced by imported events or brought in by colonial thought. Thus,

when these nations gained independence, research must begin to understand societies’ perceptions

through empirical studies such as community perception of landscape values.

Media report has shown that people tend to become vocal and will communicate publicly when

certain properties of the landscape that have strong values and identities to them are under threat

(Zuraina, 2006). Similarly the significant emphasis on natural landscapes given by the stakeholders

suggests that they have strong memories of recent events and experiences on the tsunami disaster and

how natural vegetation has helped reduce the impact of tsunami on the villages. The diversity of rural

landscape values (themes) as perceived to be significant by the community suggests that, in the past,

such diversified landscape values would not have been possibly perceived through an issue/goal-

directed approach (Lennon, 2006). This approach, as discussed in landscape perception research as

one of the four landscape paradigms (Zube et al., 1982), usually responses to only one specific goal or

issue.

Therefore this finding supports previous studies that the significance of a place is better understood

by approaching the landscape through a value- or experiential- based (Tuan, 1977; Zube and Pitt,

1981; Taylor, 1999; Lennon, 2006). This approach is necessary because many significant properties of

the landscape would have been ignored and recede in the background if a landscape (place) is viewed

through a goal-oriented approach, for example, if the goal is to provide for recreation opportunities.

This study has also found rural community value both tangible and intangible properties of

landscape such as historical elements, archaeological sites, and strong rooting of their past. These

properties are valued as important landscapes that need protection if they are interpreted as threatened.

What the findings could not identify is that how much value stakeholders place upon tangible

properties over intangible ones and vice verse.

The findings have also highlighted that stakeholder’s landscape values whether they are most or

least valued are tied to actual places. The past practice of identifying heritage values of a place by

mainly inventorying the historical and visual material evidence of the landscape is therefore


33

challenged. The findings have demonstrated that through the application of a human perceptual model

based on a place, information on heritage and values of rural landscape can be identified, understood

and compared.

Overall, the findings of the study expand the current conceptualisation of ‘sense of place’ and

‘place attachment’ and suggest that the current measurement of significance or values in heritage

conservation practice may not do justice to the complexities of rural stakeholders’ connection to rural

landscapes.

The results of this study emphasised the connection through the meanings and values stakeholders

placed on rural cultural landscape. However, the research findings cannot necessarily be inferred to a

larger population. This is because, as this research has demonstrated, landscape values are very much

dependent on the perception of the stakeholders and that ‘landscape’ is not a static but is a dynamic

entity. Although landscape has specific properties that are shaped by humans they are the product of

human social construction.

This research supports the findings by other researchers (Taylor, 1988; Lennon, 1997) that rural

landscape values extend beyond tangible individual sites and components in the landscape. The notion

that landscape can be interpreted as the sum total of components of the whole is rejected. The findings

show that the community have characterised the cultural landscape as a complex entity imbued with

meanings that transcend individual backgrounds.

6. CONCLUSION

The study concludes that landscape has a social construct. The findings have indicated that people

can ascribe meanings to landscape and those meanings have shared values along definable themes or

dimensions. This study was designed to uncover meanings and values out of people’s diverse

perception or values about a phenomenon.

While this result was consistent with other studies with specific goals such as on public perception

of rural landscapes for ecosystem management (Stein et. al, 1999) and community values of high

country landscape for resource management (Fairweather and Swaffield, 2004), this study can be

described as the ‘end of the beginning’- the initial understanding about the role of community values

in conservation planning and management. Thus it is concluded that such investigations will be

helpful in determining approaches to landscape conservation planning.

REFERENCES

Brown, G 2005, 'Mapping spatial attributes in survey research for natural resource management:

methods and applications', Society & Natural Resources, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 1-23.

Brown, SR 1980, Political Subjectivity: applications of Q methodology in political science, Yale

University Press, New Haven .

European Council 2000, European Landscape Convention, updated 30 May 2006, Council of Europe,

Strasbourg, France, viewed 13 June 2006, http://www.coe.int/t/e/Cultural_Co-

operation/Environment/Landscape/.

Fairweather, JR & Swaffield, SR 2004, Public perceptions of outstanding natural landscapes in the

Auckland Region, Lincoln University, Canterbury, New Zealand, p. xiv+83pp .

Hamin, EM 2001, 'The US National Park Service's partnership parks: collaborative responses to

middle landscapes', Land Use Policy, vol. 18, pp. 123-135.

Kaltenborn, BP & Bjerke, T 2002, 'Associations between landscape preferences and place attachment:

a study in Roros, Southern Norway', Landscape Research, vol. 27, no. 4, pp. 381-396.

Lennon, JL 1997, Case study of the cultural landscapes of the Central Victorian goldfields, Australia:

state of the environment technical paper series (natural and cultural heritage), Department

of the Environment, Canberra, p. 53.

Lennon, JL 2006, 'Cultural heritage management', in Managing Protected Areas: a global guide, eds.

M Lockwood, GL Worboys & A Kothari, Earthscan, London, pp. 448-473.

Lynch, K 1960, The Image of the City, The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts .

Malaysian Government 2005, National Physical Plan, Federal Department of Town and Country

Planning Ministry of Housing and Local Government, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia .

McKeown, B & Thomas, D 1988, Q Methodology, Sage Publications Inc., Newbury Park, CA .

http://www.coe.int/t/e/Cultural_Co-operation/Environment/Landscape/

http://www.coe.int/t/e/Cultural_Co-operation/Environment/Landscape/


34

Meinig, DW (ed.) 1979, The Interpretation of Ordinary Landscapes, Oxford University Press, New

York .

Phillips, A 2002, Management guidelines for IUCN category V protected areas: Protected landscapes/

seascapes, IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK .

Stein, TV, Anderson, DH & Kelly, T 1999, 'Using stakeholders' values to apply ecosystem

management in the Upper Midwest landscape', Environmental Management, vol. 24, no. 3,

Online date: Feb 19, 2004, pp. 399-413.

Taylor, K 1988, 'Cultural landscapes: meanings and heritage values', School of Environmental

Planning, unpublished Master of Landscape Architecture thesis, University of Melbourne .

Taylor, K 1999, 'Reconciling aesthetic value and social value: dilemmas of interpretation and

application', APT Bulletin, vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 51-55.

Tuan, Y-F 1977, Space and Place: the perspective of experience, Edward Arnold (Publishers) Ltd.,

London.

Van Exel, N & Graaf, Gd 2005, Q Methodology: a sneak preview, viewed 8 June 2005,

http://www.qmethodology.net/.

Villalon, A 2004, 'World Heritage inscription and challenges to the survival of community life in

Philippine cultural landscapes', in The Protected Landscape Approach: linking nature,

culture and community, eds. J Brown, N Mitchell & M Beresford, IUCN, Gland,

Switzerland and Cambridge, UK, pp. 93-105.

Williams, DR & Patterson, ME 1999, 'Environmental Psychology: mapping landscape meanings for

ecosystem management', in Integrating Social Sciences with Ecosystem Management:

human dimensions in assessment, policy and management, eds. HK Cordell & JC

Bergstrom, Sagamore Press, Champaign, Il, pp. 141-160.

Williams, DR & Stewart, SI 1998, 'Sense of place: an elusive concept that is finding a home in

ecosystem management', Journal of Forestry, vol. 96, no. 5, 1 May 1998, pp. 18-23.

Zube, EH & Pitt, DG 1981, 'Cross-cultural perceptions of scenic and heritage landscapes', Landscape

Planning, vol. 8, pp. 69-87.

Zube, EH, Sell, JL & Taylor, JG 1982, 'Landscape perception: research, application and theory',

Landscape Planning, vol. 9, pp. 1-33.

Zube, EH 1987, 'Perceived land use patterns and landscape values', Landscape Ecology, vol. 1, no. 1,

pp. 37-45.

Zuraina, M 2006, 'Bok House lost authenticity for heritage listing', New Straits Times, 25 Dec 2006.

http://www.qmethodology.net/

Documents

Exploring Heritage Value of a Malay Landscape