CHAPTER 6 INCLUSION AND EXCLUSION

6.1 Introduction

With the expanding influences of heritage management affirming the role of interpretative and associative spaces, it is argued in this research that the boundaries and relationships between heritage scales are being redrawn. This thesis has illustrated in the previous two chapters how heritage and heritage management practices at Angkor have been framed and abstracted within politically and socially constructed scales. This chapter considers how the social construction of heritage scales to facilitate heritage management and other control mechanisms influences the material qualities of heritage space through the inclusion and exclusion of aesthetics, behaviours and people. This will allow consideration of the relationships between scales, through their shifting boundaries. This chapter will illustrate the need to incorporate wider understandings of the geographical and cultural landscape into GIS‐based management systems. In exploring spatial and aesthetic perceptions of the Angkor landscape, consideration will be given to how boundaries are constructed spatially through the presence, or absence, of certain land uses. In particular, this chapter will discuss the construction of a ‘scale of modernity’ which functions as a counterpoint to the scaling of valued spaces. The scale of modernity comes about through a discourse within heritage management that ‘boxes’ off non‐heritage space, in particular juxtaposing heritage with the modern, often negatively. At Angkor it is the urban spaces of Siem Reap which have been excluded from valued and interpretative spaces, and subsequently can be seen as defined as within a scale of modernity. Through a comparison of urban and rural land covers, the consequences for landscape management of ontological differences between stakeholders are highlighted. Finally, the chapter will illustrate how boundaries are constructed and reconstructed through temporal interpretation of the landscape through the dichotomy of ‘traditional’ and ‘contemporary’, and through attitudes towards particular places and the behaviours and changes occurring there.

Understandings of ‘Angkor’ are constructed around particular aesthetic and functional images. This thesis has outlined the different perceptions held by various key stakeholders of the ‘appropriate’ appearance and behaviour for spaces and people associated with the interpretation of Angkor. In seeking to advance the post‐positivist dialogue at Angkor, this

191

thesis examines methods to improve the representativeness of information about the values and meanings attached to Angkor. A key part of the management of Angkor’s archaeological and urban landscape has been the use of Geographical Information Systems (GIS) (Parry 1996; UNESCO Principal Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific 1999). Though the application of spatial analysis technologies at Angkor was intended as a tool to support management (Box 1999), the reality of their use has been as a powerful visual political tool, the results of which are at times viewed uncritically. While lengthy reports may be produced to explain and justify maps and data (for example The Siem Reap Urbanisation and Tourism Report and Master Plan (JICA 2004), it is the maps (lacking supporting documentation) that are usually disseminated. The nature of the data collected and utilised is such that villages and people have become dots and population counts. Land use data are collected, but there has been little open critique of the type of data or the implications for the image created of Siem Reap‐Angkor. There have been more recent attempts by APSARA and others to add local community information, such as local values for objects on the landscape and information about villages beyond numbers of people and buildings (Sokrithy 2008; Moylan, Brown et al. 2009). However, in a post‐positivist era of cultural heritage management, it could be argued that an emphasis on ‘positivist’ documentation controlled by professionals within a technology that is inaccessible to the local population could, in fact, be counter‐productive (Towers 1997).

6.2 Angkor City

The modern town of Siem Reap has been placed in juxtaposition to the Angkor heritage area by local community and APSARA interviewees. Siem Reap ‐ province, town and tourism area ‐ is the contemporary settlement that, in addition to supporting its population, provides the infrastructure and facilities for those visiting and using Angkor. The role of the temporal terms of ‘traditional’ (positive) and ‘modern’ (negative) in defining and interpreting heritage spaces has been previously illustrated (Chapter 5). In seeking to investigate the boundaries and relationships between scales, this section will explore definitions of the scale of modernity from the perspectives of the local community, APSARA staff, and the ICC contributors. Firstly, it will consider how Siem Reap is perceived by different stakeholders. It will then examine the role assigned to modern urban space in relation to the Angkor landscape. Finally, it will consider how people differentiate between

192

urban and rural areas, illustrating how different understandings of ‘urban’ and ‘rural’ have the potential to shift the boundaries of modern and heritage spaces at Angkor.

6.2.1 What is Siem Reap?

It was acknowledged early in the contemporary management process for Angkor that Siem Reap should be integrated into the heritage management process to ensure successful control of a predicted growth in population and tourism (Wager 1995). Attitudes towards urban areas are often driven by our perceptions of their size (Roseland 2000). Compact cities of Europe are often viewed positively, whereas towns that sprawl across previously agricultural land are despised as eyesores (Hayden 2006). Siem Reap has undergone a sharp transformation since the inscription of Angkor on the World Heritage List (Ballard 2003). Much has been made of the threat to Angkor from uncontrolled development and urban sprawl in the region (Barré 2002; Durand 2002), thus it was considered appropriate to determine the scale (in this context size) at which Siem Reap was perceived by various stakeholders.

6.2.1.1 ICC Documents

Analysis of the spatial references to Siem Reap within the ICC Documents acknowledged both the urban and provincial nature of ‘Siem Reap’ (Table 6‐1). The rural and urban nature of Siem Reap province was acknowledged in 1993, by foreign and Cambodian ICC contributors, through indirect references to urban areas within the region of Angkor. This may suggest that the size and dominance of Angkor overshadowed any modern settlement. Within APSARA, the Department of Urbanisation and Development (DUD) was established in 1995 specifically to deal with controlling the nature and extent of urbanisation in Siem Reap. This department is the only department within APSARA whose responsibilities and activities lie almost entirely outside the Angkor Park. Its early presence within the management structures suggests there was awareness amongst the heritage professionals working at Angkor of the relationship between Angkor and the modern landscape.

193

REFERNCES TO Cambodia Foreign SIEM REAP TOTAL ‐ 127 SPATIAL AREA FOUND WITHIN 1993 ‐ 10 2003 ‐ 8 1993 ‐ 59 2003 ‐ 50 documents ICC documents documents documents documents TOTAL NUMBER OF REFERENCES 18 11 10 53 92

Downtown Area 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 4.0% 1.6%

CORE URBAN Historic Siem 10.0% 25.0% 1.7% 8.0% 6.3% AREA Reap Central Area Of 10.0% 12.5% 1.7% 2.0% 3.1% Siem Reap Urban Siem 30.0% 12.5% 1.7% 12.0% 8.7% Reap Siem Reap URBAN AREA 10.0% 37.5% 1.7% 22.0% 12.6% Town Siem Reap City 10.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.0% 1.6% Region Of 0.0% 0.0% 1.7% 0.0% 0.8% Angkor Region Of Siem REGION 30.0% 12.5% 1.7% 10.0% 7.9% Reap Siem Reap 20.0% 25.0% 3.4% 20.0% 12.6% Province APSATIAL Siem Reap 20.0% 0.0% 1.7% 10.0% 6.3% Siem Reap 20.0% 0.0% 0.0% 4.0% 3.1% GROWTH Development Growing 20.0% 12.5% 1.7% 12.0% 7.9%

Table 6‐1. Analysis of references to Siem Reap within the Cambodian government and international ICC contributions involved identifying all descriptions of 'Siem Reap', often documents used more than one description, changing the underlying spatial reference.

By 2003, contributions within ICC documents referred to Siem Reap as both a ‘province’ and a ‘town’. References to ‘Siem Reap Region’ implied a larger spatial entity, though it was not clear if this corresponded to the province or reflected the area influenced by the urban settlement. Angkor was portrayed as being located within this region. However, discourse surrounding descriptions of the urban settlement of Siem Reap continued to have the effect of making the town appear smaller than, or subordinate, to Angkor, by placing it within (or as only a part of) the Angkor region. Whilst two documents did reference “Siem Reap City” (Cambodia: ICC October 1993), other contributors sort to defy such an image, referring to Siem Reap as a unique ‘garden town’, describing it as: “a garden town...Richly endowed with trees, the town has a number of reservoirs or trapeang that serve to regulate variations in the water level throughout the year while lending a distinctive touch to the it landscape. Elegant colonial buildings, old pagodas and interesting examples of vernacular

194

architecture give an undeniable heritage value to the ensemble” (UNESCO: ICC November 2003). There was also a strong image of Siem Reap possessing a core and a periphery. “Downtown Siem Reap” or “central Siem Reap” referred to areas along the river and around the Phsar Chas area, with other areas receiving less attention. If perceptions of urban settlement size are attached to particular attitudes, the focus on the “historic core” could be interpreted as highlighting the small town that Siem Reap was prior to the World Heritage inscription of Angkor.

An image of a growing settlement is dominant, with change a key part of the descriptions. In both 1993 and 2003 references were made to its ‘growth’ and ‘development’. In 1993, urban growth was referred to by one document as “sprawling suburban areas” (UNESCO: ICC September 1993). Descriptions in the 2003 ICC documentation had become more specific, discussing both the intensification of urban structures in existing areas and the expansion of the urban fabric, generally out from the central core into agricultural areas. While the ICC documents often utilise neutral terminology, a discourse that highlights urban intensification and extension leaves the reader with a concern for the impact on the historical core of the town and on the Angkor Park to the north.

6.2.1.2 APSARA Interviews

When questioned about their spatial perceptions of Siem Reap, APSARA interviewees gave a variety of responses. Most suggested that Siem Reap was either a town or a city, with smaller numbers describing a ‘village’, ‘tourism area’ or ‘province’ (Figure 6‐1). Some interviewees gave two responses, acknowledging that there is a province with a town, both of which are called ‘Siem Reap’: “It is a province and it has… the city is a town that most of tourist want to come to visit” (APSARA Interviewee 5). Such responses demonstrate an awareness of the non‐urban areas and population of the province. There was also acknowledgement of the village characteristics of Siem Reap. Despite its size, one interviewee considered Siem Reap as a large modern village and discussed, with regret, how it was becoming more like a city than a village: “it is a modern, big village not a town, not yet because it is small not like in Phnom Penh...a modern village....from 1998/1999 the city change a lot. It become like a modern and big, big village. The aesthetic is… a garden you have the villa the big house and around you have the garden with the fruit trees and

195

flower and… you have the pagoda, it was the main building in the city” (APSARA

Interviewee 6).

7

6 es e 5 w e vi r 4 te n f I r o 3 e b m u 2 N 1

0 Village Tourism Area Town City Province Perceived size of Siem Reap

Figure 6‐1. APSARA staff interviewees perceived Siem Reap as both a town and a city, with some interviewees acknowledging that it is both a town and a province.

The reasons behind perceptions of Siem Reap as a town were linked to change and growth. For some APSARA interviewees, Siem Reap was a town because it was not small in size, but also not the largest city in Cambodia. Others saw it as having developed beyond a village, in terms of lifestyle of the population and the aesthetics of the buildings: “I think Siem Reap is quite a big town. I mean after Phnom Penh, I think Siem Reap is the biggest town in Cambodia and because of Angkor, because of tourists, and development, in terms of hotels and so on and so I think it’s the second biggest in Cambodia after Phnom Penh” (APSARA Interviewee 1). These interviewees often made note that in classifying Siem Reap as a town, they did not feel that it had yet achieved the size or characteristics (including area, size, lifestyle and appearance) that would mean that it was a city. Those that did think that Siem Reap had reached ‘city’ status felt that it was large (based on area and population size) and that the lifestyle was developed, crowded and busy. Thus the feelings attached to the size of Siem Reap, by many APSARA interviewees, reflected an attitude that ‘smaller is better’. If

196

Siem Reap was a city then it would be too busy, noisy and dirty, whereas a village (or a form resembling that) was conveyed in a positive light.

6.2.1.3 Local Community

Amongst local interviewees, Siem Reap was mostly understood as being a town (Figure 6‐ 2), with the second most common perception being that it was a ‘province’. Smaller numbers of interviewees saw Siem Reap as a ‘tourism area’ or as a ‘city’. Perceptions of Siem Reap ‘town’ focused on it as a big town, with urban development being a motivating reason. “Siem Reap is now a big town. Before it was small, but now it has spread out” (Local Community Interviewee 7). Those who considered Siem Reap as a small or medium town often viewed it favourably, even preferring it that way. “[Siem Reap is] very good, better than Phnom Penh… Phnom Penh is a big city, very crowded. Siem Reap is a small town, but with space” (Local Community Interviewee 20). This suggested that like the APSARA interviewees, local residents’ perceptions of size were also influenced by emotions.

45 40

es 35 e w30 ie rv te 25 In f 20 r o e b 15 m u N 10 5 0 tourism area town city province Perceived Size of Siem Reap

Figure 6‐2. Analysis of interviews revelaed that most of the local community interviewees perceived the size of Siem Reap as that of a town, though many also emphasised that the province was also called 'Siem Reap'.

197

Another common comparison by local interviewees was that Siem Reap was seen, with pride, as the second biggest town or city after Phnom Penh. Perceptions of Siem Reap ‘City’ were also the result of positive emotional linkages to observations of progress, buildings and landscape changes. “Siem Reap is a city. Everything is a progress: good roads, buildings, so it is a city” (Local Community Interviewee 56). In comparison, many of those who considered Siem Reap as a province, whilst viewing development positively, did not see it as having progressed sufficiently so as to make Siem Reap a town, only a province. “I know that it’s a province, [as] the population increases and develops it will become a town” (Local community Interviewee 23).

6.2.1.4 Siem Reap Defined

Analysis has demonstrated that most stakeholders perceived Siem Reap as either a ‘town’ or a ‘province’, both of which were commonly seen as experiencing urban growth. References collected from the ICC documents suggested ICC contributors perceived a transformation from a village towards a ‘town’ or a ‘city’. Amongst comments from APSARA staff interviewed, and also evident in the ICC documents, was negativity towards large urban spaces. In contrast, local interviewees expressed positive feelings towards growth, perceiving it as symbolic of progress and socio‐economic development. “There are new buildings around Phsar Chas and across the road. The Baray Singnam, with the new university and market, it is a new town. There are two other universities, the Build Bright University and ICU. The new buildings and the government earn lots of money from tourists; there are more jobs. Pay more money in Siem Reap” (Local Community Interviewee 3). In trying to understand the construction and relationship of the scale of modernity to the scale of value and interpretation, this analysis has demonstrated that urban space was associated with more negative attitudes. The analysis which follows will illustrate how these attitudes have led to its exclusion from spaces (and scales) of value and interpretation.

198

6.2.2 The Role of Modern Space

To determine the relationship between the scales of value, interpretation and modernity, an understanding of the role played by modern spaces is required. In this case interviewees were questioned, and the contributions to the ICC documents were analysed to determine the role, or importance, of Siem Reap town in relation to the Angkor heritage area.

6.2.2.1 ICC Documents

Within both the Cambodian and International ICC documents, Siem Reap town was primarily seen as the area within the Siem Reap‐Angkor region, providing services and support for heritage tourism at Angkor (Table 6‐2). In 1993, the international ICC documents discussed the need for Siem Reap to develop to meet this necessity so that the Angkor Park would not be faced with modern intrusions. “One of the most serious potential threats to the Angkor monuments is the probability that, once the political problems have been resolved, tourism will become a major source of revenue for Cambodia, the impact of increased tourist facilities around the monuments could be catastrophic if they are allowed to encroach too closely” (ICC Document: ICOMOS September 1992).

Cambodia ICC international ICC All ICC (18 documents) (110 Documents) (128 Documents) DOCUMENTS DESCRIBING ROLE OF SIEM REAP 92938 ROLES DESCRIBED

Provide Services for Tourism 5 9 14 Enhance Experience of 14 5 Visiting Angkor Ensure Economic 69 15 Development Assist Angkor with the 03 3 Provision of Services Gateway to Angkor 24 6 Home for Local Population 1 1 2 Infrastructure to Support 04 4 Monuments Control Development to 11 2 Protect Monuments

Table 6‐2. Descriptions of the role of the Siem Reap urban settlement found within the ICC Documents were sparse with discussion in only one quarter of documents. Most references emphasised its roles in economic development and in providing services for tourism.

199

Within the 2003 ICC documents it was evident that Siem Reap town had grown in significance, and was functioning as a service and welcome centre for visitors to Angkor. The emphasis on tourism was greater within these documents, reinforcing the role of the modern space is to serve the heritage spaces. “As for the Siem Reap town program, this crossroads between tradition and modernity is to continue developing around two pillars: safeguarding and showcasing the urban core with its Khmer tradition and colonial touch along with controlled development of its intake services to be rounded out by culture, art and leisure facilities” (ICC Document: Cambodia June 2003). The relationship between Siem Reap town and Angkor was one where the modern urban settlement has been functioning as the service of the heritage space, indicating that the scale of modernity was subordinate to both the scale of value and the scale of interpretation.

6.2.2.2 APSARA

When queried on whether Siem Reap town was important for Angkor, two of the APSARA staff interviewed felt that the appearance and atmosphere of the town was not important for Angkor, and that the town and the temples should remain separate. From this perspective the modern space appeared less important that the older spaces of Angkor. In contrast, the other 85% of APSARA interviewees felt that the image (or appearance) of Siem Reap town, particularly that which was presented to foreigners, was important for Angkor. They felt that if the town changed, or modernised, it would have negative consequences for Siem Reap and for Angkor. Within this understanding, the modern space is perceived as less important, but was not considered insignificant as it could be harmful if altered. “Siem Reap is very important for Angkor. Very, very important, because if Siem Reap becomes like Bangkok it makes no sense. Nobody come, no tourist come and visit Siem Reap. They visit Angkor and go out” (APSARA Interviewee 6).

Many APSARA interviewees felt the town needed to maintain a ‘traditional’ appearance to ensure its role as the gateway to Angkor. In addition to its appearance, they also felt that there was an understanding across Cambodia of the inseparable emotional link between the town and Angkor. “You know, Siem Reap for me, I think it is, at the same time we

200

thinking about [Siem Reap], we imagine about the ancient city, as we have a lot of temple, and we thinking about the activity in that time, and its present about the natural quality in that time, its, you know, just imagine about that, and my friend also in Phnom Penh, they thinking every time Siem Reap is the green town. We have always that imagination to visit the Siem Reap‐Angkor, so the core of, the main point of view of the Cambodian people outside of Siem Reap imagine in that image” (APSARA Interviewee 13). As discussed within the ICC documents, many of the APSARA interviewees (8 of 13) recognised that Siem Reap town provided services that Angkor could not. “The good thing that the house located in the town, it is good because most of the foreigner the tourist they stay not in Angkor but they stay in the house in this area, if there is no house, where are the tourist to stay” (APSARA Interviewee 5). However, it was also stressed that these services needed to be kept at distance from the Angkor Park monuments, or controlled, to protect the heritage area.

During the interviews with APSARA staff, the concept of ‘Angkor City’ (or ‘Angkor Town’) arose. This idea was discussed by eight of the thirteen APSARA interviewees, and expressed the idea that Siem Reap town functioned as the modern day urban settlement of Angkor. “I think that the Siem Reap is a city. I always call it Siem Reap city. Because Siem Reap is a lot of temple for people come to visit, so this area a lot of people for live and to come visit. I always call City Angkor” (APSARA Interviewee 11). A similar understanding was discussed earlier (see Section 5.2.4), where perceptions of Angkor’s position inside or outside of Siem Reap town highlighted the potential for a psychological link between town and temples. Because of the connections in functionality across the landscape, Angkor and Siem Reap could not be separated: “Angkor use the city and the city use Angkor” (APSARA Interviewee 3). The appearance and character of the town was important, because if the contemporary urban environment was altered then so would its relationship with Angkor. Thus the modern urban area of Siem Reap not only played a service role, but also had strong connections with the temples in the opinion of many APSARA interviewees.

6.2.2.3 Local Community

A role for Siem Reap town in the context of Angkor was recognised by approximately a quarter of the local community interviewees, with a further three expressing the opinion that the contemporary urban area had no importance for the heritage site. The

201

explanations given by local community interviewees focused on the appearance and function of Siem Reap town. They felt that if the urban settlement did not look nice or grew too large, it could physically (and thus aesthetically) damage the forests surrounding the temples. The motivation behind these responses often lay with Angkor’s function as an economic space. Heritage and modern spaces were linked by the local community interviewees through a concern that tourists were provided for (accommodation and restaurants), and that their (tourists’) aesthetic desires should also be satisfied. “Both Angkor and Siem Reap very important. When tourists come they will visit the temples, when they rest they should have a good place and safety” (Local Community Interviewee 35). Some respondents acknowledged that foreign tourists and Cambodians viewed things differently, expressing a need to keep ‘traditional houses’ for the tourist market and for the image of Ankgor. “[Siem Reap is] not important for value of Angkor but it is for tourists. They want to see Cambodian lifestyle and the business of the people” (Local Community Interviewee 50). Another respondent expressed the opinion that there had to be evidence of modern development, otherwise Siem Reap would appear too old and unattractive for tourists.

6.2.2.4 A Modern Space for a Heritage Space

It was evident from the analysis of different stakeholders that the modern urban landscape performed important functions within the heritage landscape of Angkor. Heritage is now seen as serving a functional purpose as a cultural and economic resource (Loulanski 2006). The findings within this section suggest that it is the role of modern spaces to support the practical and functional uses of heritage. At Angkor, the modern urban landscape of Siem Reap plays a vital role in providing services which the heritage area is unable to supply due to restrictions on aesthetics and activities within the scales of value and interpretation (Figure 6‐3). The services provided by the urban area to residents and tourists ensure people are able to utilise and interpret Angkor. Thus whilst some may have explicitly stated that Siem Reap town was not part of the heritage landscape, it is functionally, if not aesthetically, embedded within it.

202

Figure 6‐3. The urban settlement of Siem Reap services the heritage tourism industry and provides employment and business opportunities to the local community and others.

6.2.3 Approaches to defining urban and rural

A key part of understanding the boundaries that define the scales of interpretation and modernity is the differentiation between ‘traditional’ and ‘contemporary’ or, in the case of Angkor, between ‘urban’ and ‘rural’ areas. In managing Angkor, these terms have generally been treated as unproblematic, and have never been actively defined. Within the data created for the Angkor ZEMP (Wager and Englehardt 1994; Jelen 2004), ‘urban’ and ‘rural’ occur as oppositional classes when describing population and land use. There has been little explanation of how these categories were differentiated by those analysing and representing the landscape, other than the adoption of Cambodian government approaches which classify and divide populations and spaces according to existing administrative (or district) boundaries (Rao, Than et al. 2002). It is widely acknowledged within urban geography literature that urban and rural are not straightforward classifications, but are subjective, relative and context specific (Hugo, Champion et al. 2003). The ambiguity and potential inappropriateness of land use and land cover

203

classification could lead to the social manipulation of boundaries around the various heritage and interpretative spaces. This section undertakes a comparison of the descriptions that different stakeholders utilise to differentiate between urban and rural areas. In doing so, it forms the foundation for the spatial analysis that will follow, where the implications of these different ontological understandings will be examined.

6.2.3.1 ICC Documents

The ICC documents were analysed for text that provided information on how the terms urban or rural were defined or differentiated by both international and Cambodian representatives to the ICC. Sometimes references were overt, such as, “Siem Reap town has a wide selection of hotel facilities” (UNESCO: ICC December 2003). At other times the comparison was more subtle: “The rural population in the Angkor region are not sustainable by the resource base at its present disposal, using only the prevailing agricultural technologies” (UNESCO: ICC December 1993). Such a statement possibly implies that wealth is a definitive criterion between ‘urban’ and ‘rural’ landscapes.

In both the international and Cambodian contributions to the ICC, there was greater differentiation of urban areas through descriptions of the built environment than by describing the populations (Table 6‐3). The built environment of urban areas was expressed through descriptions of buildings and infrastructure. In defining ‘urban’ using people, attention was drawn to wealth, population sizes and growth, lifestyles and employment. Other attributes that were used to describe and differentiate these areas included their function and their use of resources. This was also linked to a perception that urban areas damage the environment. Contributions made by the Cambodian government in the ICC documents, emphasised the need for urban areas to be controlled and managed because they could be hazardous to the heritage environment. The implication given in many of these contributions was that rural areas live in harmony with the environment. A similar attitude was also present in the foreign contributions to the ICC documents, but they also drew attention to the disadvantage of rural populations. Their text conveyed an image of urban areas that had experienced growth, developed infrastructure, and had an economy, whereas rural areas were suffering neglect and economic disadvantage.

204

CAMBODIA (18 INTERNATIONAL ALL ICC (128 CRITERIA REFERRING TO DOCUMENTS) (110 DOCUMENTS) DOCUMENTS) Lifestyle 6% 4% 4% Wealth Population 17% 6% 8% Industries 22% 6% 9% Buildings 17% 6% 8% Function 6% 3% 3% Infrastructure Built 6% 3% 3% Urban Growth Environment 11% 6% 7% Urban Needs To Be 11% 5% 5% Managed EnvironmentNatural 6% 5% 5% ResourcesEnvironment 6% 4% 4%

Table 6‐3. Distinguishing features of 'urban' and 'rural' collected from Cambodian and international contributions within ICC documentation.There was greater differentiation of urban areas through descriptions of the built environment than by describing the populations.

6.2.3.2 APSARA Interviews

APSARA and local community interviewees were asked how they differentiated between urban and rural spaces. APSARA interviewees placed a strong emphasis on the number and lifestyle of people in defining urban areas, though they also described differences in the number and appearance of buildings (Figure 6‐4).

12

s 10 e w ie 8 rv te In 6 of r be 4 um N 2

0 People Lifestyle Buildings Roads Atm osphere Environment

205

Figure 6‐4. Techniques for distinguishing between urban and rural spaces as perceived by interviewed APSARA staff. Analysis showed an emphasis on people and their lifestyles, as well as physical attibutes such as buildings and the environment.

In describing the inhabitants of an area, many APSARA interviewees moved beyond descriptions of the size and wealth of the population, to also discuss differences in employment, education and lifestyle. Urban populations were often perceived as being modern, possessing an ease of life, and having a higher level of (and access to) education. Rural areas suffered the opposite: “The countryside most of the people is poor, they make the house by the wooden and they in the town we see about the brick, the house. And they have…car, the motorcycle in the town. And in the countryside now they only have the motor, because some people they sell the land, because they no money and the people living in the town, they buy the land, from the countryside people” (APSARA Interviewee 8). This quote also demonstrates how often observations of the population were linked closely to descriptions of the built environment.

Comparisons of the built environment in urban and rural areas involved the juxtaposition of large buildings versus small buildings, and high density versus low density of structures. Interviewees also highlighted the qualitative characteristics of buildings, such as the architecture. Rural areas were seen by APSARA interviewees as having ‘traditional’ wooden architecture, whereas modern concrete apartments were dominant in urban areas. “Town has a lot of building that make from the stone [concrete] and countryside has a lot of the house and separate house, house, house, house. And the countryside make from the tree and the leaf of the palm and another…” (APSARA Interviewee 8). Similarly, the functions of the buildings were perceived as different. Urban areas were perceived as being the centre of tourism and business, and rural areas were primarily residential. Other aspects of the built environment discussed by APSARA staff included infrastructure, particularly roads. Many APSARA (and local community) interviewees recognised their arrival in the town when seeing improved (better) roads.

The final attributes of urban‐rural differentiation described by APSARA interviewees were more intangible, and often very qualitative, descriptions of aesthetics. These descriptions

206

were very negative towards urban spaces and people, and reinforced an idea of a ‘rural idyll’ (Rigg 1994; Rigg, Allott et al. 1999), where rural spaces were perceived more favourably than modern urban spaces (Mitchell and Coghill 2000; Rigg and Ritchie 2002). Urban areas were seen as the cause of environmental problems, especially pollution. In contrast, rural areas were described as being clean, quiet and relaxing. A sense of space, connected to scenery and availability of land, was also a defining characteristic of rural areas. APSARA interviewees’ definitions of urban and rural areas were a mixture of positive and negative attributes. They acknowledged the positives of modern development evident in urban areas, but also highlighted the negatives of urbanisation. As with the analysis of the ICC documents, APSARA interviewees emphasised the increasing intensification and growth of urban areas and their potential to destroy the rural landscape and way of life. As ‘rural’ is a key element in defining the scale interpretation at Angkor, it is not surprising that heritage professionals hold such attitudes. If ‘urban’ space belongs to the scale of modernity, and rural space to the scale of interpretation, then the boundary between these two spaces will form the material boundary between these scales. However, the recognition of a historic urban core within Siem Reap town has become a potential source of tension within the wider heritage management of Angkor‐Siem Reap (Esposito and Nam 2008; Rabe 2008). The promotion (and expansion) of this space has the potential to destabilise and reconstruct the scales of interpretation and modernity.

6.2.3.3 Local Community

Local community interviewees were asked to directly describe how they separated the town and countryside. Additional information was also collected during analysis of other sections of the interviews, particularly when respondents described the spatial limits of the town, or why they saw the town as (dis‐)connected with Angkor. As with APSARA staff interviewed, members of the local community often used more than one method of urban‐ rural definition, particularly as many of the categories were very interlinked: “Town people [are] very rich, have stone houses. Country living is poor, have wooden house.” (Local Community Interviewee 30: rural resident) For the local community interviewees, describing characteristics of the population were the most popular method of differentiating between urban and rural spaces (Figure 6‐5). “[In the countryside] people live differently. They have different clothes. In the countryside, they dress not very clean or

207

modern because poor and only cultivate rice. In the countryside if they have water they can get water, else they have no money. In the town, they earn money or have business and therefore buy clothes” (Local Community Interviewee 32: rural resident).

35

30 es e 25 w e vi r 20 te In f o 15 r e b m10 u N 5

0 People Lifestyle Buildings Roads Atmosphere Environment

Figure 6‐5. Local community interviewees' techniques for distinguishing between urban and rural spaces alternated between the characteristics of people and characteristics of buildings environment.

When ‘people’ were described, it was in reference to occupations (town versus country jobs), population density (lots versus a few), and wealth (rich versus poor). To a lesser extent, some respondents also commented on the level of education and accent differences between urban and rural populations. “In the town is electricity. [There are] rich people. [It is] modern, easy life. The character and speaking is different” (Local Community Interviewee 54: rural resident). Descriptions of lifestyles by rural interviewees were often a comment on the perceived modernity of people’s lives in urban areas, such as the ease of life, material possessions of the population, and other aspects of their daily lives. “The town has big concrete houses, car, motorbike, and modern products they use in everyday life” (Local Community Interviewee 41: rural resident).

208

Differentiation using the material landscape was the second most popular method used by the local community interviewees. The size of buildings, their purpose and density were all used to differentiate between the town and the countryside. “In the town we notice many big buildings – hotels, guesthouses and restaurants… In the countryside there are small houses, maybe some medium‐sized houses.” (Local Community Interviewee 36: rural resident) Many respondents also commented on the style of architecture and the materials used in construction. Urban buildings were perceived as being of a modern, concrete style, and rural buildings were of wooden traditional, or Khmer, style. These characteristics were often used to describe why the Angkor Park was, and would remain, rural: “[Sras Sraeng area is] countryside because APSARA not allow to develop, so people have to follow the traditional house, not concrete or modern” (Local Community Interviewee 31: rural resident). Other descriptions of the material landscape were directed at the size (large in the town, small in the countryside) and the quality of the roads. Town roads were described as good or formal, and the countryside roads as bad or dusty, though urban roads did possess one negative characteristic: traffic. “In the town all day there is more people, more crowded, and bad traffic. In the countryside only the daytime is crowded, in the night time it is quiet” (Local Community Interviewee 59: rural resident). The descriptions of ‘infrastructure’ suggested a perception by the local community interviewees of urban as connected and accessible, and rural as isolated.

The atmosphere and environment of urban and rural areas were discussed by only a few local community interviewees. Descriptions of the environment related to the scenery, pollution, sense of space, and the cost of land. ‘Atmosphere’ incorporated descriptions of noise and tradition: “The countryside has good fresh air, and no pollution. The town is noisy and has pollution” (Local Community Interviewee 56: rural resident). ‘Scenery’ was perhaps the most subjective, and therefore most complex, differentiating factor. Some interviewees talked of the countryside as beautiful and the town as visually harsh. Others saw the town as nice and clean, and the countryside as dirty. But, in general, the town was portrayed negatively for its environmental attributes, while the natural elements of the landscape in the countryside were often emphasised positively. Approximately half of the interviewees’

209

descriptions of the ‘environment’ connected with agriculture, specifically the growing of rice: “[The countryside has] big fields to grow rice and vegetables… it is green” (Local Community Interviewee 55: rural resident) Other characteristics of the ‘environment’ used to differentiate between urban and rural areas included land prices (town land was considered expensive), the ‘space’ of the countryside, and the presence of ‘forest’ in the countryside. A key intangible attribute of urban and rural areas was atmosphere. Responses within this category were all given by interviewees that positioned themselves within the countryside. They portrayed a negative aspect of the town, which could be summed up by one response: “I don’t like the town and couldn’t live there. It’s boring and crowded.” (Local Community Interviewee 27: rural resident)

It was evident from many of the comments and descriptions given by local community interviewees that a person’s personal circumstances influenced the way that they defined and described the differences between urban and rural areas. Thus it was appropriate to examine how various groupings of interviewees perceived the landscape. For example, did rural people perceive greater variation in wealth? Did those in the town view buildings as a key difference? The attributes of interviewees chosen for analysis were the current urban‐ rural situation, and the urban‐rural background, of respondents (Table 6‐4).

METHOD OF BACKGROUND CURRENT RESIDENTIAL LOCATION CLASS DIFFERENTIATION Urban Rural Town Suburban Countryside People 8% 22% 12% 3% 17% POPULATION Lifestyle 5% 12% 9% 1% 9% BUILT Buildings 9% 18% 12% 2% 15% ENVIRONMENT Roads 1% 4% 1% 2% 3% NATURAL Atmosphere 0% 3% 0% 0% 3% ENVIRONMENT Environment 4% 12% 8% 1% 9%

Table 6‐4. Comparison between Siem Reap interviewees currently from rural and urban areas and those from rural and urban backgrounds, to explore how personal circumstances may influence the manner in which urban and rural areas are distinguished.

Those who had classified themselves as residing in the town perceived differences in the material landscape such as the number and type of buildings, whereas those who placed themselves in the countryside demonstrated an awareness of the wealth and lifestyle

210

differences between themselves and town people. The small number (five) of interviewees who classified themselves as in the suburbs gave similar responses to those in the countryside, seeing ‘people’ as a key difference. They also focused their discussion on roads as a marker of difference: “Here is suburb and countryside is further because the national road comes through here” (Local Community Interviewee 38: suburban resident).

Similar patterns emerged when considering the urban or rural background of interviewees, with those from an urban background primarily describing attributes of ‘buildings’, and those from a rural background emphasising characteristics of ‘people’. Differences between the perceptions of urban (current town residents and those originating in urban areas) and rural observers (current countryside residents and those originating in rural areas) suggested that for those with an urban ‘gaze’ (Urry 1990), the visible changes in the material landscape of the town and countryside were the most significant difference: the town is large, modern and concrete, and the countryside is small, wooden and traditional. Contrasting with this was a rural ‘glare’, with those ‘looking in’ from the countryside perceiving the wealth, jobs, and lifestyles of the town.

6.2.4 Angkor as an Urban or Rural Landscape

Definitions of what is urban and rural may influence not only the way that the relationship between Angkor and Siem Reap town is understood, but also the perceived problems and requirements for management of the Angkor landscape. While maps of Siem Reap have been produced by APSARA, various tourist agencies and the international community (for example, Palmer and Martin 2005; Ray and Robinson 2008; Cramer 2009), little was known about how the Local Community perceived contemporary changes in the landscape. This section has demonstrated that many stakeholders understood differences between urban and rural areas through changes in the population. Whilst lifestyles and wealth may have material consequences, it is concerning that the dominant method of determining urban and rural space for Angkor’s planning and management have been centred on building density and the results of aerial photography and remote sensing land cover analysis. With ‘urban’ and ‘rural’ a key element in forming the boundary between heritage and non‐ heritage spaces, different understandings potentially affect the construction and relationships between the various scales of heritage.

211

6.3 Geographies of Inclusion and Exclusion

The scales of heritage are socially constructed through individual and collective understandings about the role and position of a heritage site or object in a particular temporal or geographical context. This thesis considers the relationship between scales as an important part of defining each scale. The point at which scales interact, their boundaries, becomes of key interest when exploring these relationships (Jackson 1984; Howitt 1998). Throughout this thesis, a key component of exploring the scaling of heritage at Angkor has been to consider how scales become manifest physically. Value is scaled to encompass three physical extents: Angkor Wat, the Angkor Archaeological Park, and the apparently unbounded Angkor landscape. The scale of interpretation was demonstrated to be the result of the temporal and geographical contextualisation of the scale of value. It incorporated spaces judged to have associative values, and excluded spaces, like modern urban areas, deemed to be inappropriate by the stakeholder. Urban growth, development and change have often been perceived as potential intrusions into spaces of value. As a counterpoint, the scale of modernity was similarly linked to, and defined by, the limits of urban space. All these understandings and perceptions were influenced by individual and collective social, economic and political agendas that created geographies of inclusion and exclusion (Lanegran 1986; Sibley 1992).

Demonstrating the importance of participatory, pluralistic approaches to GIS and spatial analysis, this section will consider how the boundaries between scales are created in physical space through attitudes and behaviours. It firstly examines how the spatial limits of the scale of modernity are defined, demonstrating the need to adopt a pluralistic approach to boundary definition. Secondly, this section explores the influences of perceptions of behaviour and attitudes towards the functions of particular spaces for different stakeholders. Finally, it examines the material consequences of the constructed scales of heritage by exploring the consequences of different attitudes towards the material landscape. This section will focus on the perceptions of APSARA staff interviewed and the local community as contributions to the ICC documents did not discuss the issues within this section with sufficient detail for analysis to be incorporated in this context.

212

6.3.1 The Extent of Siem Reap

Through a juxtaposition of ‘traditional’ and ‘contemporary’, the boundaries of modern space at Angkor have been constructed (scaled) to correspond with urban spaces. Thus perceptions of the physical extent of Siem Reap town will be analysed as the foundation for investigating the material consequences for Siem Reap. All interviewees were asked to define the northern, southern, eastern and western extents of the town. Responses were either very spatially defined or were broader, more qualitative descriptions of localities. These differences, combined with variation in the number of responses, might reflect different levels of usage and knowledge by interviewees (Albert 1997; Al‐Kodmany 2001). If someone travels through or uses an area more often, they may notice and recall smaller or less obvious structures (Lynch 1960). If they don’t use a route frequently, then knowledge may be limited to major, or distinctive, landmarks (Lynch 1960).

6.3.1.1 Northern Extent

All interviewees (APSARA staff and local community) were able to provide a location for where they felt the northern extent of Siem Reap town lay (Figure 6‐6). These locations extended from the now‐demolished stadium in the south to beyond the Angkor Park. Many interviewees gave qualitative descriptions, such as “the big temples”, “Angkor complex”, “the temples” and “Angkor”, which were not easily identifiable geographical locations so were incorporated within in a category ‘Angkor Combined’, represented as the centre of the Angkor Park. Almost all of the APSARA staff interviewed felt that the border was either south of the ticket office or no further than the Angkor Wat moat. From the local community interviewees, responses were clustered around three locations: the ticket office of the Angkor Park; the Angkor Wat and the Angkor Complex; and past the temple complex. This last cluster is noteworthy in the face of arguments put forward by heritage professionals that the town must remain south of the temple (Esposito and Nam 2008), as more than twenty percent of local interviewees described Siem Reap town as already extending past the main tourist areas of Angkor Park.

213

Figure 6‐6. APSARA and Local Community perceptions of the northern extent of Siem Reap town. Frequency of responses for each extent location are represented by the dot size.

To determine whether familiarity with an area affected the responses given, the northern spatial sample group (those who live within the Angkor Park) was compared with other interviewees (Figure 6‐7). The northern group’s responses were clustered around the

214

Angkor Wat moat and Ticket office, south of their homes. In contrast, other interviewees gave more dispersed answers, with two distinct clusters, one around the ticket office and the other concentrated around locations to the north of Angkor Park. The more spatially ambiguous responses gathered within the ‘Angkor Combined’ category came mostly from the interviewees residing outside the Angkor Park. Those from within the park were more likely to specify a specific locality within the park, such as the south gate of Angkor Thom, Preah Khan, or the “road that runs along the moat of Angkor Wat” (Local Community Interviewee 25). These findings support the notion that a person’s mental map is enhanced by frequent use of an area (Lynch 1960; Goodey 1974).

215

Figure 6‐7. Comparison of interviewee perceptions of the northern extent of Siem Reap town, demonstrating differences between APSARA and the local community interviewees, and between those who live inside and outside of the Angkor Park.

216

6.3.1.2 Southern Extent

Responses given by both APSARA and local interviewees produced a pattern for the southern extent of the town was focused on three locations (Figure 6‐8)I:

 The crocodile farm (just south of the old market area;  Halfway along the road to the lake, and;  At Phnom Krom, on the edge of the lake.

In between these, there were also a small scattering of references to locations, mostly around the middle of the south road towards the flood line, where changes in the landscape can be considered more subtle.

The southern spatial sample group had a wider range of responses than those from other areas (Figure 6‐9). They were often more specific about the location, for example: “Wat Kommoy” (Local Community Interviewee 43: south resident) compared to “halfway to Phnom Krom” (Local Community Interviewee 14: central resident). The entire southern spatial sample group provided a response to this question, compared to only 50% of other local interviewees, and 90% of APSARA interviewees. For those from the South, the border was either around the start of the South Road (linking Phsar Chas to Phnom Krom) or halfway along this road. Other respondents had a strong perception of the town extending to Phnom Krom (44%), with a lesser perception of the urban‐rural border being at the crocodile farm, or between there and Phnom Krom (Figure 6‐10). This would suggest that lack of knowledge of the area focused responses on the large landmarks.

217

Figure 6‐8. APSARA and Siem Reap Community perceptions of the southern extent of Siem Reap town. Frequency of responses for each extent location are represented by dot size.

218

Figure 6‐9. Comparison of interviewee perceptions of the Southern extent of Siem Reap town, demonstrating differences between APSARA and the local community interviewees, and between those who live inside and outside of the Angkor Park.

219

Figure 6‐10. Phnom Krom, to the south of Siem Reap town.

6.3.1.3 Eastern Extent

Perceptions of the eastern extent of Siem Reap town presented a very different pattern to those for the northern and southern extents (Figure 6‐11). After the northern extent, knowledge of the east was the next highest with only 15 non‐responses – “I don’t know” ‐ and all answers referred to specific spatially‐identifiable locations. Four main points were nominated as the eastern extent of Siem Reap town. These were:

 Phsar Leu ‐ the largest market in Siem Reap which serves as a wholesale market for all the stall holders and other market areas within the Siem Reap town area;  Chongasu Truck/Bus Stop ‐ primarily a road junction where buses and trucks depart for Phnom Penh and provinces and towns to the south and east;  The Baray Singnam ‐ a large, new development of ‘shophouses’, apartments, a university, markets, and hotels, and;  Svay Thom ‐ the last significant settlement area along the National Route 6 until after Roluos. Other settlements such as Lolei, and Roluos itself, are located off the main highway.

220

Figure 6‐11. APSARA staff and local community interviewees' perceptions of the Eastern extent of Siem Reap town. Frequency of responses for each extent are represented by dot size.

In addition, several APSARA interviewees nominated locations much further east towards the Roluos group. For the local community, the likelihood of a location being selected decreased with distance away from the urban core, with Phsar Leu being the most popular and Svay Thom being the least popular, whereas the responses of APSARA staff clustered further east amongst the peripheral settlements of Svay Thom and Chongasu. Interviewees in the Eastern sample group all resided east of Chongasu, and perceived themselves as living in the countryside (Figure 6‐12), with the border placed to the west of their homes. Interviewees from other areas gave a wide variety of responses, with Phsar Leu market and the Chongasu Truck Stop being the most popular choices.

221

Figure 6‐12. Comparison of ASPARA staff and local community interviewees' perceptions of the Eastern extent of Siem Reap town, demonstrating differences between residents from the East of Siem Reap and elsewhere.

222

6.3.1.4 Western Extent

The western extent had the most clearly defined border of all the four directions (Figure 6‐ 13). From the local community, half of interviewees identified the airport, with an additional 10% referring to the turn‐off road to the airport. Other locations nominated by local respondents were to both the east and west of the airport (and the airport road). The Kortoklok hotel is one of the older large hotels in Siem Reap. Puok and Teukville are semi‐ urban settlements to the west and south of the Western Baray. The APSARA interviewees similarly had responses clustered around the airport (Figure 6‐14), but their responses were skewed towards the West Baray reservoir. There were also some outlying locations, including Puok and the Cambodian Cultural Village (a cultural theme park). Due to a dominating perception of the airport as the urban limit, there was little variation determined between respondents from different locations.

Figure 6‐13. APSARA and Local Community perceptions of the Western extent of Siem Reap town. Frequency of responses for each extent location are represented by dot size.

223

Figure 6‐14. Comparison of APSARA staff and local community interviewee perceptions of the Western extent of Siem Reap town.

6.3.1.5 The Urban Area of Siem Reap

From the analysis of the directional extents of Siem Reap town described by local and APSARA interviewees, it is clear that defining a spatial limit to ‘urban’ space is a complex

224

matter. When travelling, large landmarks, such as the airport, Phnom Krom, Angkor Wat and Phsar Leu, mark progress, and therefore changes, across the landscape (Lynch 1991). However, it is more likely that urban and rural slowly blend into each other (Hugo, Champion et al. 2003). Some local community interviewees discussed the presence or absence of people at various places as a marker of whether or not a location was urban. Each of the key locations selected to the north, south, east and west can be considered active spaces which draw significant traffic (people and vehicles), and thus movement from the centre of town. After passing one of these nodes, a sharp decline in the number of people can be observed. The use of ‘people’ to define urban‐rural spaces was also a key technique utilised by those who considered Angkor as part of Siem Reap town (Figure 6‐ 15). APSARA interviewees also selected some of their border locations according to characteristics of the population, but they referred more often to the number of buildings and their appearance (i.e. new or old, wooden or concrete). To the east, their responses were particularly defined by perceptions of urban growth, with half of APSARA interviewees expressing a feeling that it was difficult to choose an eastern extent of the town as it was continually moving, and it would be impossible to say where the eastward expansion of the town would eventually end. “The east is moving too much right now. For me the east is about somewhere here (the river road near DMA2), somewhere like the road to Phnom Penh. But now the limit of the city it’s farther east” (APSARA Interviewee 01).

225

100%

90% es e 80% w ie rv 70% te environment In 60% l atmosphere f A 50% o roads e 40% ag buildings t 30% n lifestyle ce er 20% P people 10%

0% No Response Outside of Town Inside Town Both Inside and Outside of Town Spatial Relationship of Angkor to Siem Reap Town

Figure 6‐15. Comparing perceptions of Angkor's relationship with Siem Reap town and the techniques used to distinguish between urban and rural areas illustrated that those who considered Angkor as part of the town concentrated on the environment and the lifestyle of the people in differentiating between urban and rural spaces.

In most of the urban studies at Siem Reap‐Angkor to date, the occurrence and daily movement of local people across the landscape has not been considered, and has definitely not been included as part of any official definition of urban and rural areas. One potential impact of this is the dehumanisation of the landscape (Melissinos 2005). Management practices would be based around a landscape of buildings, roads, and vegetation, rather than a living landscape used and occupied by people. Increasingly, participatory management practices have been employed at Angkor to ensure that the activities and livelihoods of the population are taken into consideration during spatial zoning practices (Mackay and Sullivan 2008). The findings presented in this chapter have so far indicated that the processes which define the boundaries between spaces of value, interpretation and modernity vary between different stakeholders. When Angkor is scaled through the definition of social spaces, it is linked to the activities of people on the ground, or land use, rather than a landscape scaled from above which considers the attributes of buildings and other aspects of land cover.

226

6.3.2 Behavioural boundaries:

Contemporary perceptions of heritage as a cultural resource result in definitions of value, authenticity and significance being linked to the use, or functionality, for the present day population (Loulanski 2006). Heritage exists for a purpose (Harvey 2001). In Chapter Four, data regarding the use of ‘Angkor’ were analysed to demonstrate how the acceptance of certain uses (and users) of Angkor constructed a social scale of value. An extended exploration into the use of space and place could reveal locations that are important to interviewees, as well as areas for which they have additional knowledge. This section will explore the relationships between the scales of heritage by exploring the utilisation (and therefore functionality) of different spaces in Angkor‐Siem Reap by interviewees from APSARA and the local community. Information about the manner in which places are positively or negatively perceived gives insight into possible problems and conflicts. Interviewees were asked about their use and behaviour within the Angkor‐Siem Reap region in a number of ways:

 Places visited regularly;  Places which are attached to positive perceptions and attitudes, and;  Places which are attached to negative perceptions and attitudes (for example, unsafe or unattractive).

Many of these responses included spatial information which could be incorporated within a GIS, thus assisting in improving the social representativeness of the spatial data and analysis used in the management of Angkor (see section 3.2.4).

6.3.2.1 Places visited regularly

All interviewees were asked to list places that they visited regularly during their free time. Different occupations required people to visit different locations, but they were not necessarily choosing to use, or interact, with these places. For example, moto drivers can be observed visiting the floating villages on the Tonle Sap, but they will often wait in their tuk tuks or stand around and chat while their tourists are on boat trips. By focusing on free time, an assumption was made that interviewees were providing information on places that they choose to visit. However, three local interviewees did stress that work was the only

227

reason for visiting places outside of the town as they had no free time. These people had been sent to Siem Reap by their companies, and they seemed to be some of the poorer interviewees. They worked seven days a week with little free time, with one sleeping at the back of the company office. “[Each day from] 5.30am‐8pm I work at the shop, 7 days a week. Then I sleep at the back of the shop” (Local Community Interviewee 4)

The most visited place (Table 6‐5) was Angkor Wat, with the more generic response of ‘Angkor’ also being popular. The reasons and frequency of this visitation were discussed in detail in Chapter 4. Other places that were highly visited by interviewees included:

 The West Baray – used as a picnic place, swimming place and community space.

“I am happy to go visit [the West Baray] and my children want to go swimming” (Local Community Interviewee 47)  Phnom Kulen – to picnic and swim at the waterfalls and to visit the temples in the mountains which are a protected environmental space.

“If it is a national day, like New Year, I will go to the mountains. There it is cool, there are waterfalls to swim, and that area has magic powers, it is a special place” (Local Community Interviewee 2)  Phnom Krom – Restaurants/bars for Khmers at the base of the hill, used most often during the wet season when the Tonle Sap is flooded.

“Often I go to Phnom Krom mountain, especially in the rainy season, when it has the water full. I like the fishing and eating... To sit there, because good looking and good environment, good fresh air... Sometime with friends and drink beer. Because have many song there, for Karaoke.” (ASPARA Interviewee 8)

228

Siem Reap APSARA (13 Grand Total (74 Places visited Community (61 Interviewees) Interviewees) Interviewees) Angkor 8.2% 53.8% 16.2% Angkor Wat 23.0% 46.2% 27.0% West Baray 11.5% 30.8% 14.9% Roluos 0.0% 7.7% 1.4% Temple 0.0% 7.7% 1.4% Phnom Kulen 9.8% 15.4% 10.8% Phnom Krom 11.5% 23.1% 13.5% Kbal Spean 1.6% 7.7% 2.7% Work Place 4.9% 0.0% 4.1% Cambodian Cultural 3.3% 0.0% 2.7% Phsar Chas 3.3% 0.0% 2.7% Visit Friends 1.6% 0.0% 1.4% Countryside 1.6% 0.0% 1.4% Puok 1.6% 0.0% 1.4% Karaoke Bar 3.3% 0.0% 2.7% Markets 1.6% 0.0% 1.4% House 1.6% 0.0% 1.4% Tonle Sap 1.6% 0.0% 1.4% In The City 1.6% 0.0% 1.4% Phsar Leu 1.6% 0.0% 1.4% Everywhere 0.0% 7.7% 1.4% Don't Go Out 1.6% 0.0% 1.4%

Table 6‐5. The places which APSARA staff and local community interviewees described visiting in their free time revolved around sites belonging to the Angkor World Heritage area.

The places mentioned by respondents were mapped (Figure 6‐16) to show the spatial distribution illustrating that most people interviewed choose to spend their time outside Siem Reap town. APSARA staff particularly only made mention of going to Angkor‐related locations, and did generally not discuss using ‘modern’ spaces, such as bars. Several descriptions were too general (the countryside, visiting friends, work, markets, karaoke bar, house) to be mapped. Though many of these places were associated with urban areas, their inclusion would still not have counteracted the visible spatial pattern of Khmer recreational space as being outside the central ‘urban’ areas of the town. Defining value based on its social functions draws heritage into the everyday lives of those using it. These results demonstrate that when Angkor is scaled according to social values it is incorporated within the functional space of the town. Highlighting the use of Angkor Wat by almost all

229

interviewees, these results illustrate that Angkor does indeed fulfil the role as the central public and social space for local residents of Siem Reap.

Figure 6‐16. Places which APSARA and Local Community interviewees mentioned visiting regularly. Frequency of response is represented by dot size.

230

6.3.2.2 Places Perceived Positively

Attitudes towards space can be manifest in a number of ways. In addition to not using spaces physically, attitudes can also act as indicators of inclusion and exclusion of places and people (Jamal and Getz 1995). To gauge local and APSARA opinions of certain places interviewees were asked about places they considered good and bad. Responses were collated under either ‘positive’ or ‘negative’ and then mapped to identify hot spots.

To determine places perceived positively, four questions were asked:

 What places are important to you?  What is your favourite place?  What places do you like?  What places would you save from destruction?

Places that the Siem Reap community saw as positive included Angkor (generally), and Angkor Wat (specifically), Phnom Kulen, and the Tonle Sap (Table 6‐6). Other places that were mentioned by a number of respondents were Banteay Srei, the West Baray and workplaces. The latter were viewed positively as they were seen as important for an individual’s economic well‐being. APSARA interviewees also listed Angkor and Angkor Wat, as well as Phnom Koulen. The responses of both the Siem Reap Community and APSARA interviewees were very much focused on the areas outside the town (Figure 6‐17).

231

Figure 6‐17. Hotspot analysis of places perceived positively by all interviewees. Darker areas indicate a place was spoken of more frequently in a positive manner, than those areas indicated with a lighter spot (less frequently).

232

Places described Positively Places Visited Regularly Angkor Angkor Angkor Wat Angkor Wat Around Phsar Chas Phsar Chas Cambodian Cultural Village Cambodian Cultural Village Countryside Countryside Phnom Koulen Phnom Kulen Phnom Krom Phnom Krom Ton le Sap Ton Le Sap West Baray West Baray Roluos Roluos Kbal Spean Kbal Spean Work Work Place Entry road to Angkor Visit Friends Favourite buildings Puok Markets Markets Home Home Banteay Srei In the City Town Phsar Leu Phsar Chas Karaoke Bar Tourists Royal Palace School Restaurant Jayavarman VII hospital Nature

Table 6‐6. A comparison of places visited by interviewees in their free time with those places perceived and described positively by interviewees.

In discussions on Angkor’s importance for the local Siem Reap community (in Chapter 4), Angkor was demonstrated as being perceived as an important economic resource. However, Angkor was also perceived positively as a place that people would like to save due to its value as part of their own and the national identity, and as a place that they like to visit to relax and socialise. Further analysis of the reasons behind selection of positive places, indicated that many places were linked to their value as resources (economic or natural), and because people visited them (often). Many people also favoured places for their appearance, or because they were relaxing: “Before I liked to go to the top of Angkor

233

Wat in the evening because it was cool and can look at the flowering trees. I also liked to go to a Durian fruit farm with friends. The farm belongs to the monks and is north of the Angkor complex” (Local Community Interviewee 5).

6.3.2.3 Places Perceived Negatively

The analysis of perceptions of negative places involved four interview questions. These were:

 What places do you dislike?  What places do you consider dangerous or not safe?  What places are unattractive?  What places don’t/wouldn’t you go?

The responses to these questions were collated and revealed that the most common response was ‘nowhere’ (Table 6‐7), perceived by 70% of interviewees. A justification was given for this response by most respondents, demonstrating that the response was thought out: “None [places disliked], everywhere is very safe, no trouble compared to Phnom Penh where it is crowded and traffic jams and cramped so tourists and local people don’t like living in Phnom Penh cause it is difficult to travel” (Local Community Interviewee 41).

234

Local Community (61 APSARA (13 All Interviewees Negative Places interviewees) Interviewees) (74 Interviewees)

Nowhere 67% 85% 70% Don't Know 18% 0% 15% River 21% 8% 19% Bars 10% 0% 8% Brothel Areas 7% 8% 7% Far Place 2% 23% 5% Markets 7% 0% 5% Pollution 5% 8% 5% Traffic 5% 8% 5% Countryside 5% 0% 4% Phnom Kulen 3% 8% 4% The Town 2% 15% 4% Buildings Close To Road 3% 0% 3% Gangster Place 2% 8% 3% Kbal Spean 3% 0% 3% Uncontrolled Development 0% 15% 3% Apratment Buildings 0% 8% 1% Apsara Rd 2% 0% 1% Banteay Srei 0% 8% 1% Begging 2% 0% 1% Fishing Villages 2% 0% 1% Hotels 0% 8% 1% Krol Ko 2% 0% 1% Land Subsidence 0% 8% 1% Landmine Areas 2% 0% 1% Phsar Nge 2% 0% 1% Place With No Resort 2% 0% 1% Place With No Road 2% 0% 1% Road To Svay District 2% 0% 1% Sinking Boats 2% 0% 1% Vacant Land 0% 8% 1% Everywhere 2% 0% 1%

Table 6‐7. When Local Community and APSARA Interviewees were asked about their perceptions of negative locations in the Angkor‐Siem Reap region, most felt that there were no such places.

Negative places that were mentioned included the river, bars, brothel areas and markets. There were some similarities between the responses from APSARA staff and the local community interviewees. The river (Figure 6‐18) received attention as a place of negative association because of pollution, buildings close to its bank, its unattractiveness, and

235

people not feeling safe around it. Many of the respondents commented with dismay about the loss of the aesthetic values along the river as a result of people throwing rubbish into it. Bars and brothel areas (and snooker areas) were viewed negatively as they are seen as sites of social corruption: “[I dislike] the snooker area near the river. This place encourages gambling by the children, which makes the children become bad. This place can cause robberies and encourage thieves” (Local Community Interviewee 9). Other ‘places’ that were perceived negatively by interviewees included the countryside, traffic and ‘pollution’: “Ugly: along the river the whole river it is dirty and lots of litter” (Local Community Interviewee 12).

Figure 6‐18. Squatter settlements and rubbish, which line the banks of the Siem Reap River in the north of the town, were the focus of negative perceptions by interviewees.

The locations of places with negative associations were mapped in the same manner as positive places. One problem that arose in the mapping process was the number of un‐ mappable negative places. This was often because people tended to dislike the idea of something, or an activity, rather than a specific location. For example, “I don’t like bars but I don’t know where they area. These are not good places” (Local Community Interviewee 10). In order to facilitate the mapping process, it was determined that several of these un‐ mappable places could be linked to more generic locations (Table 6‐8). These connections were based on the descriptions provided within the various interviews. Many of the un‐

236

mappable places described attributes of urban space, with fewer describing the countryside (which itself was at times still too generic to be incorporated). For this analysis, the spatial location of the ‘town’ was chosen so as to most closely reflect the negative attributes described (based on the researcher’s extensive observation of the Siem Reap urban and peri‐urban landscape). The resulting map (Figure 6‐19) illustrated the strong negativity associated with the town, and thus with the ‘modern’ landscape and a modern lifestyle.

Non‐locational Description Feature Linked to Mapped Apartment buildings Bars Begging Traffic TOWN YES Uncontrolled Development Markets Hotels Gangster places Countryside places Places with no road Land mine areas COUNTRYSIDE NO Vacant land Land subsidence Place with no resort Buildings close to the road OTHER NO Pollution (town and countryside) Buildings close to the river RIVER YES

Table 6‐8. The classification of aspatial descriptions of negative places perceived by all interviewees used to facilitate spatial analysis.

237

Figure 6‐19. Hotspot analysis of places perceived negatively by APSARA staff and local community interviewees. Darker areas were spoken of more frequently in a negative manner, whereas those which are lighter were mentioned infrequently.

6.3.2.4 Attitudes towards Place

The final step of the analysis of attitudes towards place was to compare the hotspots of positive and negative perceptions (Figure 6‐20). From this comparison emerged an image of

238

a landscape, in which Angkor is the hot spot of positive perceptions. Additional locations (i.e. the Jayavarman VII Children’s Hospital and the Cambodian Cultural Village theme park) were dispersed around the urban periphery demonstrated that some positive attitudes were directed towards the modern urban environment. However, the town in general is a very strong receptacle for negative responses. The only other negative attitudes towards specific locations were directed at Route 60 on the north‐eastern edge of the town. Here there were many drink halls (local bars) observed, and as the local community interviewees often listed bars as negative, this may reflect the underlying feeling here.

Figure 6‐20. A comparison of positive and negative perceptions of Angkor‐Siem Reap.

Daily life involves spaces of requirement (i.e. work, home, market shopping) and spaces of leisure (Hall and Page 2002). The latter allows for more personal choices (Witten, Exeter et al. 2003). In this study, it was unsurprising that people choose to utilise places that they perceive positively. However, it is noteworthy that these places are predominantly outside the urban core, or the ‘town’ as it appeared within the ICC documentation. No interviewee

239

discussed using public space inside the town, lending weight to observations that local use of public space in Siem Reap town had been in decline and that Angkor was filling the gap. This means that barriers between modern and heritage spaces breakdown as each is rescaled by different stakeholders. Business owners and APSARA staff are working to ensure that the core of Siem Reap maintains its historic atmosphere and aesthetic (Rabe 2008), so that it complements and enhances a particular interpretation of the Angkor Area. This would see the ‘historic core’ become part of the scale of interpretation, and the contemporary urban areas occupied by the local population excluded and potentially targeted as negative intrusions. Thus the scale at which interpretation occurs is being reconstructed so that spaces which would previously have been framed as non‐heritage, or modern, such as the urban core are being relabelled ‘historic core’ and the everyday modern users relocated. The elimination of local spaces within the urban core has meant increasing reliance on the Angkor Park for modern purposes.

6.3.3 The landscape of Angkor – Siem Reap

The intent of this chapter has been to investigate the material consequences of the scales which stakeholders construct to understand, interact and manage Angkor. Already the scale of value has been demonstrated as having three constructions each satisfying different economic, political or social agendas which alter the way people frame what they value on the material landscape. Similarly, the supporting spaces that facilitate interpretation were also scaled in different ways influencing the meanings and values stakeholders place on the site. Through the interpretation of an appropriate temporal and spatial context for Angkor, stakeholders constructed a third scale which incorporated modern, or non‐heritage, spaces. Importantly the relationships and boundaries between all these scales would also be different. Throughout the thesis, data have been presented which define the different ways particular land uses are included or excluded to construct these scales (Table 6‐9). For different stakeholders, these material elements had different roles and importance, thus there was strong potential to include and exclude different spatial areas and populations within each scale. This section will consider the physical manifestation of different constructions of the scales of value and interpretation at Angkor. In doing so, it will also allow for the creation of more detailed and less positivist spatial models of the scales of heritage. The strong focus on spatial analysis and the use of GIS will demonstrate the importance of ensuring GIS methodologies incorporated into cultural heritage management

240

are participatory and recognise different perspectives of the landscape in a post‐positivist manner.

SCALE OF HERITAGE MATERIAL CHARACTERISTICS

Scale Of Value (Social, Economic, And Scientific) Monuments Or Temples

Nature, Especially Forests Scale Of Interpretation (grounded and elevated) Traditional Village Landscapes Not Urban Landuse Urban Scale Of Modernity Modern Tourist Services

Table 6‐9. Perceptions of the appropriate aesthetic and atmospheric qualities of the Scales of Heritage as discussed by local community and APSARA interviewees. The tangible characteristics that were linked to each scale could then be used to assist with their spatial definition.

To determine the spatial patterns and material consequences of the construction of scale, spatial analysis was conducted on various key attributes of the scale of interpretation. The key categories considered were vegetation, people, and the built environment. The Japanese International Co‐operation Agency (JICA) created, as part of their Siem Reap Urbanisation and Tourism Plan (JICA 2004), a comprehensive GIS dataset of the Angkor Archaeological Park and Siem Reap Town (and surrounds). These data were used in combination with extensive and detailed fieldwork data to determine the aesthetic attributes of land in and around the scales of value.

6.3.3.1 Vegetation

Vegetation types that were identified by local community and APSARA interviewees as appropriate when constructing interpretative space for Angkor were forests and rice (agriculture). Extensive field observations (see section 3.4.3) revealed that most of the Angkor floodplain consists of land for rice production and scrub land that is used for grazing cattle or other food crops (Figure 6‐21). In stark contrast stands the main entrance of the Angkor Park, with its lush green forests creating an illusion of deep dense forest cover

241

(Figure 6‐22). A land cover layer representing forests and agriculture was created using data collected during field observation, and compared with the location of the monuments (Wager and Englehardt 1994) and the scales for value. The forest cover of the Angkor floodplain was found to be almost entirely confined within the Angkor Archaeological Park (Figure 6‐23). In contrast, rice fields and other forms of agricultural land use were spread across the entire study area (Figure 6‐24). The spatial representation of the social scale of value, Angkor Wat, was located within the forest. It also was apparent that other monuments of high tourist interest were located within the forested areas. This was confirmed through a comparison of forest cover surrounding the high interest monuments compared to that around those monuments of lesser tourist interest (as indicated within the ZEMP documentation (Wager and Englehardt 1994). The former possessed a higher mean forest density value than the latter. In contrast, the high interest monuments tended not to be located with the rice fields (only 37.5% were), whereas the majority (70.6%) of low interest monuments were located amongst rice fields.

Figure 6‐21. Agricultural land use is predominantly for grazing and rice croping.

242

Figure 6‐22. The entrance to the Angkor Park is marked by the appearance of forests to the north of the Ticket Office.

Figure 6‐23. Forest landcover interpolated from field observation data.

243

Figure 6‐24. The presence or absence of rice in areas surrounding Angkor interpolated from field observation data .

6.3.3.2 People

One of the more controversial elements of Angkor’s interpretation was whether people should be permitted or excluded from living around the Angkor monuments. For some interviewees, Angkor needed to be surrounded by nature and devoid of people. For others, people were an important part of the geographical and temporal context of the monuments. The dominant opinion of most stakeholders was that as long as there was no uncontrolled population growth and no intrusion of modern urban aesthetics, it was acceptable for people to live around the temples. Traditional village lifestyles, low population density, older style housing (wooden, not concrete), employment in non‐urban professions such as agriculture and handicrafts, and the use of space were all felt appropriate for areas surrounding Angkor. People had become an important part of the interpretative space, but their occurrence was rarely linked to a built environment. It was not possible to conduct spatial analysis on all of these, as field data were not collected on some attributes, such as the production of handicrafts. As part of their attempts to increase

244

the representation of local ideas about Angkor, APSARA has developed a database of vernacular cultural heritage for residents within the Angkor Park (Sokrithy 2008). Whilst this database continues to equate ‘local’ with the rural villagers of the Angkor Park, it will, hopefully, facilitate future incorporation of more qualitative population descriptions. In this research, population distribution and utilisation of space were considered under the category of ‘people’, with descriptions of housing incorporated within the analysis of the built environment.

To determine population distribution, a density layer was firstly produced from an APSARA census conducted in 1998 (Figure 6‐25). This dataset was the most recent population count conducted across the region. Whilst the population may have increased, the spatial pattern it creates is still valid as no new villages were observed during fieldwork, thus the distribution was assumed to be similar. Across the Angkor‐Siem Reap region, there was a continuous low density population. The highest density population was located in the area described by interviewees as Siem Reap town, and continued along Route 6, the east‐west axis of Siem Reap province (and town). Within spaces identified as having heritage value, there was a significant population cluster to the west of Angkor Wat, as well as other clusters linked to villages at Sras Srang (east of Angkor Thom), to the north of Angkor Thom and at Preah Dak (on the road to Banteay Srei). However, the major population mass which could perhaps be considered ‘urban’ was to the south of the Angkor Park.

245

Figure 6‐25. The population is spread across the Angkor‐Siem Reap Region, with the highest density in Siem Reap town and along Route 6 to the west. High density settlements in the Angkor Park, occur in the large villages that are scattered scross the Park.

The population density layer was created using points representing the centres of village which do not account for the spatial limits of those villages. It was observed during fieldwork that the distribution of village populations tended to focus around a central point and then decrease in density when moving away from the village. Therefore where the layer may indicate a continuous area of low density population it may alternatively be that villages are higher density clusters and separated by vast agricultural spaces. To assess the validity of the spatial patterns represented in the density layer, a comparison was conducted using fieldwork data collected through methods outlined in Chapter 3. Observations of building density were compared with the density layer using the ArcGIS Geostatistical Analysis General QQ Plot5 tool. The results demonstrated that there was a relationship between a low observed building density and low population density, and high

5 This scatter plot displays the difference between the predicted and measured values Ibid.. In this case the observed density was the predicted and the density of the building layer was the measured layer.

246

observed building density and high population density. Thus it appeared that the population density layer was a reliable representation of the spatial distribution of the population.

In analysing patterns of human activity within the scales of value and interpretation, a starting point was to investigate economic, or livelihood, connections between different spaces. All interviewees were in some way linked to the Angkor Park whether directly or indirectly. Stall holders within the Park focused on the entrances to the temples, even when only servicing the local population. The responsibilities of APSARA staff interviewed connected them to a wider area, as they were required to consider Angkor’s position within a wider landscape. There were also many local community interviewees who were employees in restaurants and shops, who serviced the tourist market in town. Their activities, whilst not physically occurring within the valued (or interpretative) spaces, were connected to the economic scale of value. Without Angkor to draw tourists, many of the jobs (including many within APSARA) would not exist. Several staff who ran small stalls or businesses within the core urban areas expressed the direct and indirect importance of Angkor for their business and livelihoods.

The utilisation of space was also analysed by comparing places visited by interviewees in their free time with spaces identified as valuable, or assisting with the interpretation of the Angkor site (see Figure 6‐17). This analysis demonstrated that the most heavily used recreational places (Angkor and Angkor Wat) fell within the areas that had been scaled as valuable. Though there were also some in areas identified as modern. Particularly important here was the focus by interviewees (local community and APSARA) on Angkor Wat, or the social scale of value. The spatial pattern demonstrated in this analysis should not be surprising, given the focus of this questioning was to determine space used for recreational or social time. It also confirmed the manner in which Angkor (Wat) has assumed the role of main public space for the Siem Reap population (see Section 4.3.4). The economic functionality and linkages between Angkor and the interviewees were reinforced through interview comments about the reliance on Angkor (tourism) for the existence of the whole of Siem Reap. For example: “Angkor and Siem Reap are one big landscape. Because like I explain to you that in Angkor Wat site we can’t live inside, we can’t

247

build big house, a shop, hotel, restaurant, and there is no infrastructure. And Angkor Park site is like a resort area for Siem Reap, and Siem Reap town is the place for services. You know, it’s like in a hotel you have the rooms. The rooms is Angkor, near the swimming pool, in the garden. Then you have the reception, the reception where you can find all the services, all the information in Siem Reap” (APSARA Interviewee 8).

By examining the functional aspects of the landscape, this analysis has demonstrated that when heritage value is scaled based on its social position, the heritage space becomes a part of the modern space. The hierarchy between scales is therefore altered.

6.3.3.3 Built Environment

The final component of the scale of interpretation discussed within the ICC documents and the APSARA and local community interviewees was the nature of the built environment that surrounded Angkor. Some stakeholders did not want any contemporary structures in areas surrounding the Angkor monuments, whilst others were accepting of traditional, wooden villages. The following analysis builds on data from the Siem Reap Urbanisation and Tourism Master Plan (JICA 2004), as well as utilising data collected during fieldwork (see Section 3.3.4). The JICA project created a GIS layer representing all buildings in their study area6, which equated to the current project study area (as defined by the field observation points). The distribution of buildings (Figure 6‐26) demonstrated a similar pattern to that of the population, with most buildings occurring outside of spaces scaled as economically or socially valuable. There were some clusters of modern buildings within the Angkor Park, and these correspond to the villages identified in the population density analysis.

6 This layer was created by tracing buildings evident on aerial photographs captured in 2003 JICA (2004). The Study on Integrated Master Plan for Sustainable Development of Siem Reap/Angkor Town in the Kingdom of Cambodia. Siem Reap Province JICA..

248

Figure 6‐26. Presence of modern buildings across the Angkor‐Siem Reap region as mapped by JICA (2005).

More complex analysis firstly explored the density of the contemporary structures, as it was the density rather than the existence of buildings that was often of concern to stakeholders. The building density was calculated using the centre points of the existing polygon features (Figure 6‐27). To assess the validity of this density layer, it was compared with the field observations using ArcGIS Geostatistical Analysis tools (ESRI 2006). There was a strong association between observation of building density and interpolation of building density. For example, a high density observed in the field coincided with a high interpolated density (Figure 6‐28). The highest density of structures occurred inside Siem Reap Town, and outside the economic and social scales of value. Within these valued spaces, there were only lower density settlements. Therefore it appeared that contemporary buildings, whilst not completely excluded, did occur in lesser numbers within the heritage space than in areas identified as modern.

249

Figure 6‐27. Density of modern buildings derived using the ArcGIS kernel density technique. Density level indicates the relative area covered by modern buildings (as defined by the JICA 2005 architecture map) per 250 square metres.

3500 ty si n 3000 e t D lo g P n Q 2500 di Q il u IS B G 2000 d rc e A at l m 1500 po ro r F te d In ve 1000 ri ge e a D r 500 ve A 0 No Scattered Scattered Low Low‐ Medium Medium ‐ High Buildings ‐ low Medium High

Observed Building Density

250

Figure 6‐28. Accuracy assessment for interpolated fieldwork observational data, comparing the interpolated building density layer (based on JICA (2005) building data), and the building density layer interpolated from field observations .

In defining the appropriate setting for Siem Reap, almost all stakeholders felt that the built environment surrounding Angkor should reflect ‘traditional’ village lifestyles, with smaller wooden houses, and not the dense tall concrete buildings found in urban areas. Thus analysis was undertaken to determine the spatial patterns of this atmosphere. Field observations concerning use, style, age and height of buildings were combined with the JICA building data to provide a more detailed dataset. The reliability of the combined layer was considered appropriate for purposes of this research, due to the close association between the observed and interpolated densities (see Figure 6‐28). Attributes that were included as part of the interpretation of Angkor included: older buildings (not new), village architecture, low height (2 storeys or less), and residential. New buildings, urban architecture, tourist facilities (i.e. hotels) and tall buildings (3 storeys or more) were analysed to explore attributes which were excluded in perceptions of appropriate spaces of interpretation by stakeholders (Table 6‐10). The key relationship between the scale of modernity and other heritage scales, is that modern spaces incorporate the service facilities for foreigners (and other visitors), whereas a ‘traditional’ landscape would service Cambodians. Therefore users of buildings were also analysed (Cambodian, foreign and both).

INCLUDED IN SCALE OF EXCLUDED FROM SCALE OF INTERPRETATION INTERPRETATION

Short Buildings Tall Buildings

Village Architecture Urban Architecture

Older Buildings New Buildings

Residential Tourist Facilities (Accommodation)

Table 6‐10. Landscape features which were specifically included or excluded by local community and APSARA interviewees from within the scale of interpretation at Angkor.

The results of the analyses within this section (Figure 6‐29; Figure 6‐30; Figure 6‐31) illustrate that attributes of the built environment considered a part of the interpretation of

251

Angkor occur across the Siem Reap‐Angkor region. They are not confined to spaces seen as valuable, nor are they confined to Zone 1 or Zone 2 of the ZEMP. The implication being that interpretation of Angkor as a landscape could, theoretically, extend across the entire Siem Reap‐Angkor region. By contrast, the built environment attributes that are excluded from, or seen as hindering, interpretation of Angkor, do not occur within the defined the Scales of Value. There is some intrusion of new buildings in the east of the Angkor Park, around the village of Preah Dak, but these buildings are in a non‐urban, village style. Thus if one is standing on the ground in front of Angkor Wat, or another Angkor Park temple, there will be little of modern Cambodia to see (except for the tourists).

Figure 6‐29. The distribution of four attributes of the built environment considered acceptable to be found surrounding the Angkor monuments. These include: (1.) Short Buildings (defined as under 3 storeys in height); (2.) Older Buildings (defined as over approximately 10 years in age); (3.) Village Style Architecture (defined as wooden houses, often on stilts); and (4.) Residential Use.

252

Figure 6‐30. Analysis of landscapes excluded by interviewees from the setting of Angkor involved four attritbutes of the built environment: (1.) Tall buildings, (2.) Newer Buildings, (3.) Urban Style Architecture, (4.) Tourist Accommodation. The results illustrate that these are mainly found to the south of the Angkor Park, and not in the spaces considered of most value by stakeholders.

253

Figure 6‐31. Buildings of the JICA (2005) map, classified by main users ‐ Cambodian, Foreigner and Both, as observed during field observations. Most buildings for the use of Foreigners are found outside of areas considered valuable for economic or social reasons. Those found inside the Angkor Park tend to be services, such as food stores and restaurants, servicing both Khmer and Foreign markets .

6.4 The Material Landscape of a Scaled Angkor

The interpretation of Angkor heritage and its values occurs from at least two viewpoints, grounded and elevated. These two positions recognise (and reject) different elements on the Angkor landscape. Similarly, in constructing the boundaries for the management of interpretative space, different aesthetic and physical attributes are included or excluded by different stakeholders (Powell, Selman et al. 2002). Spatial analysis, field observations and interview analysis in this chapter have all revealed how Angkor‐Siem Reap is not a homogenous landscape; rather it consists of a variety of spaces that service foreigners and locals. Many parts of the study area could be considered as consistent with the ideal landscape for the interpretation of Angkor. As one APSARA interviewee described it, even parts of the town are village: “a modern and big, big village” (APSARA Interviewee 6).

254

The results of the spatial analysis presented in this chapter illustrated that the natural and the built environment surrounding the Angkor monuments conformed to the image of an appropriate temporal and geographical context for Angkor perceived by the various stakeholders. The strongest spatial marker for a limited interpretative space is the forest cover, which was confined to the areas surrounding the main monuments of tourist interest (i.e. Angkor Wat, Angkor Thom and Ta Prohm). Forest cover was also the attribute of Angkor’s setting that had the most support from all stakeholders. Perhaps this linkage is driven by perceptions of the uniqueness of the forests in the region, as the next nearest forests are in the mountains to the far north, and much of the other surrounding vegetation is low‐lying scrub or agricultural land (Figure 6‐32). To place this in a methodological context, Lynch (1960) identifies the key characteristics of spatial mental images as consisting of paths, edges, districts, nodes, and landmarks (see Section 3.3.2.3). The forests of Angkor function as both an edge to the interpretative space, through the distinctive change from dense tall forest to low ‘bare’ rice fields and urban land, and as a district providing a common identifying character to the spaces surrounding the temples.

Figure 6‐32. Angkor Wat captured from the air, illustrating the dense forest cover that surrounds Angkor Wat and is in sharp contrast to the agricultural and commercial landuses that exist elsewhere in the region.

255

The discourse surrounding the forested image of Angkor is created through a tourist’s camera lens from the front of Angkor Wat. The forests are placed within an interpretative space scaled from the ground. In contrast, the role and inclusion of people and landscape of human habitation could be considered part of an interpretative space scaled from above. Not many of the frequently visited (tourist) monuments lie within inhabited landscapes, indeed this is actively discouraged. Instead, the monuments are found amongst the dense forests and the inhabited landscape is found further afield and is part of an interpreted landscape which APSARA interviewees referred to as “Living Angkor” (APSARA Interviewee 13). Interpretative space is therefore scaled to include features that harmonise with the heritage, and exclude features that are perceived as modern intrusions. Those features that were seen as possessing interpretative value were widespread across the Siem Reap region, whereas ‘harmful’ features were primarily confined to the ‘urban’ areas of Siem Reap. Even within modern space they are not always dominant, but often ‘traditional’ and ‘contemporary’ combine as part of a mixed evolving landscape of old and new, village and urban, Khmer and foreign.

By interpreting Angkor within a particular temporal context, heritage management practices must ensure that the geographical context supports and enhances the appropriate meanings and values. It is from this position that modern spaces become subordinate and excluded. With discussion of Siem Reap’s ‘historical core’ (Vann 2003; Rabe 2008), a particular architecture of French Colonial shophouses has been encouraged as it is seen as complementing and enhancing the interpretation and experience of Angkor by foreign tourists (Winter 2002; JICA 2004; Esposito and Nam 2008; Mackay 2008; Rabe 2008). This has two possible implications for understanding heritage interpretation as a wider inclusionary, or exclusionary, process. Firstly, by encouraging a particular aesthetic and atmosphere within urban spaces, these urban spaces are rescaled as spaces of interpretation (as perceived by heritage professionals). Shifting the boundaries between interpretative space and modern space will alter the relationship between the scales of interpretation and modernity. If Siem Reap town becomes part of the former scale, then the latter scale will have to be spatially reconstructed. Secondly, the inclusion of urban areas within the scale of interpretation has a potential exclusionary impact on the

256

population of those urban areas. While this is a common occurrence in tourism areas (Henderson 2001; Dredge 2004; Chang and Huang 2005), the reality at Angkor is that the creation of a particular aesthetic has encouraged the reconstruction of a colonial landscape (Esposito and Nam 2008). As a result gentrification of the urban core appears to be following.

There was little conflict amongst stakeholders in the ‘grounded’ interpretation of the monuments of Angkor. It is the construction of ‘elevated’ interpretations that result in inclusionary and exclusionary spatial practices, and thus have the potential to cause conflict within the heritage management process. Part of the reason behind this is that the aesthetic qualities of the landscape and heritage, more generally, often overshadow its functionality. This chapter has illustrated how the boundaries between scales, as well as the scales themselves, can be variously constructed depending on the perceptions and understandings of the viewer, and that these constructions influence the physical landscape and people upon which they are applied.

257

258