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.