NOTE: To change the image on this slide, select the picture and delete it. Then click the Pictures icon in the placeholder to insert your own image.

Mainstreaming Local Communities Input for the Incentives Program: Lessons Learned from the Historic Villages of Hahoe and Yangdong in South Korea

Indera Syahrul Mat Radzuan PhD Candidate, Faculty of Built Environment University of Malaya.

Yahaya Ahmad Associate Professor, Faculty of Built Environment University of Malaya.

Song Inho Professor, School of Architecture & Architectural Engineering University of Seoul.

UNIVERSITY OF MALAYA

Contents

•  INTRODUCTION

•  MAINSTREAMING COMMUNITY’S INPUT

•  METHODOLOGY

•  CASE STUDY

•  CURRENT INCENTIVES POLICY

•  COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT IN THE POLICY PROCESS

•  RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

•  CONCLUSION

NOTE: To change the image on this slide, select the picture and delete it. Then click the Pictures icon in the placeholder to insert your own image.

§  Conservation policies should respect the voice of local communities in the making of public policy.

§  In South Korea, there are numerous heritage incentives program which have been executed by authorities to preserve their tangible and intangible heritage properties.

§  Initiatives to promote cultural heritage preservation has faced tremendous challenges especially to engaged the living people in the multiple decisions about how to protect cultural heritage.

INTRODUCTION

NOTE: To change the image on this slide, select the picture and delete it. Then click the Pictures icon in the placeholder to insert your own image.

§  Mainstreaming community’s input convers a diverse range of areas including public health, environmental issues, town planning and gradually moving into the area of heritage and arts sectors (Reddel and Woolcock 2004, Cuthill and Fein 2005, Lane 2007).

§  Terms such as community’s ‘input’, ‘engagement’, ‘involvement’, and ‘participation’ are often used to refer the concept of empowering communities in the policy formulation.

MAINSTREAMING COMMUNITY’S INPUT

§  ‘Community input’ therefore, will be used interchangeably for this study with other similar terms to carry the similar meanings of community engagement movement.

§  According to Leonard et al. (2001), understanding social phenomena from the perspective of people engaged-in will provides “knowledge about how policy works, how it affects people, and how it can be changed or improved”.

§  In the context of cultural heritage conservation, public participation is an essential elements in which public can express their view through various methods such as public hearing, survey, informal meeting and so on.

MAINSTREAMING COMMUNITY’S INPUT

§  In 1969, Arnstein developed the concept of the ladder of citizenship participation.

§  Other scholars stressed that community engagement helps because communities ‘provide a contrasting perspective to the view of professionals and political elites’ (Burton, 2003), and their definitions of needs, problems and solutions are different to those of planners (Burns and Taylor, 2000).

§  Some analyses by noted scholars have attempted to claim that negative aspects of participation; for instance, heightening of political conflict (Grant, 1994), few people taking opportunities for participation (Day, 1997), or citizens not being qualified to make a meaningful contribution to policy (Kweit and Kweit, 1990).

MAINSTREAMING COMMUNITY’S INPUT

NOTE: To change the image on this slide, select the picture and delete it. Then click the Pictures icon in the placeholder to insert your own image.

§  To fully capture the dynamics of community engagement, this research combined qualitative research and quantitative data analysis.

§  Focus specifically on the questionnaire survey to village residents and in-depth interviews, involving officials, groups of specialist and cultural reference groups.

§  Stratified sampling was used in the questionnaire survey to classify the specific residents.

METHODOLOGY

METHODOLOGY §  Selection of respondents was based on the following

criteria: (i) residents who received heritage incentives from the authorities, (ii) residing permanently at the settlements.

§  Survey questionnaires were held with 54 households, including 24 from Hahoe and 30 from Yangdong Village face-to-face interviews and mail distribution survey techniques were conducted.

§  12 formal interviews were carried out with the officials of Cultural Heritage Administration, Andong City Hall and Gyeongju City Hall.

§  On-site interview with groups of specialists (including academicians and curators), cultural reference groups (including community leaders, heritage managers, cultural groups, the private sector and NGOs).

CASE STUDY

Hahoe Village, Angdong Yangdong Village, Gyeongju

Hah

oe V

illag

e,

And

ong.

Yang

dong

Vill

age,

G

yeon

gju.

CASE STUDY

Hahoe Village, Andong

Yangdong Village, Gyeongju

SOUTH KOREA

Yellow Sea

East Sea (Japan Sea)

Note: UNESCO World Heritage Site.

NORTH KOREA

JAPAN

Figure 1: Diagrammatic map of the study areas

CASE STUDY

Figure 2: A panoramic view of Hahoe Village (left) and Yangdong Village (right)

CASE STUDY §  Hahoe Village is a valuable part of Korean culture because

it preserves Joseon period-style architecture, folk traditions, valuable books, and old tradition of clan-based villages located in Andong, Gyeongsangbuk-do.

§  Yangdong Village is one of Korea’s best existing examples of a banchon, a village where Korea’s yangban (scholar elites) gathered to live in the aristocratic lifestyle.

§  In the mid-15th century, a village emerged composed of clan members and their countless servants.

§  Both villages were listed under the inscriptions of UNESCO World Heritage Site in 2010.

Hahoe Yangdong

Population 223 370

Number of households 123 150

Total area 10.67 km2 4.17 km2

Number of incentive recipients 123 150

Number of samples 24 30

Number of interview conducted 6 6

Table 1: Demographic Profile of Hahoe and Yangdong

Demographic Profile

CURRENT INCENTIVES POLICY §  In order to ensure the sustainability of the protection of

cultural heritage properties in South Korea, financial resources are among the vital components of the whole conservation system.

§  The main resources of financial support are the national and local government budgets, while the Cultural Heritage Administration and the Ministry of Public Administration and Security will act as administrator (Cultural Heritage Administration, 2011).

§  General subsidies are allocated by the ministry to Local Government, while the Cultural Heritage Administration distributes state subsidies with the supporting contribution of 30% to 70% of the allocation portion to the state-designated cultural heritage. Local governments bear another 30% to 50% of the subsidies cost to the State-designated cultural heritage, while allotting subsidies to the local-designated cultural heritage.

CURRENT INCENTIVES POLICY Figure 3: Flow of cultural heritage financial resources

Cultural Heritage Administration

The Ministry of Public Administration & Security

 

Management or Rehabilitation of State-designated cultural heritage

 

Management or Rehabilitation of Local-designated cultural heritage

 

General subsidies

  State subsidies Supporting 70%-30% of cost  

Bearing 30%- 50% of cost

 

Local Governments

 

Source: Cultural Heritage Administration (2011).

CURRENT INCENTIVES POLICY Table 2: Types of Heritage Incentives System in South Korea

Types Descriptions Public subsidies

Public subsidies are mainly for the conservation works to heritage properties. The schemes are administered by either the central or local government. These schemes assist owners to undertake conservation works, which usually bound with the particular rules and regulations. It includes financial support for the repair of physical properties, mainly for the exterior such as roofs, fences, walls, windows, gates, and so on.

Loans The loan scheme offer owners partial funding for the conservation work of heritage properties with low interest rates.

Tax relief Tax relief gives benefits to the owner of heritage properties or area for the annual tax reduction.

Planning incentives

Planning incentives instruments involve heritage property registration, purchase of identified heritage properties, regeneration plans for historic districts such as putting electric poles and cables underground, street or alley beautification, providing public parks, increasing parking and so on.

Fire prevention system

Fire prevention systems include activities such as anti-fire training and patrolling, installation of the alarm-type sensor equipments in vulnerable houses, and regular practice of fire drills.

Source: Adapted from Cultural Heritage Administration (2011).

CURRENT INCENTIVES POLICY

Table 3: Total value of support for Hahoe Village repair and preservation aids for Yangdong Village from 2008 to 2012

Year Total value (US$)*

Hahoe1 Yangdong2

2008 3,819,404 None

2009 3,065,191 5,069,261

2010 2,325,245 7,674,776

2011 3,577,290 4,325,783

2012 2,848,066 #5,246,170

Note: * Equivalent to US$1,000 per ₩1,000,000 (Currency exchange based on Oct 2013 rate). # As of December 31, 2012. Source: 1Andong City Hall and 2Gyeongju City Hall, 2013.

NOTE: To change the image on this slide, select the picture and delete it. Then click the Pictures icon in the placeholder to insert your own image.

§  There are only few articles that provide good insights into the community engagement in the policy process in South Korea.

§  According to Kang (2008), community engagement is divided into several stages in the policy process, as depicted in Table 4.

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT IN THE POLICY PROCESS

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT IN THE POLICY PROCESS

Table 4: Community engagement in provincial level policy processes

Policy process Type of engagement

Information sharing Consultation Active participation Agenda-setting Internet website

Online service window Open internet board in government’s website

Participatory budgeting Survey (including online survey) for public policy Online discussion site for public policy Opinion survey

Residents suggestion system Online system for residents participation Systematic collection and assessment of residents’ idea

Policy formulation Resident meeting to explain public affairs Open site to watch the flow of document authorisation Online discussion site for public policy

Expanded management meeting along with citizen observers Policy advisory team or committee Online policy discussion Various kinds of committees

Public hearing system Online hearing system Review council Resident voting system

Source: Adapted from Kang (2008).

Policy process Type of engagement

Information sharing Consultation Active participation Policy implementation Administrative

information disclosure Online legal consultation Release of city government’s operational processes Mailing and text messaging services Collection of online citizens’ inputs A system of direct appeals to the supreme authority Direct service desk on site Mobile service desk

Monitoring by citizens Citizens as honorary public servant for a day Operations advisory committee Steering committee      

Civilian monitoring team for environmental protection Honorary watchman and inspector Incentive systems for watching violations and reporting irregularities (speed limits, garbage collection, etc.)

Table 4: Community engagement in provincial level policy processes (cont.)

Policy process Type of engagement

Information sharing Consultation Active participation Policy evaluation Release of evaluation

and audit results Citizen satisfaction survey and release of survey results Survey for improving service delivery Evaluation of telephone responses Release of reports and other publications

Policy monitoring Cyber monitoring

Policy evaluation team or committee Citizen auditing Quality evaluation of public services Grievance system for citizens      

Table 4: Community engagement in provincial level policy processes (cont.)

Source: Adapted from Kang (2008).

NOTE: To change the image on this slide, select the picture and delete it. Then click the Pictures icon in the placeholder to insert your own image.

RESULT AND DISCUSSION

Table 5: Respondents’ social profiles

Profile Hahoe (%) Yangdong (%) Number of respondents Gender Male Female Age Below 20 years 20-30 years 31-40 years 41-50 years 51-60 years 61-70 years Above 70 years

24  

16 8   0 0 0 1 8

10 5

100.0  

66.7 33.3   0 0 0

4.2 33.3 41.7 20.8

30  

10 20   0 0 1 4

15 5 5

100.0  

33.3 66.7   0 0

3.3 13.3 50.0 16.7 16.7

Source: Author’s field survey, 2012.

RESULT AND DISCUSSION

§  By using the three-point Likert scale, respondents were asked to assess four assessment criteria namely the tangible heritage, intangible heritage, heritage incentives program and the distribution of the incentives that have been applied to the sites and the advantageous parties.

§  The data reveals that for both study areas generally, the mean score of intangible heritage, heritage incentives program and distribution of the incentives are lower than tangible heritage criteria (Hahoe, M = 2.33) and (Yangdong, M = 2.27).

§  These findings imply that the tangible heritage magnitude is more frequent than others criteria.

RESULT AND DISCUSSION

Table 6: Respondents’ perception on the cultural heritage conservation program

Assessment criteriaMean (SD)

Hahoe YangdongTangible heritage 2.33 (0.868) 2.27 (0.740)Intangible heritage 1.71 (0.908) 1.90 (0.403)Heritage incentives program 1.95 (0.950) 1.87 (0.681)Distributions of the incentives 1.95 (0.950) 1.87 (0.860)

NOTE: To change the image on this slide, select the picture and delete it. Then click the Pictures icon in the placeholder to insert your own image.

VILLAGERS’ QUOTE: "That’s really true that the conservation activities are very successful in this village. However, one thing that concerns us most is the involvement of outsider dancers in performing the dance. I’m a bit worries on the future of the ‘mask dance’. Why doesn’t the authority choose us to perform something belong to us rather than to the outsiders?” – Hahoe residents.

“Government should provide us sufficient financial aids to preserve our cultural heritage and provide in-house training (crafts making, music, folk performing art and festivals). It should be supported by the administration and should be provided accordingly based on our need” – Hahoe residents.

VILLAGERS’ QUOTE: “It was hard to get funds from the government. We had to go through a lengthy process. Usually the government neither follows what people want nor executed what they promised us” – Yangdong resident.

RESULT AND DISCUSSION §  Analysis of mean are used to interpret the evidence of the

program’s success according to six filters to measure the quality of the programs.

§  The six Cs includes program (i) capability, (ii) commitment, (iii) contribution, (iv) continuity, (v) collaboration, and (vi) conscience.

§  By using the five-point Likert scale, respondents were asked whether they agreed or disagreed with the statements pertaining to the level of successful for the community engagement indicators.

RESULT AND DISCUSSION

Table 7: Respondents’ perception on the community engagement

IndicatorsMean (SD)

Hahoe Yangdong

i.   Capability 3.83 (1.204) 3.27 (1.081)

ii.   Commitment 3.58 (1.349) 3.37 (1.129)

iii.   Contribution 3.62 (1.173) 3.23 (0.817)

iv.  Continuity 2.83 (1.523) 2.83 (0.747)

v.  Collaboration 3.04 (1.459) 2.97 (0.669)

vi.  Conscience 3.21 (1.250) 3.23 (0.817)

RESULT AND DISCUSSION §  It shows that the variances of the two groups (Hahoe and

Yangdong) are not the same, with the biggest mean score distributed mainly in the residents’ perception in Hahoe Village. In other words, evaluation from the residents’ in Hahoe with regards to their community engagement practice was more capable as compared to Yangdong.

“In many cases, government ignored some of our suggestions during the public hearing. They don’t consider our request, while they are so considerate on expert and professional opinions” – Hahoe resident.

“We need expert to help us preserve our intangible heritage such as the folk dance and music” – Hahoe resident.

“People are becoming more individualistic and looking for profit. I do believed that empowering the local community is essential” – Yandong resident.

VILLAGERS’ QUOTE:

“When I was young, this village was very calm with traditional Joseon cultural landscape. Unfortunately, this village has changed dramatically after the UNESCO inscription. Since then, this village became a tourist spot; it has caused inconvenience for our daily life” – Yangdong resident.

“It gives us inconvenience when tourists are making noises while walking around and taking pictures of our property. Some of them are trying to pluck our herbs like ginseng” – Yandong resident.

“It was such a pleasure for this village to become a World Heritage Site. I have benefited a lot from this inscription, especially when people around the world visited and stayed. I ran a restaurant and homestay, so I think this was good for my business” – Yandong resident.

VILLAGERS’ QUOTE:

NOTE: To change the image on this slide, select the picture and delete it. Then click the Pictures icon in the placeholder to insert your own image.

§  Community engagement in the both study areas generally are in the state of compatible or acceptable, at least from the general respondents view.

§  However, there are some fractions in the community hold the critical view on this aspect, in particular on the designing of the conservation program.

CONCLUSION

CONCLUSION

§  This paper indicates that the implementation of the program appeared to accomplish the heritage tourism advantage rather than to cater the local community needs.

§  With the lessons learned from the empirical evidence of the above issues, there is a need to rethink the importance of mainstreaming the local community input in the decision-making process.

§  In achieving these goals, all stakeholders should work hand in hand to promote a ‘win-win scenario’ for better, meaningful living.

Thank you Terima kasih 감사합니다