Abstract of Dissertation
Traditional Urban Community and Its Roles in Heritage Planning,
A Case of Bangkok Heritage Core
文化遺産保全計画における伝統的都市コミュニティの役割に関する研究―バンコク歴史都心部を事例として―

ชุมชนเมืองเกากับบทบาทในการอนุรักษและใชงานมรดกวัฒนธรรมกรณีศึกษาพื้นที่ศูนยกลางการอนุรักษมรดกวัฒนธรรมกรุงเทพมหานคร
ISSARATHUMNOON
イッサラ－タッマヌ－ン

Wimonrart

ウィモンラットวิมลรัตน อิสระธรรมนูญThe dissertation aims to explore the transformation of conservation concepts, plans, practices andresponsible organisations, from conventional planning to heritage planning, in Bangkok, Thailand.
It focuses on the change of the structure of traditional urban community and its roles, in responseto the heritage planning approach.

Furthermore, it proposes the policy implication to re-organisecommunity structures and to support community involvement in heritage planning in the Bangkok
heritage core.

Finally, it explores the broader implications of heritage planning with community

involvement to other cultural heritage places, particularly in Thailand and developing countries.
Since the 1990s, concepts of architectural and urban conservation have shifted toheritage planning that means the management of heritage resources in the contemporary uses ofthe past for present purposes.

Heritage planning covers both heritage conservation – which is‘the preservation’ based on intrinsic qualities, and ‘the conservation’ concerning extrinsic valuesof the areas – and heritage commodification, referred to contemporary uses of historic resources.
Due to the widening management of heritage, local communities have been encouraged to takepart in heritage planning processes to reduce conflicts over wide-range uses of heritage between
various groups of stakeholders.

In heritage approach, the communities have changed theiractions from being controlled, according to legal tools, preservative conservation plans, andsubsidies from the national and local governments in the conventional conservation, to theinitiation of community controls and management of heritage resources.
Followed the international trends and inner socio-economic factors, conservation
concepts in Thailand have been transformed from preservation planning to conservation planningand to heritage planning since the late 1990s.

The concepts have combined the control of the

public rights over properties by public-sector organisations with the market oriented heritageplanning. Additionally, the local government supported the involvement of local communities inmanagement of heritage resources.
The dissertation focuses on a study area in the Rattanakosin Area, the Bangkok heritageTraditional Urban Community and Its Roles in Heritage Planning, A Case of Bangkok Heritage Coreicore.

In the area, the urban communities have been formed, coexisting with the structures of theurban hierarchy – the royal palaces, noble houses, and royal temples.

Thanks to the changes of

the conservation concepts, new community structures were created, in the form of community
organisations overlaid on the original ones.

Twenty-one ‘chumchon’ were laid down on

indigenous communities while two ‘prachakom’ were laid down on the districts or ‘yarn’.

Thecommunity organisations – prachakom and chumchon – were aimed towards working as amediator in city management.

Moreover, they have performed two specific roles in heritage

planning including: participating in decision-making and being involved in benefits of heritagecommodity.
By comparing the five areas under the latter 1990s specific plans that followed the 1982
conservation master plan, ‘Yarn Banglamphu’ – a district in the northern part of the Rattanakosinwith its initially function as the place of palaces and houses of servants, the latter function as amarket place, and the most recently function as a tourist place – was chosen to be the study area.
The reasons of the selection are that: First, Yarn Banglamphu still have traces of historicalbackgrounds and significant tangible and intangible heritage resources left in the area; Second, itembraces two kinds of community organisations – one prachakom and six chumchon – that wereinitiated by the local government and by the ad-hoc group acting upon heritage controversy in thelate 1990s; and Third, it has actively worked on heritage conservation under four state-led plans,and has served for local festivals and tourist activities.

The study area was analysed on two mainparts: new structures of the traditional urban community and new roles of the community inheritage planning.
For the first part: new community structures, the study investigated the characteristics ofthe new community structures and the relationship between the communities’ residents and thecommunity structures.
In 1998, Prachakom Banglamphu was created by the local government policy as a civic
group or a community-network organisation, consisting of six communities and civic groups in
Yarn Banglamphu.

Prachakom Banglamphu is not an organisation defined by the law.

Instead,its roles and functions were designed under policies and plans of the Bangkok Governor.
Moreover, in its establishment period the prachakom initiated its specific roles in heritage
conservation that have existed since then.

Concerning the social structure, Prachakom initiallygathered the leaders of the communal and formal organisational subsystems, representing allcommunities and groups of people in the communities as well as professionals, scholars, andnon-government organisations, to work as the committee of prachakom.

Later until now, thecommittee members of the prachakom have transformed to be that almost all of the representatives
are from the communal organisational subsystems from four communities and civic groups.

Fewcommittee members are from the formal organisational subsystems.
Six chumchon in Yarn Banglamphu were re-created by drawing geographical boundaries.
Consequently, the committee of chumchon were established.

The committee members wereTraditional Urban Community and Its Roles in Heritage Planning, A Case of Bangkok Heritage Coreii

elected by the communities’ residents, supported by the district administration office.

Chumchonin Yarn Banglamphu perform their main roles under the Bangkok Regulation (1985); however,they have very few roles dealing with heritage planning.

Geographically, chumchon weredesignated by the government to cover the concentrated housing areas in the urban blocks.

The

clear areas of the re-created chumchon are different from the indigenous communities that havebeen conceived by the communities’ residents and have been grounded on the old structures
coexisting between the urban community urban and hierarchy structures – temples, mosques.
Concerning the social structure, by placing the new structure onto the traditional one, the oldcommunity structures in the form of communal organisational subsystems (neighbours, ethnicgroups, occupational groups, religious institutes, and monarchs, based on persisting old
community structures and specific historical backgrounds) and the new community structures in
the form of formal organisational subsystems (the committees of chumchon and the gov’t-ledvoluntary groups) have been associated with each other.
The investigation of the relationships between old and new community structures
showed that the communities’ residents in Yarn Banglamphu have been closely related tocommunal organisational subsystems.

The residents also have quite good relationships with thecommittee members of chumchon, the gov’t-led voluntary groups and Prachakom Banglamphu.
The new community structure; particularly in the form of the committee of chumchon, has been
influenced by the old community structure.

Moreover, the community structures in various kindsof groups have collaboratively worked with one another in heritage planning.

From all results,

the communities in Yarn Banglamphu, thus, can be denoted as ‘a living heritage’ or ‘a cultural
heritage place’.
For the second part: new roles of the community in heritage planning, the study
investigated the effectiveness of the communities’ performance in heritage planning – in otherwords, the extent of community involvement in the heritage plans and practices in Yarn
Banglamphu.

The investigation was conducted by the assessment of community participation inheritage planning.

The assessment criteria included the criteria for evaluating community

participation in decision-making process (scope of participation, intensity of participation, anddegree of consensus), and the criteria for evaluating community involvement in heritagecommodity activities (scope of participation and consequences of heritage commodity).

The

understanding of the characteristics of community structures will also be used as part of theassessment criteria.
The investigation showed that there was a high level of community involvement (scopeof participation and intensity of participation) in two actions in ad-hoc ways (Case 1, theparticipation in an opposition against the conservation master plan for the Rattanakosin Area, theaction plan, and the proposition of a plan for establishing community centre, and Case 4, theinvolvement in organising local festivals).

The active organisations were Prachakom

Banglamphu and the communities that have strong relationships with the prachakom.

Traditional Urban Community and Its Roles in Heritage Planning, A Case of Bangkok Heritage Core

In contrast,iii

there was a low level of community involvement (scope of participation and intensity ofparticipation) in two state-led heritage plans (Case 2, the participation in the plan for
Ratchadamnoen Street, and Case 3, the participation in the plan for Khaosan Road).

The active

organisations were the leaders of the formal organisational subsystems or the committee ofchumchon.

However, in all cases, the degree of consensus building was low.

Concerning community involvement in benefits of heritage, the communities’ residents
in Yarn Banglamphu gained benefits of heritage commodity by many ways.

Although their rateof participation in local festivals is high, their rates of involvement in local programmes forincreasing incomes and in the controls of community areas in are fair.
In terms of active community organisations and coordinators, the active communityorganisations in Case 1 and 4 that gained a high level of community involvement include
Prachakom Banglamphu and the communities that have strong relationships with the prachakom.
Besides, the results from the questionnaire surveys – revealing that the communities with strong
relationships with Prachakom Banglamphu ensured a high level of participation, gained highsocial and economic benefits, and had positive attitudes towards heritage conservation – confirm
the importance of the prachakom as an active collaborator between communities as well.

The

coordinator in the government sector and the mediator between the public and private sectors werebuilt in various forms.

The effective coordinator and mediator were the organisations working inCase 4, organising local festivals – the Community Development Division of the Phra Nakhon
District Administration Office, and the Cultural Council of the Phra Nakhon District.
From all results, it can be stated that two significant factors leading to a high level ofcommunity involvement are: First, the community organisation working as a collaborator,
specifically Prachakom Banglamphu; and Second, the connection between the private sector(community organisations and commercial sector) and the public sector.
The two factors brought about two policy implications for improving efficiency inperforming the roles of community organisations in heritage planning in the Bangkok heritage
core.

First, the policy implication to re-organise community structures, including: i) re-organise

the registered communities ‘chumchon’ by enhancing sense of community as it is a living heritage,
re-defining the persisting registered communities ‘chumchon’, and re-defining the definitions of‘chumchon’ under the law; and ii) re-organise the community-network organisation ‘prachakom’or other civic groups that work as connectors between communities by re-creating extensive
networks between the prachakom and the community organisational subsystems inside thecommunities, and re-defining definitions of ‘prachakom’ under the law.

Second, the policy

implications to re-create the connection between community organisations and other stakeholders
in a public-private partnership, including: i) re-create the mediator between the public and privatesectors; and ii) re-create the coordinator in the government sector.
The practices of heritage planning with community involvement in the Bangkok heritage
core provoked two significant points that can be implied to heritage planning with community

Traditional Urban Community and Its Roles in Heritage Planning, A Case of Bangkok Heritage Coreiv

involvement in Thailand and developing countries. First, the traditional urban community shouldbe accepted as a ‘cultural heritage place’, due to its persisting tangible and intangible heritage
resources.

However, in the case of Bangkok and other developing countries face threats causedby the lack of the concern from heritage plan; the trend of the loss of the community identity; andthe imbalance among communal needs, state-led conservation, and commodity activities.
Second, the community organisations should take part in heritage planning processesthrough a public-private partnership, sharing of the powers in managing heritage resources andmaintaining a balance between heritage conservation and heritage commodity.

However, thepublic-private partnership and the involvement of local community in heritage planning in
Bangkok, as well as in some developing countries, have some constraints, caused by: thecentralisation of authority; the lack of co-ordination mechanism; and the lack of appropriate legal
system for encouraging and strengthening community organisations.
To sum up, local communities in Yarn Banglamphu are examples of traditional urban
communities that show good adaptation of community structure and high attempts at getting
involved in heritage planning.

However, the communities need supports in order to enhance theirsignificant heritage resources, and to ensure proper operational and structural systems.

If they

can share more powers in the management of heritage to balance communal needs, heritage
conservation, and heritage commodity, their heritage utilisation can be correlated with sustainable
development that can contribute to real and lasting socio-economic development, environmental
sustainability, and social inclusion in the communities.

Traditional Urban Community and Its Roles in Heritage Planning, A Case of Bangkok Heritage Corev