ACCU Training Courses
on Cultural Heritage Protectionin the Asia-Pacific Region 2023

Cultural Heritage Protection Cooperation Office,Asia-Pacific Cultural Centre for UNESCO (ACCU)
Agency for Cultural Affairs, Government of Japan
National Institutes for Cultural Heritage
Tokyo National Research Institute for Cultural Properties,
Nara National Research Institute for Cultural Properties,
Cultural Heritage Disaster Risk Management Center, Japan
International Centre for the Study of the Preservation
and Restoration of Cultural Property (ICCROM)

ACCU Training Courses on Cultural Heritage Protectionin the Asia-Pacific Region 2023

Cultural Heritage Protection Cooperation Office,Asia-Pacific Cultural Centre for UNESCO (ACCU)
Agency for Cultural Affairs, Government of Japan
National Institutes for Cultural Heritage
Tokyo National Research Institute for Cultural Properties,
Nara National Research Institute for Cultural Properties,
Cultural Heritage Disaster Risk Management Center, Japan
International Centre for the Study of the Preservation
and Restoration of Cultural Property (ICCROM)

Edited and Published by
Cultural Heritage Protection Cooperation Office,Asia-Pacific Cultural Centre for UNESCO (ACCU)
437-3 Somanouchi-cho, Tenri city, Nara, 632-0032, JAPAN
Tel: +81(0) 743-69-5010
FAX: +81(0) 743-69-5021
e-mail: nara@accu.or.jp
URL: https://www.nara.accu.or.jp
Printed by SHOBUNSYAⒸ Cultural Heritage Protection Cooperation Office,Asia-Pacific Cultural Centre for UNESCO (ACCU) 2024

Preface
Asia-Pacific Cultural Centre for UNESCO (ACCU) was founded in Tokyo in 1971, one year before the General
Conference of UNESCO adopted the Convention concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritagein Paris. ACCU was established in collaboration with the Japanese government and the private sector, with the aim tocontribute to the development of culture and education and to foster mutual understanding and friendship among countries
in the Asia-Pacific region.
Subsequently, ACCU established the ACCU Nara Office in 1999 as a centre for activities promoting cultural heritage
protection in the region. Since then, ACCU Nara has advanced international cooperation for the protection of cultural
heritage through various training courses, international conferences, workshops, publication of international correspondents’reports, and so on. Since we launched the programmes, we have coordinated them in close cooperation with internationalorganisations such as UNESCO and ICCROM, and research institutes and museums under Japan’s National Institutes for
Cultural Heritage. We have also received generous support from regional organisations throughout Japan to conduct ACCU
programmes.
This year, after a three-year Covid-19 period, we have resumed the previous training programme conducted by invitation(on-site). However, instead of reverting to invitation-only training, we have incorporated the benefits of online training
and changed the format to a hybrid of Group Training Course and International Workshop. This report describes the firsttraining project held as a hybrid of online and on-site training.
Outline of the training course in 2023
Group Training Course (Online/On-site)- Target participants: young professionals with 5-7 years’ experience- Training period: 10 August – 31 August (Online)
7 September – 21 September (On-site) * Submission deadline of course assignments: 30 September- Theme: ‘Conservation and Management of Wooden Built Heritage’*Usually we set the theme ‘Archaeology’ and ‘Conservation of Wooden Structures’ every other year.
- Number of participants: 15 from 14 different countries- Curriculum: (Online) video lectures, online presentation/Q&A sessions,(On-site) Discussion sessions, on-site training, hands-on training, study tours
Thematic Training Course (Online)- Target participants: mid-career professionals with 10-15 years’ experience- Training period: 6 November - 20 November (for 15 days)- Theme: ‘Digital Tools for Recording, Conservation and Display of Archaeological Artefacts’*The theme is set based on the requests from the participants’ country.
- Number of participants: 11 mid-career professionals from Central Asian countries (Kazakhstan, Kyrgyz Republic,
Tajikistan and Uzbekistan) who belong to the national/private organisations in charge of research and preservation ofcultural properties of respective countries (Number of certificate recipients: 8 from 4 countries)- Venue : online platform (Kazakhstan, Kyrgyz Republic, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan – Nara, Japan).
- Curriculum: video lectures, online discussions/Q&A sessions, online demonstration lecture, practical training

Regional Workshop (On-site)- Target participants: young professionals (depending on the request of the host country)- Training period: 16 October - 21 October*The workshop normally takes place in the target country for about a week.
- Theme: ‘Disaster Risk Management for Cultural Heritage’*The theme is set based on the requests of the host country.
- Number of participants: 18 from Indonesia who belong to the different regions of the Directorate General of Culture, Ministryof Education, Culture, Research and Technology, and Cultural Affairs of Yogyakarta Province (Number of certificate recipients:
18).
- Venue: City of Yogyakarta, Republic of Indonesia
Training venue:· Classroom-style lectures: The Phoenix Hotel Yogyakarta· Venue for the work-sessions: Heritage sites along the Cosmological Axis of Yogyakarta (Tamansari Royal Garden
Complex and Kauman, Great Mosque Complex)· Ceremonies: The Phoenix Hotel Yogyakarta- Curriculum: Classroom lectures, field exercises, group work, presentation and discussions
International Workshop (On-site)- Target participants: senior professionals/ decision-makers- Training period: 13 December – 15 December- Theme: “Disaster Risk Management for Cultural Heritage in the Asia-Pacific Region
Current State and Issues (3): Disaster Mitigation and Preparedness for Resilience Building”- Number of participants: 10 from 7 countries- Venue: Nara Prefectural Convention Certer/Online platform- Curriculum: presentations and panel discussion
The international conference was open to the observers.
Finally, I would like to express my profound appreciation to the distinguished lecturers who kindly shared their expertise andto the organisations that provided generous support. I also thank all participants for their active participation and interest in
ACCU programmes. Lastly, I would like to thank all resourse personnel from the Agency for Cultural Affairs, ICCROM,
National Institutes for Cultural Heritage, Nara Prefectural Government, Nara City Government, Todai-ji Temple, Takenaka
Carpentry Tools Museum, Hyogo Prefecture, Kyoto Tachibana University, Wakayama Prefectural Government, Kyoto
Institute of Technology, Shirakawa Village, Shiojiri City, Gunma Prefectural Museum of History, Ritsumeikan University,
Hokkaido University, Kyoto University, Kokugakuin University, and Kashihara City for continuing their cooperation andsupport for cultural heritage protection in the Asia-Pacific countries.

MORIMOTO Susumu
Director
Cultural Heritage Protection Cooperation Office,Asia - Pacific Cultural Centre for UNESCO (ACCU)Contents
Preface
I.

Group Training Course
1. General Information ………………………………………………… 9
2. Course Summary ………………………………………………… 16
3. Course Evaluation ………………………………………………… 29

II.

Thematic Training Course
1. General Information ……………………………………………… 39
2. Course Summary ………………………………………………… 42
3. Course Evaluation ………………………………………………… 51

III.

Regional Workshop
1. General Information ……………………………………………… 55
2. Course Summary ………………………………………………… 59
3. Course Evaluation ………………………………………………… 71

IV.

International Workshop
1. General Information ……………………………………………… 77
2. Evaluation ………………………………………………………… 86

V.

Appendix
1. Group Training Course …………………………………………… 90
2. Thematic Training Course………………………………………… 93
3. Regional Workshop ……………………………………………… 94
4. International Workshop ………………………………………… 97
5. Staff Members of ACCU Nara………………………………… 99

I. Group Training Course
1. General Information
2. Course Summary
3. Course Evaluation

1. General Information
Group Training Course for Young Professionals
on Cultural Heritage Protection in the Asia-Pacific Region 2023

‘Conservation and Management of Wooden Built Heritage’(Online/On-site)
1. Background
From 10 August to 30 September 2023 Cultural Heritage Protection Cooperation Office, Asia-Pacific Cultural Centre for
UNESCO (ACCU Nara) held the annual group training course for young professionals involved in the cultural heritage
preservation and conservation field in the Asia-Pacific region. Starting from 2000, in partnership with ICCROM, theAgency for Cultural Affairs, and the National Research Institute of Cultural Properties (Tokyo and Nara), ACCU Nara
has initiated and conducted numerous thematic capacity-building and outreach programmes to equip course participants
with theoretical and practical knowledge essential for the research and analysis, conservation and management of cultural
heritage in the region.
The 24th ACCU group training course focused on the Conservation and Management of Wooden Built Heritage.
The course was open to young professionals who have been working for some years within the field of conservation andmanagement of wooden architecture and wish to expand their knowledge and skills, share experiences, and contributeto the sustainable conservation of wooden buildings, structures, monuments, or remains, which reflect the character andidentity of the Asia-Pacific countries and are, therefore, important to preserve for future generations.
2. Dates and Method
Dates: Online: 10 August (Thu) – 31 August (Thu) 2023
On-site: 7 September (Thu) – 21 September (Thu) 2023
Assignments submission deadline: 30 September (Sat) 2023
Method: Online (self-learning by the educational resources offered by the lecturers of the training course and several
online-discussions with the participants) and on-site (Q&A sessions, practical training, site visits and presentation anddiscussion)
3. Organisers- Agency for Cultural Affairs, Japan: Financial support and professional assistance of the course (dispatch of 2 lecturers
for Unit 2).
- Cultural Heritage Protection Cooperation Office, Asia-Pacific Cultural Centre for UNESCO (ACCU Nara): Overall
course planning and administration- International Centre for the Study of the Preservation and Restoration of Cultural Property (ICCROM): Support in
information-sharing, selection of the participants, and professional assistance during the course (dispatch of 2 lecturers
for units 1 and 5).
- Tokyo National Research Institute for Cultural Properties: Professional assistance (coordinating the sessions of Unit 2
and 3 and dispatch of 2 lecturers).
- Nara National Research Institute for Cultural Properties: Professional assistance
Support- Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Japan- Japanese National Commission for UNESCO- Japan Consortium for International Cooperation in Cultural Heritage (JCIC-Heritage)- Japanese Association for Conservation of Architectural Monuments (JACAM)- Nara Prefectural Government- Nara City Government- Tenri City Government
4. Objectives
Inscribed on the Representative List of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity in 2020, traditional skills, techniques
and knowledge for the conservation and transmission of wooden architecture are vast and deeply rooted in Japan. Here,nearly all traditional buildings, whether secular or sacred, World Heritage or local landmark, are made of wood. Hot and9humid climate, frequent natural or manmade disasters necessitated the continuous repair and restoration of these buildings,
forming the foundation of solid principles, methods and skills for their preservation and continuity that are widely
recognised and appreciated inside and outside the country.
Considering the above, the main objectives of this course were to provide participants with:- Theoretical knowledge and skills-based techniques for the sustainable conservation and management of wooden built
heritage in Asia-Pacific region based on Japanese know-how and experiences;- Establish a platform where participants and lecturers can share their knowledge and practice, strengthen communication
and build professional networks.
5. Course Curriculum
The course programme was designed so that participants can learn the protection systems, and overall process of survey
and documentation, repair, and restoration methods, everyday management, and utilisation of individual buildings aswell as historic districts based on Japanese examples. In addition to Japanese experts, resource persons from ICCROM
delivered lectures and participated in discussions related to the international theory and practice for wooden architecture
conservation and management.
The course was structured into five interconnected units and involved online and on-site programmes. Learning
through lectures and presentations was mainly conducted online, while practical training and working sessions wereconducted in person (for detailed programme refer to course curriculum below).
Contents and schedule:
5-1 Online Programme
The course digital platform (iPAGE) was set up to provide the participants access to relevant pre-recorded video lectures,textbooks, and other learning material to study before their arrival in Japan. Participants were able to log on and accesscourse resources at any time that fit their schedules, post to discussion boards, exchange files, and chat with their peers.
Several online meetings were held via Zoom. Zoom sessions were mainly devoted to discussions and case-study presentationsof participants.
5-2 On-site Programme (Nara, Japan)
After completing the online programme, participants were invited to Nara for on-site training.
On-site programme included work sessions at conservation sites, on-site studies, classroom discussions and presentations.
Units:
1. Global perspectives and challenges in conservation of wooden heritage
2. Protection systems for wooden built heritage in Japan
3. Conservation of wooden built heritage in Japan and in global context
4. Repair and restoration policies for especially high-value wooden structures in Japan
5. Management and utilisation of Historic Districts in Japan(For detailed programme refer to course curriculum)
6. ParticipantsAnnouncement and Response
To apply to this course, applicants should be from one of the following 35 countries located in the Asia-Pacific region
which have signed UNESCO World Heritage Convention and are eligible to receive Official Development Assistance(ODA). In addition, applicants shall also be officially endorsed by the National Commission for UNESCO (NATCOM)*.
The maximum number of participants is 15.
Eligible countries:
Bangladesh, Bhutan, Cambodia, Cook Islands, Fiji, India, Indonesia, Iran, Kazakhstan, Kiribati, Kyrgyz Republic, Lao
P.D.R., Malaysia, Maldives, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Mongolia, Myanmar, Nepal, Niue, Pakistan, Palau, Papua
New Guinea, Philippines, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Sri Lanka, Tajikistan, Thailand, Timor-Leste, Tonga, Turkmenistan,
Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, and Viet Nam.
Selection of Participants
Training course is open to applicants who are:(1) Young heritage professionals with 5-7 years of experience working in architectural conservation and/or cultural
heritage protection domain, with strong determination to make effective use of the outcome of the training course in
their respective countries;(2) those who have a good command of English and are able to converse and write in English fluently;(3) able to participate in the entire training programme; both online and on-site;(4) able to submit all required documents listed below within the defined deadline;10(5) those who wish to continue to interact and exchange information with ACCU after the training course;(6) those who have not participated in the ACCU group training course under the theme ‘Preservation and Restoration of
Wooden Structures’ before;(7) able to organise uninterrupted online learning environment during the course.
The course announcement was published on the ICCROM and ACCU Nara Office websites in April 2023. By the closing
date for applications 10 June 2023, we received 40 applications from 17 different countries. The number of applications
incresed companed to the last year's online course, although it was slightly fewer than the number of applicantions
received prior to Covid-19.
Applications (40 applicants from 17 countries)
GenderRegion■ Male,16,40%■ Female,24,
60%■ Central
Asia,2■ WestAsia,5■ East Asia,5■ Pacific,1

Information Source

Others,1,3%■ SouthAsia,12■ South East
Asia,15

ACCU participants,1,2%
ACCU,3,7%

Friends/colleagues,5,13%
NATCOM,6,
15%

Organisation/supervisor,16,40%

The documents necessary for application were as follows:(1) Application (online form)
To be submitted online from the following website:
https://www.nara.accu.or.jp/gtc/

ICCROM,8,20%*ACCU/ICCROM: Websites
NATCOM: National Commission for UNESCO(2) Personal Statement (Downloadable Word file)
Personal Statement weighs heavily in the selection process. It should describe:- Reason for application- Brief summary of the applicant’s work related to the conservation or management of wooden architectural heritage;- Future plans to utilise and develop the outcome of the training course in the applicant’s country.
(3) Recommendation Letter from the applicant’s organisation (employer) (Downloadable Word file)(4) Recommendation Letter from National Commission for UNESCO (NATCOM) (free form)
ACCU screened and made a preliminary selection and then consulted with ICCROM and Agency for Cultural Affairs(ACA) for the final decision. After ICCROM and ACA announced the results of evaluated applicants, ACCU and
ICCROM selected 15 applicants from 14 countries and 3 applicants on the waiting list. Where deemed necessary,
ACCU also confirmed the English proficiency of the applicants. In early July, ACCU notified the results to thesuccessful candidates and respective NATCOMs.
The final group of participants consisted of:- 15 participants from 14 different countries: East Asia 1, Southeast Asia 6, South Asia 5 Central Asia 1, the Pacific 1,
West Asia 1 (refer to Appendix).

11

- 9 participants had backgrounds in architecture or architectural conservation and had worked on restoration sites. 3
participants were an archaeologists. Other’s backgrounds include economy, geography, history, etc.
- 11 of the participants worked for national authority, 2 were affiliated to a university, 1 was from private firm and 1 frommuseum.
- The youngest participant was 25 years old, the oldest 47. The average age was 34.1.
- There were 5 male and 10 female participants.
Training Course Participants
GenderRegion■ Wast Asia,1,
7%■ Central Asia,
1,7%■ South Asia,5,33%■ Male,5,33%■ East Asia,
1,7%■ Female,10,67%

Affiliated Institution■ University,
2,13%■ South East Asia,6,40%
Years of experience■ Private
Firm,1,7%■ Museum,
1,7%■ Pacific,1,
6%■ Others,
1,7%■ National
Authority,
11,73%■ 8-10 years,
7,47%■ 3-4 years,2,13%■ 5-7 years,
5,33%

Major at university
Islamic History and Culture,1,7%
Certificate of Completion
All participants submittedafinal
reportandevaluation
form
bythe deadline (30 Sep.) and were awarded a certificate upon
History and Geography,1,7%
completion of the course.
Disaster Management,1,7%

Architecture,5,
7. The role of the participants during the course
36%
Carpentry&
Joinery,1,7%
During the course period, each participant was required to attend all interactive sessions, present a case study report
describing the current state and issues of wooden heritage conservation in their respective countries, watch all lecture
videos, and write check-pointBuilding,1,7%
reports related to the content of the lectures, in addition to their understanding on how toutilise the outcomes and knowledge gained. Finally, they were asked
to submit a final report and evaluation form by theArchitectual Conservation,2,15%
Anthropology, Sociology, and Archaeology,1,7%
scheduled deadline.
Agronomy,1,7%
English is the working language of the course and participants also need a high level of English proficiency.

Check-point report
After completing each unit, participants were asked to complete check-point report to deepen their understanding after
studying material.
Final Report
The participants submitted a report summarizing the following two subjects;
1. Long-term and short-term action plans developed from the training outcomes.
(What you have to do, what you want to do, what you can do)
2. Possible solutions for the challenges mentioned in the Case Study Report (other than lack of budget and human resources).

128. Secretariat
ACCU Nara Office
WAKIYA Kayoko, Vice Director of Programme Operation Department and Meladze Tamar, Director of International
Cooperation Division were responsible for the overall course planning, arrangement and the moderating of online and onsite sessions. YOSHIDA Machi, staff of International Cooperation Division was responsible for disseminating the course
information and creating the training materials. Wang Zifan, project staff, supported participants and lecturers during
the on-site sessions. HATA Chiyako acted as Japanese and English interpreter during the on-site course. The Planning
Coordination Division of ACCU also assisted the course.
ICCROM
Valerie Magar, Unit Manager and IKAWA Hirofumi, Projector Manager, programmes Unit, assisted ACCU with selectionof participants and overall administration. Additionally, Gamini Wijesuriya, ICCROM Special Adviser, gave opening
message, lecture videos and a case study presentation in Nara, Japan. Rohit Jigyasu, Project Manager, Urban Heritage,
Climate Change & Disaster Risk Management of programmes Unit, kindly attended the closing ceremony and also gave alecture on the final day of the course.
Tokyo National Research Institute for Cultural Properties
TOMODA Masahiko, Deputy Director General, and KANAI Ken, Head, Resource and Systems Research Section, Japan
Center for International Cooperation in Conservation, gave lectures of Unit 2 and 3 in Nara, Japan.

13

Group Training Course on Cultural Heritage Protection in the Asia-Pacific Region-Conservation and Management of Wooden Built HeritageOnline Programme
10 August (Thu) - 31 August (Thu)
DATE

CONTENT

Lecturers/Resource Persons

MethodCourse Orientation (closed session) 14:00 ~ 16:00 (JST)ACCU

ZOOM Meeting

UNIT 1: Global Perspectives and Challenges in Conservation of Wooden Heritage
1-1: International Principles and Approaches to Heritage Conservation(Introduction to ICCROM, Evolution of Conservation Concepts, Principles and Charters)
1-2: Diversity of Wooden Cultural Heritage in the Asia-Pacific Region and the Local Approaches toConservation

Gamini WIJESURIYA(ICCROM)

1-3: Principles, Practices, and Cultural Contexts in Conservation- How to develop qualifying systems, a case study in Japan
1-4: Protection of Cultural Properties in JapanINABA Nobuko(University of Tsukuba)

Self-paced learning:Video lectures,
reading material

UNIT 2: Protection Systems for Wooden Built Heritage in Japan

2-1: Outline of the Current Legal Framework for the Restoration of Cultural Properties in Japan

10 August ~Distributionof video
lectures

KANAI Ken
(Tokyo National Research Institutefor Cultural Properties)

2-2: History and Diversity of Japanese Architecture

INAGAKI Tomoya(Agency for Cultural Affairs)

2-3: Preservation of Wooden Structures in Japan I- Disaster preparedness

INAGAKI Tomoya(Agency for Cultural Affairs)

2-4: Preservation of Wooden Structures in Japan II- Securing Traditional Techniques and Materials of Timber Buildings in JapanKIYONAGA Yohei(Agency for Cultural Affairs)

2-5: Preservation of Historical Environment and Townscape after Large Disaster

ADACHI Hiroshi(Kobe University)

Self-paced learning:Video lectures,
reading material

UNIT 3: Conservation of Wooden Built Heritage in Japan and in Global Context
3-1: Wooden Architecture in Asia
(Construction methods, examples of conservation and repair)

3-2: The Conservation of Wooden Heritage Buildings in Japan from an International Perspective

TOMODA Masahiko(Tokyo National Research Institutefor Cultural Properties)
Alejandro MARTINEZ(Kyoto Institute of Technology)

Self-paced learning:Video lectures,
reading material

UNIT 4: Repair and Restoration Policies for Especially High-value Wooden Structures in Japan
4-1: Survey and Recoding of Individual Wooden Buildings
Measurement, damage investigation, trace survey

KONDO Mitsuo(Japanese Association
for Conservation ofArchitectural Monuments)

4-2: Formulation of the Repair Policy
4-3: Repair Process of an Important Cultural Property in Japan- Case Study of Seki Family Residence

Self-paced learning:Video lectures,
reading material

UNIT 5: Protection of Historic Districts in Japan

U5-1: Community Efforts to the Preservation of Shirakawa Historic Village (World Heritage Site)

MATSUMOTO Keita(Shirakawa Village Board of
Education)

5-2: Community-centered Townscape Preservation in Japan On the example of Narai post-town

WATANABE Yasushi(Shiojiri City Board of Education)

23 & 24
AugustParticipant Case Study Presentations (14:00 ~ 17:00)(3 hour session for 2 days, 7-8 presentations (10-minute) per day)Open to all lecturers andresource persons

31 AugustMid-term Meeting (14:00~15:00)

ACCU

Self-paced learning:Video lectures,
reading material

Zoom Meeting* Case Study Reports (short paper and a 10 min. presentation) shall reflect each participant country's approaches and/or issues in conservation and management of wooden built heritage.

14

Group Training Course on Cultural Heritage Protection in the Asia-Pacific Region-Conservation and Management of Wooden Built HeritageOn-Site Programme
7 September (Thu) - 21 September (Thu)Date

09:30-12:30

13:30-16:30

Venue

Lecturers / Organisations

9/7
Thu

Free Time

Opening Ceremony1) Hotel Nikko Nara
2) Nara Prefectural Government Office

Organising Team
(ACCU Nara)

UNIT 1: Global Perspectives and Challenges in Conservation of Wooden Heritage
UNIT 2: Protection Systems for Wooden Built Heritage in Japan

9/8
Fri

【Discussion Session 1】
Interactive session with the lecturers of Unit 1 and Unit 2【Study Tour 1】
9/9
Sat

Preservation of Traditional Carpentry
Tools and Techniques

Disaster Risk Prevention and Postdisaster Recovery for Historic Districts(case of Kobe)

Nara Prefectural Convention Center

Gamini Wijesuriya (ICCROM),INABA Nobuko (Univ. of Tsukuba)
KANAI Ken (Tobunken(1))
KIYONAGA Yohei (Bunkacho(2))
INAGAKI Tomoya (Bunkacho)

Kobe-city
1) Takenaka Carpentry Tools Museum(Takenaka Carpentry Tools Museum)2) Kitano-cho, Yamamoto-dori district

NISHIYAMA Marcelo
MURAKAMI Yasumichi(Kyoto Tachibana University)

UNIT 3: Conservation of Wooden Built Heritage in Japan and in Global Context
UNIT 4: Repair and Restoration Policies for Especially High-value Wooden Structures in Japan
9/10
Sun

【Work Session 1】
Damage investigation, trace survey

9/11
Mon

【Work Session 2】
Damage investigation, trace survey (cont.), Formulation of repair policy

Todai-ji Temple grounds (Jibutsu-do)

9/12
Tue

【Work Session 3】
Formulation of repair policy

Todai-ji Temple grounds (Jibutsu-do)

Todai-ji Temple grounds (Jibutsu-do)
TAI Tadatsugu(Wakayama Prefecture Cultural Heritage Center)

TANAKA Izumi(Todai-ji Temple)【Discussion Session 2】

TOMODA Masahiko(Tokyo National Research Institute for Cultural

9/13
Wed

Participants' presentations on repair
policy of Jibutsu-do

Interactive session with the lecturersof Unit 3 and Unit 4

Nara Prefectural Convention Center

Alejandro MARTINEZ(Kyoto Institute of Technology)

Nara Prefecture1) Former Oda Residence
9/14
Thu

【Study Tour 2】
Repair Process of Wooden Structures and Components

Properties)(Kashihara Jingu Shrine precincts)2) O-jinja Shrine3) Nara Prefecture Historical andArtistic Culture Complex

YAMASHIDA Hideki
ONO Yusuke(Nara Prefecture Cultural Properties Conservation
Office)(Restorations and Exhibition Wing)

9/15
Fri

【Study Tour 3】
Preservation, Maintenance and Management of Wooden World Heritage Sites

Horyu-ji Temple

YOSHIDA Mitsuyoshi
IWANAGA Yuichiro(Nara Prefecture Cultural Properties
Conservation Office)

9/16
Sat

Day off (preparation of final reports)

9/17
Sun

Day off (preparation of final reports)
UNIT 5: Management and Utilisation of Historic Districts in Japan

9/18-19
Mon-Tue(National
Holiday)【Study Tour 4】
Community Efforts to the Preservation of Shirakawa-go Historic Village(World Heritage Site)

9/20
Wed

【Study Tour 5】
Community-centred Townscape Preservation in Japan

Gifu Prefecture
Shirakawa-go Village

KANADE Michiru(Tokyo University of the Arts)

MATSUMOTO Keita(Shirakawa Village Board of Education)

Nagano Prefecture
Narai post-town, Kiso Hirasawa

KANEDA Michiru(Tokyo University of the Arts)

WATANABE Yasushi(Shiojiri City Board of Education)

9/21
Thu

【Discussion and Presentations 3】
General Discussion and Final Report Presentations

Nara Prefectural Convention Center

Rohit Jigyasu (ICCROM)

Closing Ceremony (15:00 ~)(1) Tobunken - Tokyo National Research Institute for Cultural Properties(2) Bunkacho - Agency for Cultural Affairs, Government of Japan15

2. Course Summary
Due to the impact of COVID-19, the training course has been held online for three consecutive years, but we were able toresume the on-site training for the first time in four years. This year, we organized the course in a first-ever hybrid format,
leveraging the advantages of both online and face-to-face activities. Before coming to Japan, the participants took a threeweek online course, which involved self-study using pre-recorded video lectures as well as a preparatory learning programme
combining case study presentations on country-specific challenges with live interactive sessions. In addition, orientationand information session was held to know each other and let the participants familiarize themselves with ACCU’s digitallearning environment.
The on-site training period was reduced to two weeks, making it half of the previous duration. Nevertheless, theopportunities were provided for on-site training, study tours, and face-to-face discussions with lecturers.
10 August■ Course Orientation (online)
The orientation began at 2 p.m. Japan time for 15 participants from 14 countries. It provided an overview of the training
course and curriculum, as well as explaining the procedures for entering Japan. We shared the aims of the individual units
and the assignments to be given to the participants, while also checking the participants’ knowledge and experience. 16
video lectures were distributed online (see the online programme, pg. 14).
23 & 24 August■ Participant Case Study Presentations (online)
Lecturers: Gamini Wijesuriya (ICCROM) and INABA Nobuko (University of Tsukuba)
Participants shared the current situation and challenges of cultural heritage protection in their respective countries. In the
Q&A session held after each presentation, a lively discussion took place between the experts (participants) who faced
common challenges. The participants asked the lecturers how they address these challenges in Japan, and one of the lecturers,
Professor Inaba, shared some initiatives carried out in Japan and offered information and advice for addressing the issues.
There were some other topics which could not be addressed online so the facilitator, Dr Wijesuriya suggested that thediscussion be continued a month later when the participants come to Japan so that everyone could have an equal chance toexchange views on the subjects they are most concerned about.

Top: Dr Wijesuriya’s lecture video and the online discussion
Bottom: Participant case study presentations16

6 September■ Arrival and Welcoming of Participants to Nara
7 September■ Opening Ceremony / Orientation
The opening ceremony took place from 1:30 p.m., attended by 15 participants from 14 countries as well as the representativesof the joint organisers and supporting organisations. First, on behalf of the organisers, Mr Morimoto Susumu, ACCU
director, and Dr Yamashita Shin’ichiro, Councillor on Cultural Properties, Agency for Cultural Affairs, Government ofJapan, greeted the participants and briefly talked about the background and purpose of the group training course. Thiswas followed by greetings on behalf of the joint organisers by Dr Gamini Wijesuriya from ICCROM and Mr Seino
Takayuki from the Nara National Institute for Cultural Properties, and greetings on behalf of the supporting organisations
by Mr Morii Masayuki, director of the Nara Prefectural World Heritage Office, and Mr Matsuura Iwami, manager of the Nara
City Cultural Property Division, in this order. The speakers warmly welcomed the participants and, as fellow researchers
engaged in cultural heritage protection, talked about the key takeaways and experiences that they hoped the participants
would gain through the training programme. Finally, the participants introduced themselves and shared their aspirations andexpectations for the course. After taking a group photo, the opening ceremony was concluded. Afterwards, the participants
paid a courtesy visit to the Nara Prefectural Government Office, the host and supporting organisation, where they werewelcomed by Governor Yamashita and exchanged opinions.

Welcome address by the course organisers (Left: Dr Yamashita, middle: Mr Morimoto, right: Dr Wijesuriya)

Opening ceremony

Welcome address by Governor Yamashita at the Nara
Prefectural Government Office

8 August■Unit 1 & 2: Q&A Session
Lecturers: Gamini Wijesuriya (ICCROM), INABA Nobuko (University of Tsukuba), KANAI Ken (Tokyo National
Research Institute for Cultural Properties), KIYONAGA Yohei and INAGAKI Tomoya (Agency for Cultural
Affairs, Government of Japan)
Venue: Nara Prefectural Convention Center
On Day 2 of the training, the participants met the lecturers of the online programme for face-to-face interaction andexchanging opinions. The discussion centered around global perspectives and challenges in cultural heritage protection andcultural properties protection systems in Japan. Each lecturer provided a 10-minute summary about their online lectures17and did a review. Subsequently, the participants deepened their understanding through confirming and asking about thelecture content as well as carrying out groupwork on the assignments given by the lecturers.
In the morning, Dr Wijesuriya provided a recap of the principles of conservation, and Professor Inaba gave aconcise summary of the protection systems for cultural property buildings in Japan, describing the framework and characteristics
of Japanese building conversation that would help the participants to understand the essence of the upcoming training
course. Finally, Professor Inaba explained the features of the systems for repair and maintenance of wooden structures in Japan,
and concluded by asking the participants to use these as reference according to the specific circumstances in their respective
countries.

Discussion with Professor Inaba

Lecture review by Mr Kanai

The lectures by Mr Kanai, Mr Kiyonaga, and Mr Inagaki took place in the afternoon. The lecturers presented two questions
to the participants:
1) How would you describe the standing position of wooden structures in the heritage conservation of your country?
2) What aspects of wooden structures should we focus on when considering their conservation?
The participants formed three groups to discuss these questions. This gave them the opportunity to share information
about each other’s countries as well as their own thoughts. All groups agreed that their countries lacked experts in wooden
structures, and that all countries shared the challenge of inheriting traditional materials and repair techniques to protect
wooden structures vulnerable to the high temperatures and humidity of the subtropical environment. The lecturers provided
additional information about initiatives in Japan to protect such structures.

Group discussion

Group presentation

9 September■ Preservation of Traditional Carpentry Tools and Techniques and Preservation of Groups of Historic Buildings
Lecturers: NISHIYAMA Marcelo (Takenaka Carpentry Tools Museum) and MURAKAMI Yasumichi (Kyoto
Tachibana University)
Venues: Takenaka Carpentry Tools Museum / Preservation District for Groups of Important Historic Buildings:
Kitano Town, Yamamoto-dori district, Kobe City
In the morning, the participants were taken on a tour of Takenaka Carpentry Tools Muesum by Mr Nishiyama. Takenaka
Carpentry Tools Muesum preserves traditional carpentry tools and is dedicated to recording, documentation, and displayof tool-making techniques. Wooden structures cannot be preserved in the long run unless the tools and techniques18used to construct those buildings are also preserved and handed down. The participants had already learned about the
governmental framework of systems to preserve wooden structures the previous day; this was an opportunity to learn
about activities in the private sector. In the afternoon, the participants moved to Kitano Town, Yamamoto-dori district, anational Important Preservation District for Groups of Traditional Buildings, where they learned about examples of repair andrestoration carried out after the Kobe earthquake, preparatory measures developed based on the natural disaster experience,and the registered cultural properties system that was established after the earthquake as a framework to protect the buildings.
Since a number of the participants were engineers, they asked about how cultural property buildings were repaired after theearthquake, and the lecturers explained the seismic retrofitting methods used in Japan.

Left: Participants experiencing the techniques of wood joinery used at Japanese traditional buildings under the explanation of Mr Nishiyama
Right: Experiencing the use of a Japanese traditional tool ‘Yariganna’ plane with the guidance of Master Carpenter, Mr Kitamura

10–12 September■ Damage Investigation, Trace Survey, and Formulation of a Repair Policy
Lecturers: TAI Tadatsugu (Wakayama Prefecture Cultural Heritage Center) and TANAKA Izumi (Todai-ji)
Venue: Todai-ji Temple grounds (Jibutsu-do)
The goal of the three-day on-site training was to develop a repair plan for a painted shrine architecture––the Jibutsu-do of
the World Heritage Site Todai-ji. Todai-ji’s Jibutsu-do formerly served as the main shrine building of Tanzan Shrine and has
undergone relocation and modification many times in the past. The trainees investigated the architectural structure of thiscultural property and explored the history of alterations to the building. They also observed and examined which architectural stylewould ultimately enhance the cultural heritage value of the building, and formulated a repair policy accordingly. On the final
day, 12 September, a group work session was held in which each group discussed their individual and worked as a group tosummarise what kind of repairs they would carry out, in preparation for a presentation the following day. In this three-day
training, the lecturers drew the participants’ attention to the points that are needed to understand the building (e.g. how todetermine the period of a member based on differences in coating, how to date components based on traces left on nails andmembers, etc.), enabling the participants to develop skills and gain perspectives on building survey methods and thebuilding’s history.

On-site work session at Todai-ji’s Jibutsu-do

Lecture by Mr Tai at Todai-ji Temple

19

Observation of Todai-ji World Heritage Site with the explanation of Mr Tanaka

Work session at Jibutsu-do under the supervision of lecturers, Mr Tai (left) and Dr Tomoda (right)

Participants doing group work20

13 September■ Participants’ presentations on repair policy of Jibutsu-do
Lecturers: TAI Tadatsugu (Wakayama Prefecture Cultural Heritage Center), TOMODA Masahiko (Tokyo
National Research Institute for Cultural Properties) and Alejandro Martinez (Kyoto Institute of Technology)
Venue: Nara Prefectural Convention Center
The participants formed five groups and presented their repair plans. The three lecturers asked questions about each of therepair plans, while offering their comments and advice. One of the main issues addressed in the presentations was how todevelop a repair plan that strikes a balance between cultural heritage value and maintenance friendliness. Some plans involved
restoring repaired parts to their original form, while others argued that the present tiled roof should be maintained because thematerial used in the original roof is too expensive to maintain. In addition, it became clear that members from different countries
had diverse opinions about repair methods, such as structural reinforcement methods and paint restoration philosophy. Therefore,
the group presentation preparation process served as an opportunity for the participants to learn about the various repair
methods and philosophies in each country.

Repair plan presentation and discussion with lecturers

21

14–15 September■ Repair Process of Wooden Structures in Japan
Lecturers: YAMASHITA Hideki, ONO Yusuke, YOSHIDA Mitsuyoshi and IWANAGA Yuichiro (Nara Prefecture
Cultural Properties Conservation Office)Venues: Former Oda Residence (Kashihara City), O-jinja Shrine (Tawaramoto Town), Nara Prefecture Historical andArtistic Culture Complex (Tenri City), Horyuji Temple (Ikaruga Town)
Conservation engineer from the Nara Prefecture Cultural Properties Conservation Office served as the lecturer for this session.
The participants visited cultural property buildings in Nara Prefecture where repair work was ongoing. At the Former Oda
Residence, they observed the conservation site where the foundation was being repaired in the ageya (jack-up) style without
removing the pillars, beams, and other major structural components. They learned how to reinforce structures in the ageya style,as well as the specific measures to properly drain underground wastewater that causes ground softening. The next destination
was the repair site at O-jinja Shrine. Participants were already familiar with such shrine structures from their work sessions at
Jobutsu-do and therefore asked a lot of questions on various topics, including the paint repair process, procurement of repair
materials, repair system, and seismic retrofitting. At the next destination, the Nara Prefecture Historical and Artistic Culture
Complex (Bunkamura), the participants observed how the components of the O-jinja Shrine were transported and repairedin the conservation laboratory. They learned about how traditional tools and modern tools are used for different purposesin the repair process, the species of wood used for rooting decayed parts, and had the opportunity to see carpentry in action
up close and experience repair tools.
The following day the participants visited Horyuji Temple, where they listened to an explanation of the long-term
repair plan for this World Heritage Site, observed the repair-completed building, and received an explanation from thelecturer on site as to why such a repair policy had been adopted. Over the two-day study tour, the participants visited four
conservation sites and facilities. It served as an opportunity to learn about the entire Japanese repair process, from repairof the building foundation and roof to component repair methods and post-repair maintenance, as well as providing useful
information for the participants to revise the repair plans they had created in the previous work sessions.

Left: Mr Yamashita explaining repair works of restoration
Right: Restoration site of the Former Oda Residence (Nationally designated property)

Study visits at O-jinja conservation site with the explanation by Mr Ono from Nara Prefecture Cultural Properties Conservation Office22

Visit to the Nara Prefecture Historical and Artistic Culture Complex, where the O-jinja shrine wooden members are held for the repair
Left: The carpenter demonstrating the traditional tools used in the repair process
Right: Participants tried to adjust the blade of a traditional Japanese planeWith the lecturers from Nara Prefecture Cultural Properties Conservation Office

Left: Mr Yoshida explaining the restoration work at Horyu-ji Temple (World Heritage Site)
Right: Mr Iwanaga explaining how to identify the tiles that require replacement and their characteristics by period2318–20 September■ Community Efforts to the Preservation of Shirakawa-go Historic Village (World Heritage Site)
Lecturers: KANADE Michiru (Tokyo University of the Arts) and MATSUMOTO Keita (Shirakawa Village Boardof Education)
Venue: Shirakawa Village, Gifu Prefecture (World Heritage Site)■ Community-centred Townscape Preservation in Japan (Narai post-town, Kiso Hirasawa)
Lecturer: WATANABE Yasushi (Shiojiri City Board of Education)
Once a cultural property is restored, the next important issue is how to manage and utilise it. The lectures themed aroundmanagement and utilisation of historic districts in Japan began on 18 September and focused on the management andutilisation of cultural heritage. Whereas the previous units covered the practical aspects of preserving and restoring
individual buildings, Unit 5 revolved around the preservation of groups of buildings, and in particular townscapepreservation that is closely linked to people’s lives. Townscape preservation efforts in Japan have more than 40 years ofhistory, including the establishment of a preservation system (selection of Preservation Districts for Groups of Traditional
Buildings) by the national government and ordinances by local governments, launch of community-based preservationcommittees, and many other examples. In this unit, the participants learned the process of creating preservation frameworks
from the examples of three different types of settlements (Shirakawa-go Village: rural village, Narai post-town: post town,
Kiso Hirasawa: townscape with deep-rooted traditional industry).
In the Shirakawa-go Village lecture, Mr Matsumoto talked about the efforts leading to World Heritage Site designation,
as well as the subsequent impact of tourism and tourism management. Then he explained how Shirakawa Village is promoting
sustainable preservation efforts together with residents, also touching on the issues and the measures taken to address them. Since
the replacement of (thatched) roofing (procuring traditional materials), educating younger generations, and ways to address
overtourism were challenges shared by the participants, a lively discussion ensued.
In Narai post-town and Kiso Hirasawa, Mr Watanabe talked about the past and present of two townscapes situatedalong the old highway, touching on examples of landscaping and designated historical buildings. He also explained how
community-centred preservation efforts have been made based on carefully identifying the unique values of each town.
The participants asked how to encourage the engagement of local communities which is a challenge faced by many Asian
countries; the lecturer shared several efforts that were developed from many years of experience. Lastly, the lecturers, Mr
Watanabe and Ms Kanade, encouraged the participants to tailor what they have learned in Japan to the situations in theirrespective countries and develop a preservation method that suits their specific needs, since the preservation method varies
depending on the heritage.
The study tours provided an opportunity for the participants to gain a first-hand understanding and experience of thepreservation framework, maintenance, and management of groups of buildings in Japan that they had learned about in thelectures by Professor Inaba, Mr Kanai, and the lecturers from the Agency for Cultural Affairs in the first half of the programme.

Lecturers and participants in Shirakawa Village, World Heritage Site

24

Left: Mr Matsumoto explaining about the structure of traditional building and its maintenance efforts
Right: Introduction of fire protection equipment

Guidance lecture of Narai Post Town at the community centre reconstructed under the landscaping project

Left: Townscape in Narai Post Town
Right: Guide tour of Narai, nationally designated preservation district, under the guidance of Mr Watanabe

Visiting a designated heritage building renovated into a hotel facility

25

Left: Welcome address by Mr Momose Takashi, Mayor of Shiojiri City
Right: Townscape of Kiso Hirasawa, the nationally designated preservation district

Observation of Japanese Lacquerware Production technique at ITO Kanji Lacquer Shop

Lacquered tableware experience at the studio

With the lecturers and owner of ITO Kanji Lacquer Shop

Left: Concluding discussion on Management and Utilisation of Historic Districts in Japan after the 3-day study tour
Right: Coodinator, Ms Kanade Michiru

26

■ Final Report Presentations
Lecturer: Rohit Jigyasu (ICCROM)
Venue: Nara Prefectural Convention CenterOn the final day, the participants presented the results of their training. First, the lecturer, Dr Jigyasu, provided an overview of
ICCROM, after which Ms Claudia Cancino, a guest from the Getty Research Institute, introduced the organization and various
projects implemented by Getty. Next, each participant delivered a presentation on the results of their training. The participants
talked about the new insights they gained, content that they found especially beneficial, and how they intended to utilise theirfindings and experience from the one-month course in their home countries. They also presented a short-term and long-termplan (action plan). Among other topics, the short-term plans included reviewing documentation, improvement of repair plan
formulation methods, and development of preservation frameworks that involved local residents. For the long-term plan, several
participants raised the need to make institutional improvements as a result of comparisons made between the Japanesesystem of cultural property protection, the concept of preservation districts and subsidisation with those in their respective
countries. Some also expressed a desire to incorporate new systems learnt in Japan in the future, such as the creation of asystem to preserve repair techniques. In the final discussion, based on the participants’ presentations, the facilitator, Dr Jigyasu,
summarised the challenges of cultural heritage protection in Asia-Pacific countries, and a general discussion was held
regarding future directions and solutions. In addition, some attendees shared their expectations and requests for future ACCU
training courses.

Lecture by Dr Jigyasu

Final presentation by participants27

Closing Ceremony
Following the final session, the closing ceremony was held. The ACCU Director presented each participant with a certificate
in recognition of their enthusiasm for learning and hard work during the one month training course. Ms Ariunzaya Batdorj
from Mongolia and Dr Arpan Bhuju from Nepal each delivered a speech on behalf of the participants, expressed their
gratitude to the lecturers and staff, and thanked all the participants for their encouragement and inspiration during the training
course.

Awarding certificates of completion

Closing ceremony

22 September■ Departure
The participants headed to Kansai International Airport and Osaka International Airport to return to their home countries.
30 September■ Submission of Course Evaluation
All participants submitted the course evaluation, thus concluding the programme.

283. Course Evaluation
For the first time in 2023, ACCU designed and implemented the Group Training Course in a hybrid format, involving selfpaced online learning followed by 2-weeks of intensive on-site programme. While all fifteen participants completed thecourse, the evaluation reflects the responses from fourteen participants.
Overall, the programme received a high evaluation. 12 participants said that fulfilment of their expectations was “excellent”,
while two evaluated it as “good”. Online course and self-study before coming to Japan for on-site training yielded 100%
satisfaction. Based on the comments received, we understood that pre-practical online training helps the participants to
get familiarized with various topics and build the basic knowledge before coming to Japan, giving them possibility ofreviewing the video lectures at their own pace.
One of our challenges this year was to effectively link the online and on-site programmes so that they are notrepetitive or unrelated but rather complimentary to each other. It was very rewarding to see that the relation and interconnection
between online and on-site programmes received high scores and that summaries provided by each instructor in person
regarding their online lectures were beneficial for recalling the course content.
We also found that check-point reports and questions after each video lecture worked extremely well for participants. Theyobserved that the questions encouraged them to consider their own country's context, draw from their personal experiences
and reflect more on their country's current state and issues regarding their heritage system.
Regarding the on-site programme, the relevance and usefulness of study tours and work sessions were also highly
assessed. The sites chosen for visits and practical training, as well as explanations provided by the lecturers on site, were
evaluated with the highest score by all participants.
Based on the responses received, we can conclude that the hybrid format of the training course is efficient andworks perfectly well for participants. 64% of them prefer a combination of online and on-site programmes to solely on-sitetraining for various reasons, including the ability to study at one’s own pace and the flexibility to adjust to their everyday
work.
Yet, there have been some challenges and issues that need to be addressed. For example, the allocated time for theon-site programme was evaluated as “fair” by three participants and the number of days off during the on-site training
received an 86% negative score. Most participants observed that the allotted time for the on-site programme was too tightand the schedule was too hectic. Another suggestion received from the participants was to reduce the number of sites to visit,
and instead increase the time at each location. Also, many participants felt that they prefer to present their case study reports
on-site, rather than online.
All suggestions and recommendations from the participants will be examined carefully, and efforts will be made toaddress them when planning for the next year’s training course.
A) OVERALL:
Fulfilment of your expectations
Good,
2,14%

Excellent,
12,86%

Coverage and depth of the course theme
Too broad,
1,7%■Excellent
■Good
■Fair
■Poor

Just right,
13,93%■Just right■Too brosd■Too narrow

to course
your interests
Balanceallocatedtimelearn
betweenand on-site-Applicability
This training
was beyond my expectation. I had no idea
howof
much
I would
and online
how much
I would enjoy
programmesGood,the experience
2,14%- The fulfillment of expectations has been superb, exceeding my initial expectations. Thank you for your exceptional
performance
Fair,
Excellent,
3,22%on my 3,21%- I've achieved a lot of things in terms of theory and practical as well based
expectation- It was right, but need some more times on conservation field
Excellent,
12,86%■Excellent
■Good
■Fair
■Poor

Good,
8,57%

■Excellent
■Good
■Fair
■Poor

29

Excellent,
12,86%■Excellent
■Good
■Fair
- Its rightly balanced between theory andpractical■Poor

Just right,
13,93%■Just right■Too brosd■Too narrow- For an almost 2-month program for both online and onsite, the course outline is just right and not too overwhelming
Applicability to your interests
Fulfilment of your expectations

Excellent,
12,86%
Excellent,
12,86%

Good,
2,14%
Good,
2,14%

■Excellent■Good■Excellent
■Fair
■Good
■Poor
■Fair
■Poor

Relation and interconnection between online and on-site

Balance of allocated time between online and on-site
programmes
Coverageand depth of the course theme
Too broad,
1,7%
Fair,
Excellent,
3,22%
3,21%

Good,
Just
right,
8,57%
13,93%■Excellent■Good■Just right■Fair■Too brosd■Poor■Too narrow

The number of days off-programmes
The contenttowas
engaging
I can apply
in my work
Applicability
yourinterestsand I learned a lot of valuable information
Balance ofthat
allocatedtime between
onlineand on-site
Just right,
programmes- Aligns perfectly with my passionGood,for conserving and managing
heritage
12,86%
2,14%- More than I thought off. The opportunity
to observe and witness the traditional architecture and its preservation byvariousefforts is very, very helpful
Good,
Fair,
3,22%

4,29%

Excellent,
3,21%- I personally felt time allocated for on-site programmes was too tight- Additional 2 days would be more helpful in understanding and absorbingsite studies (restoration sites). I believe
Nottheenough,Excellent,■Excellent■Just rightabsorbing the placeis as important for■Excellent
which
some
time
more
shouldbeallotted
during the visits ■Excellent
12,86%
Excellent,
10,71%■Good■EnoughGood,12,86%- On-site programme
was not sufficient■Good■Fair■Not enough
■Good
8,57%
■Poor
■Fair
■Fair
- For online course, the time given wasenough. Most of us have a day job to attend to and having
a flexible online
■Poor
■Poor
schedule benefits us (trainees) to complete the modules
Relation and interconnection between online and on-site
programmes

The number of days off
Just right,
12,86%

Good,
4,29%
Excellent,
10,71%■Excellent
■Good
■Fair
■Poor

Not enough,12,86%■Just right■Enough■Not enough- The practical exercises conducted on-site complemented the online lectures well…However, I did encounter a minor
challenge when it came to asking questions related to the online material during the on-site sessions. For instance,
while watching the online lectures, I had taken note of certain points or statements that raised questions. Yet, during theon-site discussions, it felt a bit out of context to bring up these questions.
- Very GOOD
- Aside from the onsite lectures, the hands-on experience helps us further understand the online lectures we had which
gives us a more in-depth knowledge about various aspects of Japanese system of conservation.
- Having an additional day off would have been beneficial, perhaps either between the three consecutive days of ourstudy tour and the final presentation.
- Considering the intensive schedule of the training course, the addition of a 1-day break at the end of the program could
be highly beneficial.
- Insufficient number of days
- It is truly not enough. We could've used an extra day off after the long schedule at Shirikawa-go and Narai.

30

Any suggestions for any topics to be added to the present curriculum?
- It would be incredibly beneficial if certain lessons, such as digital documentation and disaster management of theheritage site, were incorporated- I wish that laboratory practice with carpentry skills will be added in the future. Incorporating hands-on practical skills
like carpentry would certainly be engaging and useful for the participants- Processing of Wood: From Forest to Building Material: This could cover both traditional Japanese methods andmodern techniques for processing wood into building materials. It would provide valuable insights into the entire journey ofwood, from its origin in the forest to its transformation into construction materials; Scientific investigation, Identificationof species, scientific tests and technologies that can be used for characterization of wood, Non-destructive techniques
especially for wood, Methods and technologies employed in scientific investigations related to wood; Wooden Surface
Protection, Finishing, and Restoration.
- Climatology and impact of weather on timber and damages related to it. One session of this would be helpful inrelating contextually and co-relating it with climate condition in our countries and damage with respect to it- One session for intangible heritage related to wood
- More discussion about the heritage laws of Japan on National levelB) Online Programme:
Clarity of video lectures

Good,8,57%

Length of video lectures

Different for each,
3,21%

Excellent,6,43%
Just right,11,
79%■Excellent
■Good
■Fair
■Poor

Which type of recorded video lecture is more effective forlearning?

■Just right■Too long■Too short■Different for eachComprehending English in video lectures
Difficult/confusing,
1,7%

English narration,9,64%

Japaness withEnglish subtaitles,
5,36%■English narration■Japaness withEnglish subtaitles

How would you evaluate e-learning platform(ACCU iPAGE)?
Neither easy,
nor difficult,
1,7%

Easy to use, no issues,
13,93%■Easy to use, no issues■Confusing■Neither easy,
nor difficult

70-80%,
5,36%

90-100% ,8,57%■90-100%■70-80%■50-60%■Difficult/confusing

How appropriate were the check-point report questions?

Appropriate,14,100%■Appropriate■Inappropriate

Unit 5

Very challenging,5,36%

31

· Extremely organized, loved it· Simple and nice
· It was user friendly· Feedbacks to checkpoint reports would be helpful in improving· If there is English CC under lecture, that would be more useful· A live chat function to see who’s online to ask real time questions· All update videos lectures must be accessing for download· I really appreciated the checkpoint report questions because they didn't allow us to simply copy answers directly fromthe online lectures. Instead, they encouraged us to consider our country's context, draw from our personal experiences,and challenged us to form our own opinions. These questions prompted critical thinking and encouraged us to question
the material, which I found quite valuable· Feedback comments would be welcome to learn and reflect upon
· The checkpoint questions help the trainees reflect more on their country's current status regarding their heritage system
Satisfaction level for each Unit:
UNIT 1: Global Perspectives and Challenges in Heritage
Conservation

Good,
2,14%

Good,
3,21%

Excellent,
11,79%■Excellent
■Good
■Fair
■Poor

UNIT 3: Conservation of Wooden Built Heritage in Japanand in Global Context
Good,
1,7%

Excellent,
13,93%■Excellent
■Good
■Fair
■Poor

UNIT 5: Protection of Historic Districts in Japan
Good,
2,14%

Excellent,
12,86%

32

UNIT 2: Protection Systems for Wooden Built Heritage inJapan■Excellent
■Good
■Fair
■Poor

Excellent,
12,86%■Excellent
■Good
■Fair
■Poor

UNIT 4: Repair and Restoration Policies for Especially
High-value Wooden Structures in Japan

Excellent,
14,100%■Excellent
■Good
■Fair
■Poor

Overall, how effective and helpful did you find online
course and self-study?

Effective,14,100%■Effective■Ineffective

Takenaka Carpentry Tools Museum and Narai
Preservation District
Somewhat helpful,2,14%

Very helpful,12,86%■Very helpful■Somewhat helpful■Not helpful- I found it very effective- I found online course and self-study very effective for following two reasons. 1. It was self-paced in limited time but
also ensured that we didn’t skip any lessons; 2. check point report questions made sure we critically thought about andapplied what we learnt in lectures in our own context- The online training program was very useful because it familiarized us with various topics before the on-site courseand could create an overview of what is to be taught during the on-site course- We can review our lecture during the course was most effective to me. If it was on-site lecture we can't review
whenever or where ever we want
- I found the online course and self-study to be highly effective in enhancing my understanding and knowledge in thesubject matter. The resources provided were well-structured and comprehensive, making the learning experienceextremely valuable- Deep more understanding before getting a practical session on site
Number/times of zoom meetings during online programme

Case study presentations should be done online or on-site?
Online,2,14%

Enough,14,100%■Enough■Too many■Not enoughOn-site,12,86%■Online■On-site- I think presenting a case study in person is more effective because it allows for better discussion, exchange of ideas,
and question and answer sessions among participants- On-Site for better interaction- There are some restrictions and limitations in presenting on-line main factor is the internet connection and sometimes,
the participants tend to be shy in asking questions to the presented- Because I couldn't attend some of the presentation that were caused by the poor internet connection

33C) On-site Programme (work sessions)
Clarity of instructions by lecturers

Difficulty of work sessions

Easy,2,
14%

Good,3,21%

Excellent,11,
79%■Excellent
■Good
■Fair
■Poor

Time allocation for the work session

Just right,12,
86%

■Easy
■Just right■Difficult■Too difficult

Selection of the site for work session (Jibutsu-do)

Excellent,3,
21%
Good,4,29%

Fair,4,29%

Good,7,50%

Excellent,10,
71%■Excellent
■Good
■Fair
■Poor

The most easy-to-understand video format■Excellent
■Good
■Fair
■Poor

Evaluation of text materials- I felt that there was limited time available for reflections or for processing the information and sometimes not enoughtime for questions and discussions. During the on-site work session, the schedule felt quite compressed, and it often
seemed like we were rushing from one site to another- One more day off would be good
Narration,4,- I think, the practical34%
lesson in Jubutsu-do took a bit too much time, maybe 1 day of observation and brief explanation
Good,6,
Excellent,6,
and 1 day for presentation and lecture is fineBoth,7,50%
50%- Specialthanks to Tai Sensei for being so patient with us and making us understand every minute part that was
58%■Narration■Excellent
important■Subtitles
■Good
■Both

Relevance and applicability to yourwork and interests
Subtitles,1,8%

Length of each Zoom session

■Fair
■Poor

Too long,1,8%

Good,3,21%

Excellent,11,
79%■Excellent
■Good
■Fair
■Poor

Were the Zoom sessions useful?

Just right,11,92%■Just right■Too long■Too short

Lecturer’s response to Q&A

Good,1,
8%
Good,3,25%

Excellent,11,
92%

34■Excellent
■Good
■Fair
■Poor

Excellent,9,75%■Excellent
■Good
■Fair
■Poor

D) On-site Programme (study tours)
Clarity of goals of each work session

Clarity of explanations by lecturers at site

Good,
3,21%

Excellent,
11,79%

7: Shirakawa-go
Time allocation for the work session

Poor,1,7%

Relevant,
Good,6,
14,100%43%■Excellent
■Good
■Fair
■Poor

8: Narai and Kiso-Hirasawa

Excellent,2,
14%

Fair,5,36%

Excellent,
14,100%■Excellent
■Good
■Fair
■Poor

■Relevant■Irrelevant■Excellent
■Good
■Fair
■Poor

Were the Zoom sessions useful?

- Length
A littleof more
eased out schedule would be better foreach Zoom session
makingbetterobservations
and understanding
Too long,1,- I recommend
that
ACCU
considerallocating more time8%
for site observations during the study tour, to allow
participants ample opportunity for exploration- I think Only Jibutsudo's presentation preparing timeshould be more long enough. Specially it was group work
Relevant,
and 2 observation
day was more like■Relevant
individual work so■Irrelevant
right
Just
right,11,■Just
14,100%if we had moretime to make presentation,
result could
92%■Too longshortwould be■Toobe better and networking through groupwork
more effective- I recommend a longer site visit especially on active
conservation sites
Lecturer’s response to Q&A

Good,1,E) Presentation,
Discussions, Groupwork
8%
Time allocation for face to face discussions with lecturers

Fair,
4,28%

Excellent,11,
92%
Excellent,
5,36%

Good,
5,36%

■Excellent
■Good
■Fair
■Poor
■Excellent
■Good
■Fair
■Poor

7: Shirakawa-go
Time allocation for group work in the whole programme

Fair,2,
14%
Excellent,5,36%
Relevant,
14,100%Good,7,50%

Were the Zoom sessions useful?
Good,1,
8%■Relevant■Irrelevant■Excellent
■Good
■Fair
■Poor

Clarity Good,3,of explanations by lecturers at site
25%
Fair,1,7%

Good,
4,29%

Excellent,9,75%
Excellent,
9,64%■Excellent
■Good
■Fair
■Poor
■Excellent
■Good
■Fair
■Poor

8: Narai and Kiso-Hirasawa- Length
Better of
if we
engagewith lecturers from the beginning,
eachcanZoom
sessionin theonline programmeToolong,1,8% like that every end of the lecture, we allotted an- I reallyample time to answer the participants questions- For group work, time pressure is good it is just that longer
time equates to a more detailed output from the collaborators
Relevant,
Just
right,11,
14,100%92%■Relevant■Irrelevant■Just right■Too long■Too short

Lecturer’s response to Q&A

35

Any suggestions/opinions for On-site Programme- There should have been more work sessions- I felt that there was limited time available for reflections or for processing the information and sometimes not enoughtime for questions and discussions. During the on-site work session, the schedule felt quite compressed, and it often
seemed like we were rushing from one site to another- One more day off would be good
- Extending the time for completing group projects- Longer time for each location- I think the study tour duration seemed to be well-planned. However, I wish we could visit more places- I would have loved a site visit to one of the forest areas which are protected for building materials and/or woodprocessing units or lumber yards- The time for each site visit is too tight, maybe it is better if the number of the site is reduced but give more time forparticipant to explore and interact with the lecturers in the site
- Extending the time for completing individual visits and observations
Which is the most ideal training course format for you?

On-site course,
5,36%
Hybrid style(online lectures andon-site practice),
9,64%■On-site course■Online course■Hybrid style(online lectures andon-site practice)

Were the Zoom sessions useful?

- Length
I thinkofthat
training offers a more personalized
eachon-site
Zoom session
andinteractive
experience
compared to online training
Too long,1,8% style I think is the most cost effective and flexible- Hybrid
training course format since we are able to focus first on
the documentary requirements and submissions so that
we can focus on the trainings on site and not be botheredby any other pending requirements
Just right,11,92%■Just right■Too long■Too short

Lecturer’s response to Q&A

Good,1,
8%
Good,3,25%

Excellent,11,
92%

36■Excellent
■Good
■Fair
■Poor

Excellent,9,75%■Excellent
■Good
■Fair
■Poor

II. Thematic Training Course
1. General Information
2. Course Summary
3. Course Evaluation

1. General Information
Thematic Training Course for Mid-Career Professionals
on Cultural Heritage Protection in the Asia-Pacific Region 2023
Digital Tools for Recording, Conservation and Display of Archaeological Artefacts

1. OrganisersThis course was jointly organised by the Agency for Cultural Affairs, Government of Japan (Bunkacho); Cultural Heritage
Protection Cooperation Office, Asia-Pacific Cultural Centre for UNESCO (ACCU Nara); and the National Institutes for
Cultural Heritage, Nara National Research Institute for Cultural Properties.
2. Cooperation
International Institute for Central Asian Studies (IICAS)
3. Background
Every year since 2000, ACCU Nara holds Thematic Training Course for mid-career cultural heritage professionals comingfrom the Asia-Pacific countries. This course is designed to address particular needs and issues related to cultural heritage
protection in the target countries, empower the course participants with practical skills and theoretical knowledge, andfoster international cooperation in the cultural heritage field.
In 2023, jointly with the International Institute for Central Asian Studies (IICAS), which is a scientific organisation
leading various research projects on historical and cultural issues in Central Asia, ACCU Nara implemented an online
training course for mid-career archaeologists and heritage professionals coming from Central Asian countries.
As a result of consultation with IICAS, the theme of the training was decided “Digital tools for recording,conservation, and display of archaeological artefacts” with a particular focus on digital applications and modern technologies
used in the conservation science field, and museum storage and display of archaeological objects. It was aimed that the fresh
knowledge and skills gained through this training assist the participants in advancing their research projects and heritage
protection initiatives in Central Asia.
4. Dates and Method
November 6 – November 20 2023
The training course took place online and included self-study through ACCU’s digital platform as well as several live
sessions for practical training delivered from ACCU Nara Office and Nara National Research Institute for Cultural
Properties.
5. Participants
Eleven mid-career archaeologists and cultural heritage specialists from the heritage organisations in Central Asian
countries who are currently engaged in research, conservation, and management of cultural heritage, and have 10-15 yearsof working experience in this field applied for the course. Eight participants were awarded certificate of completion.
6. Theme
Digital Tools for Recording, Conservation and Display of Archaeological Artefacts
7. Programme
The course programme was designed based on the requests of the IICAS and therefore taught the 3D documentation
methods of the archaeological sites and artefacts. The desired outcomes of the course was that the participants be able
to document archaeological sites and artefacts in a way that later allows for the creation of 3D models, on their own.
Theoretical and technical support (video lectures) was available on ACCU online platform. The practical part of the course
focused on the discussions related to the use and limitations of digital tools in archaeological research, photography, and3D recording.
Full programme is below:

39

Thematic Training Course for Mid-Career Professionals
on Cultural Heritage Protection in the Asia-Pacific Region 2023 (Central Asia)
Digital tools for recording, conservation, and display of archaeological artefacts
6 November - 20 November(Online)Live session ①· Opening Ceremony and welcome addresses· Course orientation and access to online platform

14:00-15:00

Nov-6 (Mon)· Live- lecture on SfM-MVS and how to take photographs for creating 3D models during thepractical session

15:00-17:00*all times are given
in JST

ACCU (1)Nabunken (2)IICAS (3)
YAMAGUCHI Hiroshi(Nabunken)
NAKAMURA Akiko(Independent researcher)

Theme 1
Digital Technologies in Archaeological Research: use and limitations based on case studies
YAMAFUJI Masatoshi
YAMAGUCHI Hiroshi(Nabunken)
NAKAMURA Akiko(Independent researcher)

Theme 2
3D Recording in Archaeology (using SfM-MVS method)
Nov-8 (Wed)Nov-9 (Thu)【Assignment Submission】photo data for 3D models· Discussion and Q/A session on lectures 1 and 2· Demonstration (building a 3D model using sample data)

Live session ②
14:00-17:00

Theme 3
Digital Technologies in Cultural Heritage Conservation ScienceNov-14 (Tue)

Discussion session on lecture 3· Live-lecture on environment control for storage of archaeological artefacts

Nov-15 (Wed)Live session ③
14:00-17:00【Assignment Submission】photo data for 3D models

Theme 4The use of 3D imagery in museums - on the example of Gunma Prefectural Museum of History

Nov-17 (Fri)Live session ④
14:00-15:00

Discussion and Q/A session

Theme 5
3D Recording in Archaeology (using SfM-MVS method) ~ continued

Nov-20 (Mon)Discussion and Q/A session· Practical Training (creating 3D models individually)· Closing of the course

Nov-25 (Sat)(1) ACCU

WAKIYA Soichiro
YANAGIDA Akinobu(Nabunken)

Live session ⑤
13:00-17:00

FUKASAWA Atsuhito(Gunma Prefectural
Museum of History)

YAMAGUCHI Hiroshi(Nabunken)
NAKAMURA Akiko(Independent researcher)

Final Report / Course Evaluation Submission

Asia-Pacific Cultural Centre for UNESCO
Nara National Research Institute for Cultural Properties
International Institute for Central Asian Studies(2) NABUNKEN(3) IICAS【Lectures】• Digital Technologies in Museum: use and limitations based on case studies• The Use of 3D Imagery in Museums - on the example of Gunma Prefectural Museum of History• Digital Technologies in Cultural Heritage Conservation Science• 3D Recording in Archaeology (using SfM-MVS method)【Interactive sessions and practical training】• 3D recording of archaeological artefacts and museum objects using the SfM-MVS method
8. Lecturers♦YAMAGUCHI Hiroshi
Researcher, Archaeological Research Methodology Section, Center for Archaeological Operations, Nara National
Research Institute for Cultural Properties♦NAKAMURA Akiko
Independent researcher

40

♦YAMAFUJI Masatoshi
Senior Researcher, Archaeology Section 2, Department of Imperial Palace Sites Investigations, Nara National ResearchInstitute for Cultural Properties♦WAKIYA SoichiroHead, Conservation Science Section, Center for Archaeological Operations, Nara National Research Institute for Cultural
Properties♦YANAGIDA Akinobu
Senior Researcher, Conservation Science Section, Center for Archaeological Operations, Nara National Research Institutefor Cultural Properties♦FUKASAWA Atsuhito
Chief Curator, Gunma Prefectural Museum of History
9. Others
The Thematic Training Course (former Individual Training Course) was held in 2000 for the first time and has accepted
116 participants from 25 countries since then.
10. Certificate
A certificate of completion is awarded to participants who satisfactorily complete the course programme and submit a final
report.
11. Working Language
The course was conducted in Russian (consecutive translation from Japanese).
12. Interpreters
Kobijaeva Mariya, Freelance Interpreter
Rustemova Aktolkyn, Freelance Interpreter
13. Requirements
Participants were asked to arrange:
1. Uninterrupted internet connection during the live sessions
2. 1 personal computer for practical training
3. 1 device (PC or tablet) to attend the live sessions
4. 1 digital camera
14. Secretariat
ACCU Nara
WAKIYA Kayoko, Vice Director, Programme Operation Department
MELADZE Tamar, Director, International Cooperation Division
YOSHIDA Machi, Staff, International Cooperation DivisionInternational Institute for Central Asian Studies (IICAS)
Dmitriy Voyakin (PhD), Director
Director General of Archaeological Expertise Scientific Organization
Nara National Research Institute for Cultural Properties
SHODA Shinya, Head, International cooperation Section, Department of Planning and Coordination
KASAHARA Tomoyo, Associate Fellow, International cooperation Section, Department of Planning and Coordination

41

2. Course Summany
The fifteen-day training course themed around digital tools for recording, conservation and display of archaeologicalartefacts was held online from 6 November to 20 November for professionals engaged in cultural heritage protection inCentral Asian countries. The course was conducted using ACCU’s e-learning platform, iPAGE. Over the course period,
seven video lectures were distributed in Russian, and five interactive sessions (ten hours in total) were held (see theschedule for details).
In deciding the course’s content, we consulted the International Cooperation Section, Nara National ResearchInstitute for Cultural Properties, which has recently carried out a project in Central Asia, about the conditions surrounding
cultural heritage protection in Central Asian countries, and held an online preliminary discussion with Dr Dmitriy Voyakin,
Director of the International Institute for Central Asian Studies (IICAS), the project counterpart. Dr Voyakin noted that
although 3D recording and other techniques have been actively adopted in archaeological site surveys in the region, there
are issues with the methods and utilisation of 3D recording for documentation and display of museum artefacts, and herequested us to provide an opportunity to learn about specific examples in Japan. Upon deliberation with the Nara National
Research Institute for Cultural Properties, the co-organiser, we decided to ask for the dispatch of Japanese experts toaddress these issues and deliver the following four lectures on digital documentation:
1. Digital Technologies in Archaeological Research: use and challenges based on case studies
2. 3D Recording (using SfM-MVS method)
3. The Use of 3D Data in Conservation Science
4. The Use of 3D Imagery in Museums
Each lecture involved watching a video lecture, followed by an interactive session, including a Q/A session, demonstration,and practical training, with the lecturer(s) in charge. The participants engaged in practical training where they created 3D
images from the photo data they took themselves.
6 November■Opening Ceremony / Orientation (14:00-15:00 JST)First, Mr Morimoto Susumu, director of ACCU Nara (the organiser), and Dr Shoda Shinya, Head of International Cooperation
Section at Nara National Research Institute for Cultural Properties (the co-organiser), delivered opening speeches and briefly
talked about the course’s purpose. Then, the participants introduced themselves, followed by a self-introduction by Ms
Nakamura Akiko, one of the lecturers. Lastly, a course orientation was held by ACCU, after which the lecturers, Dr Yamaguchi
Hiroshi and Ms Nakamura Akiko, carried out an introductory lecture in an interactive session format.

Opening remarks by organisers (left: Dr Shoda from NNRICP, right: Mr Morimoto, Director of ACCU Nara)

Live session 1 (15:00-17:00 JST)
■ SfM-MVS and how to take photographs for creating 3 D models during the practical session
Lecturers: YAMAGUCHI Hiroshi (Nara National Research Institute for Cultural Properties (NNRICP))
NAKAMURA Akiko (Independent researcher)This lecture provided an overview of the knowledge and procedures of SfM-MVS documentation methods that would benecessary in the subsequent practical training, and involved a Q/A session too. The participants who use SfM-MVS on site
asked many questions related to the issues in their daily work. Laser scanning, LiDAR (smartphones, tablets), and SfMMVS are used regularly in Kazakhstan, and the participants raised questions about the issues associated with these methods.
- When creating 3D data of artefacts with automatic photography, how many pictures do you need to take for each
artefact?

42

- Are smartphone apps for creating 3D data (LiDAR) adequate in terms of documentation performance?
- How to add positional information (XYZ coordinates) to 3D data?
- How to add positional information (XYZ coordinates) in tombs?
In response to these questions, the lecturers explained the appropriate solutions in detail based examples from Japan.
On the same day, distribution of all video lectures began on ACCU’s e-learning platform, iPAGE. The participants madetime to watch the video lectures during their regular work and prepare questions for the Zoom session, and also began
preparations for the practical training, such as taking pictures of artefacts for which they wanted to create 3D data as partof an assignment given by the lecturers.

Live lecture and Q & A session by Dr Yamaguchi and Ms Nakamura

9 November■Theme 1: Digital Technologies in Archaeological Research: use and limitations based on case studies (Video Lecture)
Lecturer: YAMAFUJI Masatoshi (Nara National Research Institute for Cultural Properties (NNRICP))
The lecture in Unit 1 introduced 3D measurement technology, which has been rapidly implemented in the cultural heritage
industry in recent years. The lecturer touched on its potential application and issues. The lecture consisted of the following
three major topics:- Examples of 3D measurements of archaeological artefacts in Japan- Advantages and disadvantages of documenting archaeological artefacts in 3D- Implementation of 3D measurement and its application (case study: mapping and listing)
The lecturer talked about how 3D measurement is becoming widespread and an essential item in the field of cultural heritage.
He also mentioned that there are advantages and disadvantages and that those who use it need a proper understanding of both.
He emphasised that 3D measurement technology is only to be used by cultural heritage specialists, and useful documentation
cannot be created unless it is based on expert knowledge. Participants took note of considerations for conducting 3D
measurements and proceeded to undergo practical training in the next lecture in Unit 2, where they were required to create
3D documentation.

43

Dr Yamafujii’s lecture: Lecture on Digital Technologies in Archaeological ResearchLive sessiom 2-1 (9 November/ 14:00-15:00 JST)
■Discussion and Q/A session on theme 1
Lecturer: YAMAFUJI Masatoshi (Nara National Research Institute for Cultural Properties (NNRICP))First, Dr Yamafuji summarised the advantages and disadvantages of the digital technology covered in the video lecture. The
pros include: 1) it enables precise documentation, 2) it has high reproducibility, and 3) 3D printers can be used to create models
of fragile or large-sized cultural properties, which can be held by hand and utilised. The cons include: 1) the equipment isexpensive, 2) the work method needs to be reorganised because it is different from the conventional workflow, and 3) longterm storage is challenging due to the large data volume.
The lecturer reiterated that the participants should consider in which areas to utilise this technology in their own
country with the above merits and demerits in mind, the ultimate need for researchers to thoroughly examine artefacts
remains a key aspect as before, and researchers should not place too much confidence in digital technology. Finally, the lecturer
shared some examples to show how 3D data can be utilised in museums for making databases.
The lecture served as an opportunity for the participants to gain answers to questions they had related to the specificchallenges and problems they face in their daily work, such as “how long does it take to create 3D data of a single artefact?”,
and “what is the ideal distance between artefact and scanner when creating 3D data of an artefact with a handy scanner?”.

Live lecture and Q & A session by Dr Yamafuji

44

■Theme 2: 3D Recording in Archaeology (using SfM-MVS method) (Video Lectures)
Lecturers: YAMAGUCHI Hiroshi (Nara National Research Institute for Cultural Properties (NNRICP))
NAKAMURA Akiko (Independent researcher)
The first part of Theme 2’s programme consisted of two separate video lectures. The first lecture provided an overview
of various types of digital equipment used in Japan, explaining the pros and cons of each type of equipment as well as
the kind of archeological site that each type is suitable for from a documentation perspective. Specifically, the lecture
explained how to create a 3D recording without expensive or special equipment by using the SfM-MVS method. The
second video lecture outlined the procedures involved in creating a 3D recording with SfM-MVS. The participants
conducted the following practical training while following these procedures:
i. Each participant took pictures of the excavation site or cultural heritage that they wanted to create a 3D recording ofand submitted the data to ACCU.
ii. 8 November: The lecturers analyse the submitted photo data. Based on the data, they reviewed the points to note andpotential improvements to be made during the in Live Session 2, and the participants retook the photos with the lecturers’
guidance.
iii. 15 November: The participants submit the photo data again.
iv. 20 November: Practical training on 3D data creation with the lecturers (Live Session 3).

Dr Yamaguchi’s video lecture: Digital documentation surveys using various types of equipment

Dr Yamaguchi’s lecture: Lecture on SfM-MVS preparation proceduresLive session 2-2 (9 November/ 15:00-17:00 JST)
■Discussion and Q/A session on theme 2/ Demonstration (building a 3D model using sample data)
Lecturers: YAMAGUCHI Hiroshi (Nara National Research Institute for Cultural Properties (NNRICP))
NAKAMURA Akiko (Independent researcher)
Ms Nakamura reviewed the data submitted by the participants on 8 November, and responded to questions from them. One
participant asked a question about the colour correction technique using a grey card, and the lecturer did a demonstration.
Next, she screen shared the photo data submitted by the participants on screen, pointing out the issues and providing tips
to improve the data creation process. Ms Nakamura shared 3D images she had created in advance using the submitted data
to illustrate how the defects in taking photographs affect on completing the task.
The lecturer provided the following tips to avoid these issues:- Take pictures consecutively so that numerous pictures overlap each other- Ensure proper focus- Maintain a consistent focal distance (Fix the zoom lens before shooting)- Fix the aperture value- Input information on the scale and size

45

The lecturer instructed the participants to improve the issues pointed out by the next assignment submission date, and thelecture was concluded.
Next, Dr Yamaguchi introduced the participants to the various types of 3D measurement equipment used at the
Nara National Research Institute for Cultural Properties and provided an additional explanation on the photography
process used in SfM-MVS, followed by questions from the participants regarding challenges associated with artefact
photography. Specifically, the participants asked how to take pictures of side surfaces of small-size and thin artefacts such as
mirrors and coins. Both lecturers shared tips for creating 3D images of such artefacts, and they decided to provide some actual
examples in the next lecture. Using this live lecture as reference, each participant practiced to prepare for the next session.

Dr Yamaguchi demonstrating the photography process used in SfM-MVS: Explanation of photographic equipment using a rotating standLeft: Ms Nakamura explains how to reproduce colors correctly using gray cards
Right: Discussion with participants about the 3D data creation of very thin archaeological artifacts

14 November■Theme 3: Digital Technologies in Cultural Heritage Conservation Science (Video Lectures)
Lecturers: WAKIYA Soichiro, YANAGIDA Akinobu (Nara National Research Institute for Cultural Properties(NNRICP))
Exhibition/storage conditions or conservation treatment may promote the deterioration of archaeological artefacts.
Therefore, it is important to: 1) create an appropriate environment (e.g., temperature, humidity) and 2) constantly monitor
artefacts for any signs of deterioration. Deterioration of archaeological artefacts can be identified mostly by the changeof colour and shape. Documenting the artefacts in 3D is extremely effective in identifying minute changes that cannot be
observed by the naked eye. In paticular technologies such as SfM, which can easily record both surface image informationand shape information, are very useful in preservation of archaeological artefacts. The lecture introduced usage examples
of digital technology, such as 3D measurement and X-ray CT, conducted in Japan for monitoring archaeological artefacts
for preservation purposes.
Live session 3 (15:00-17:00 JST)
■Discussion session on theme 3/ Live-lecture on environment control for storage of archaeological artefacts
Lecturers: WAKIYA Soichiro, YANAGIDA Akinobu (Nara National Research Institute for Cultural Properties(NNRICP))The lecturers provided supplementary information to the video lecture, explaining how to periodically monitor deteriorationof sites and artefacts with SfM-MVS. Sites and artefacts change in form as they deteriorate. For instance, the surface
peels off or cracks become bigger. By examining these changes with 3D data, it is possible to identify deterioration earlyor monitor objects that have undergone preservation processing. In addition to the use of SfM-MVS, the lecturers explained amethod for examining changes in the forms of sites and artefacts that involves creating 3D models of them with x-ray computed
tomography.

46

The participants asked about how to remove salt from sites, since salt weathering is a problem shared acrossCentral Asian countries. The lecturers explained a method used in Japan that involves sticking pulp to remove salt fromsurfaces while controlling the temperature/humidity. The lecture served as an opportunity for the Japanese lecturers tolearn about the environmental control on heritage conservation in Central Asia, such as that damage to sites and buildings
due to salt is a problem in Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan, and to share information about solutions to these issues.

Left: Lecture by Dr Yanagida on the use of 3D in the observation of iron artifacts before/after conservation treatment
Right: Lecture by Dr Wakiya on the case study of 3D application in the observation of the progress of deterioration of the stone chamber ofan ancient tomb

17 November■Theme 4: The use of 3D imagery in museums - on the example of Gunma Prefectural Museum of History (Video
Lectures)
Lecturer: FUKASAWA Atsuhito (Gunma Prefectural Museum of History)
Many clay figures designated as national treasures are displayed at the Gunma Prefectural Museum of History. Digital datais created for these items and used for management and effective use of the figures. The lecture explained the necessity ofdigitalisation, method of digitalisation, and utilisation of digital data. In the section about necessity, the lecturer mentionedthat even if artefacts go through changes such as aging deterioration, storing accurate and high-definition 3D data will allow
us to reproduce them to the state before the change. He also explained that the data can be used for various content, such as
digital archives, without moving the actual artefact. The lecture also touched on the balance between volume of data andprice as a challenge and a point to note regarding digitalisation. He talked about how he created two types of data fordifferent purposes, which were data for documentation and storage (high cost) and data for use (low cost), at the museum. He
added that it is important to think about the purpose of the use of data before introducing digitalisation to a museum.

Left: The digital exhibition room (3D exhibition is performed in the colored part)
Right: 3D hologram image of artefacts in the digital exhibition room47

An hour-long expository tour was given after the museum closed. Mr Fukasawa explained the digital exhibition room andthe method of utilising data. The following exhibitions were introduced:
1. Clay figure hologram exhibition: digital content using 3D data where clay figures look as though they are floating and keep
appearing and disappearing
2. Clay figure scope section: digital content using 3D data where visitors can rotate 3D models of clay figures in any direction
and can view them from various angles
3. AR clay figure photo spot: digital content using 3D data where visitors can take a photo with the AR clay figure
4. Hands-on clay figure section: section where several 3D-printed clay figure replicas are displayed for visitors to touch and hold
After the tour and explanation, a live Q/A session was held.

Entrance of the digital exhibition room

Clay figure hologram exhibition

Left: Clay figure scope section, Middle: AR clay figure photo spot, Right: 3D-printed clay figure replica

Live session 4 (14:00-15:00 JST)
■Discussion session on theme 4
Lecturer: FUKASAWA Atsuhito (Gunma Prefectural Museum of History)
First, the lecturer talked about the four objectives of museum artefact digitalisation.
i. To create accurate documentation in case the actual artefact is damaged.
ii. Digital data can be used to widely disseminate/share information on museum artefacts online.
iii. To provide opportunities for utilisation outside the museum (e.g. stations, schools) by creating artefact replicas with 3D
printing.
iv. Museum artefacts can be shown online, which allows people from all over the world to see them.
The lecturer summarised the takeaways as follows: digitalisation of museum artefacts enables both the protection
and diverse utilisation of museum artefacts.
The participants noted that the lecture was very thought provoking, and they were especially interested in how to create andutilise 3D hands-on models. One of them suggested that 3D models could provide opportunities to showcase artefacts to people
who cannot visit regional museums or sites themselves. The discussion between the participants and lecturer served as anopportunity to share their thoughts about the various potential applications of 3D technology (e.g. projects with privatecompanies, ways to utilise models created with 3D printing, digital museums). None of the participants had used 3D printing
before, but were keen to try it going forward.

48

Group photo with lecturer, Mr Fukasawa (top left)

20 November (13:00-17:00JST)■Live session 5
Lecturers: YAMAGUCHI Hiroshi (Nara Research Institute for Cultural Properties), NAKAMURA Akiko (Independent
Researcher)First, Ms Nakamura reviewed the data submitted by the participants. The lecturers had analysed the participants’ data andcreated 3D recordings in advance; they screen shared the analysed images to explain the information missing from theimages as well as some points to note and tips for improving the photography process. The common issues, solutions tothose issues, and examples covered in the lecture included the following:- An accurate 3D image could not be created because not enough pictures were taken
Take many pictures from different angles- There were not enough points when adding positional information to photos Set the points so as they surround the object- Input direction information when handling archaeological site data
- For archaeological sites one needs to take a picture of an area larger than the object itself, whereas for artefacts one should
try to take a picture of just the object. Items other than the artefact, such as a table or stand, that appear in the pictures, caninterfere with the 3D data creation process.
- How to indicate the size of artefacts and sites One can show the length on a PC by including two points in the picture
and measuring the distance between them beforehand.
- When taking pictures of artefacts, use a bright light and make sure that the focus is right.
- How to synthesise images of upper and lower parts of an artefact- How to take pictures of thin artefacts
The course served as an opportunity for the lecturers to gather information about the conditions and issues surrounding
digital technology in Central Asia, and for the participants to find solutions to the specific practical issues they face in their
daily work.

Question and answer session at the Nara National Research Institute for Cultural Properties49

Ms Nakamura creates 3D data from photographs taken by the participants

Following the conclusion of the live session, the closing ceremony was held. The participants were instructed to submit a
final report at the end of November in order to complete the course, and the two-week online session was concluded. In theclosing ceremony, Mr Morimoto Susumu, director of ACCU, delivered a closing speech. He praised the participants for theirgreat enthusiasm and lively discussions with the lecturers, and expressed his hopes that they would utilise what they havelearned in their work. After taking a commemorative photo, the course was concluded.

Group photo at the closing ceremony50

3. Course Evaluation
We held an approximately two-week online training course for mid-career professionals coming from Central Asian
countries (Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyz Republic, Tajikistan). After the course, we asked the participants to submit acourse evaluation. Of the 11 applicants, eight completed the course. All participants rated the advanced lectures as “Verygood” or “Good”. Over 70% of participants said that the course was relevant and applicable to their work. The curriculum
was created based on extensive discussion with the Nara National Institute for Cultural Properties, which carries out
exchange projects in the Central Asia region; this likely contributed to the high evaluation of the course. In addition, thecourse served as an opportunity for information sharing among the participants from various Central Asian countries.
Based on the results of last year’s course evaluation, we increased the duration and frequency of practical training andinteractive sessions with lecturers. While all participants said they had sufficient time to interact with the lecturers, somefelt the sessions were too long. We will review this point for next year’s course.
As for the challenges, even though the participants seem to have acquired a certain amount of knowledge through the online
lectures, none of them said they were happy with an online-only format in contrast to the previous year, and more of themwanted online lectures to be combined with on-site training. We feel that demand for on-site training has increased with theend of the Covid-19 pandemic. These comments will be reflected when we develop the next course’s curriculum and in theon-site workshop activities.
1. Overall evaluation
Overall course evaluation

Was the online course sufficient to deepen your knowledge?

Good,2,29%
Very good,
5,71%■Very good
■Good
■Satisfied■Unsatisfied

Yes,
7,100%

Relevance to work

Applicability to work

About half,
2,29%Partially
applicable,
2,29%
Nearly all,
5,71%

■Nearly all■About half

Evaluation of 3D recording practical training

Applicable,
5,71%

■Yes
■No

■Applicable■Partiallyapplicable■Not
applicableFeedback from the lecturers(SfM-MVS
method)Are
there any
topics you would like to learn that were not covered in this workshop??
· Mapping in ArGIS, Augmented and Virtual Reality and other methods of 3D documentation Course on using LIDARSometimes,
equippedNeutral,
UAVs
1,14%
· Course for1,14%
creating detailed maps
· Using 3D printers (practical training), using laser scanners (practical training), combining SfM-MVS with laser scanning(practical training)· Terrestrial magnetic
scanning
Good,6,
Almost always,■Good■Almost always
6,86%· I want to participate86%
in practical training
in Japan using the latest facilities and equipment.
■Neutral■Sometimes■Too■Almost never· It would be great if more in-depth courses
oneasycartography were organised.

51

3. Course materials (video lectures)
How well did you understand the video lectures?

Length of the video lectures

How well did you understand the video lectures?

Length of the video lectures

Very well,
7,100%■Very well
■About half
■Difficult

Very well,
7,100%■Very well
■About half
■Difficult

Length of sessions

4. Interactive (Zoom) sessions
Length of sessions■Just right■Too long

Interpretation

Good,
2,29%
Just right,
4,67%
Just right,
4,67%■Just right■Too long■Too short

Good,
2,29%

Very good,
5,71%
Very good,
5,71%■Just right■Too long■Too short
Interaction opportunities with the lecturers

E-learning platform usability

Interaction opportunities with the lecturers

E-learning platform usability■Very good
■Good
■Satisfied■Unsatisfied■Very good
■Good
■Satisfied■Unsatisfied

Satisfied,7,100%■Satisfied■Unsatisfied

Easy to use,7,100%■Easy to use■Neutral■Difficult

Satisfied,7,100%■Satisfied■Unsatisfied

Easy to use,7,100%■Easy to use■Neutral■Difficult

Did you receive timely assistance from ACCU if you needed it?

Effective course format

need it,timely assistance from ACCU if you needed it?
DidDidn't
you receive
1,17%

Effective course format

Didn't need it,
1,17%Hybrid,3,43%
Yes,5,
83%
Yes,5,
83%

52

Just right,
7,100%■Just right■Too long

Interpretation

Too long,
2,33%
Too long,
2,33%

Just right,
7,100%■Yes■No■Didn't need it■Yes■No■Didn't need it

Hybrid,3,43%

On site,4,57%
On site,4,57%■On site■Hybrid■Online■On site■Hybrid■OnlineIII. Regional Workshop
1. General Information
2. Course Summary
3. Course Evaluation

1. General Information
Workshop for Cultural Heritage Protection in Yogyakarta,
Republic of Indonesia‘Disaster Risk Management for Cultural Heritage’1. OrganisersThis course was jointly organised by the Agency for Cultural Affairs, Government of Japan (Bunkacho); Cultural Heritage
Protection Cooperation Office, Asia-Pacific Cultural Centre for UNESCO (ACCU); Directorate of Cultural Heritage Protection,
Ministry of Education, Culture, Research, and Technology, Republic of Indonesia in cooperation with the Provincial
Government of Yogyakarta.
2. Background
Since its establishment in 2000, ACCU Nara has hosted more than fifty cultural heritage practitioners from different partsof Indonesia for various training and capacity-building programmes. This has created a solid network between ACCU andheritage specialists in Indonesia which enables active information sharing on ongoing issues, needs, and new initiatives in
the cultural heritage protection field in both countries.
The Directorate of Cultural Heritage Protection, Ministry of Education, Culture, Research, and Technology,
Republic of Indonesia together with the Provincial Government of Yogyakarta has been working on a comprehensive
disaster risk management (DRM) plan for the cultural heritage of Yogyakarta which had registered on the World Heritage
List under the title The Cosmological Axis of Yogyakarta and its Historic Landmarks last year just before this workshop.
Although after the devastating earthquake of 2006, a number of disaster mitigation efforts for Prambanan Temple
Compounds and historical buildings of Yogyakarta have been put in place, a comprehensive Disaster Risk Management
Plan is on the process of development, for which the training of stakeholders involved in the management of cultural
heritage is needed.
To respond to this need and request from the Indonesian counterparts, ACCU Nara dispatched the lecturers toorganise an on-site workshop on ‘Disaster Risk Management for Cultural Heritage’. The workshop aimed to create basic
capacities for risk preparedness and response and enable participants to deal with various challenges related to disaster risk
management for cultural heritage within their local context.
3. Dates
16 October – 21 October 2023
Three Japanese experts were dispatched for conducting the workshop on-site in Yogyakarta.
4. Venue
City of Yogyakarta, Republic of Indonesia
Training venue:· Classroom-style lectures: The Phoenix Hotel Yogyakarta· Venue for the work-sessions: Tamansari and Kauman area which are the sites along the Cosmological Axis of Yogyakarta
Ceremonies:
The Phoenix Hotel Yogyakarta
5. Participants
Eighteen young and mid-career cultural heritage professionals working at the Directorate General of Culture, Ministry of
Education, Culture, Research and Technology; Yogyakarta Special Region Cultural Service, Division of Cultural Heritage
Maintenance and Development and other heritage research and protection institutions in Indonesia.
6. Theme
Disaster Risk Management for Cultural Heritage
7. Curriculum
The training programme was designed based on the request from the Indonesian counterparts and therefore, focused on
disaster risk management for cultural heritage. The key objectives of the course were to provide the participants with basic

55

knowledge on managing the risks for cultural heritage, on fundamental operational procedures pre, during, and post-disaster,and to equip them with the capacities of developing appropriate disaster risk management plans within their local context.
The course included classroom-style lectures and on-site work sessions along the Cosmological Axis of Yogyakarta and its
Historic Landmarks (see Schedule for details).
8. Resource Persons
JAPAN(Coordinator)
TASHIRO Akiko
Associate Professor,
Graduate School of International Media, Communication and Tourism Studies
Hokkaido University(Instructor and lecturer)
KIM Dowon
Associate Professor,
Institute of Disaster Mitigation for Urban Cultural Heritage, Ritsumeikan University(Lecturer)
MAKI Norio
Professor,
Disaster Prevention Research Institute, Kyoto University
INDONESIA(Lecturers)
Dian Lakshmi Pratiwi
Head
Office of Cultural Affairs
Special Region of Yogyakarta
Khaerunnisa
Head Master of Architecture Program,
Universitas Atma Jaya Yogyakarta
9. Working Language
Bahasa Indonesia with consecutive translation from Japanese
10. Interpreters
Urara Numazawa, Freelance Interpreter
Dina Mardiana, Freelance Interpreter
11. Secretariat♦ACCU Nara
WAKIYA Kayoko, Vice Director, Programme Operation Department
MELADZE Tamar, Director, International Cooperation Division, Programme Operation Department
YOSHIDA Machi, Staff (Project Planning), International Cooperation Division, Programme Operation Department♦Directorate of Cultural Protection, Ministry of Education, Culture, Research and Technology
Judi Wahjudin, Director
Anton Wibisono, Head, Division of World Cultural Heritage Nomination
Galih Sekar Jati Nagari, Cultural Analyst, World Cultural Heritage Working Group
Putri Sekar Ayu, Cultural Analyst, World Cultural Heritage Working Group56

WORKSHOP FOR CULTURAL HERITAGE PROTECTION IN THE REPUBLIC OF INDONESIA“Disaster Risk Management for Cultural Heritage”
Yogyakarta, 16 - 21 October 2023
Programme
Time

Programme

Person in charge

Venue

16 October (Monday)
9:00

Opening
Ceremony

Welcome Address

Mr Judi Wahjudin
Director
Directorate of Cultural Protection, Ministry of Education, Culture, Research andTechnology

Opening Remarks

Mr Morimoto Susumu
Director
Asia-Pacific Cultural Centre for UNESCO (ACCU Nara)

Welcome Address

Ms Dian Lakshmi Pratiwi
Head of Office
Cultural Affairs, Special Region of Yogyakarta

Self-introduction

Course participantsCommemorative Photo

All members

10:00

Break

10:30

Course Orientation & Information session

11:0012:00
12:00

The Phoenix Hotel
Yogyakarta

ACCU【Lecture 1】
The Cosmological Axis of Yogyakarta and its Historic Landmarks: values,
previous disasters and their impact on cultural heritage

Ms Dian Lakshmi Pratiwi(Head of Office of Cultural Affairs)

Break for Lunch【Lecture 2】
Disaster Risk Management for Cultural Heritage: introduction, core principles,
key terminology

13:0014:45

Prof. Kim Dowon(Ritsumeikan University)

14:45

Break

15:0016:00【Lecture 3】
Disaster Risk Management for Cultural Heritage in Indonesia: current situation and issues

16:0017:00【Lecture 4】Standards of Disaster Risk Management for the World Heritage Sites

9:0010:30【Lecture 5】
Pre-disaster Recovery Planning for Urban Settlements

Prof. Maki Norio(Kyoto University)【Lecture 6】
Heritage Values Assessment for DRM & Explanation of the Field Exercise

Prof. Kim Dowon

Dr Khaerunnisa(Universitas Atma Jaya Yogyakarta)
Prof. Tashiro Akiko(Hokkaido University)

17 October (Tuesday)

10:30
10:45
12:00
13:00-15:30(incl. moving
time)

Break

The Phoenix Hotel

Break for Lunch· Visit to Kraton

1.Kraton【Field exercise 1】
Values Assessment Field Exercise
Prof. Kim Dowon
Prof. Tashiro Akiko· Divide into two groups· Move to fieldwork venues by car

15:3016:30

2. Kauman area
3. Tamansari and thesurrounding settlement【Group Discussion】

The Phoenix Hotel
18 October (Wednesday)【Lecture 7】
Disaster Risk Assessment for Cultural Heritage

9:00
12:00

13:0015:30

Prof. Kim Dowon

The Phoenix Hotel

Break for Lunch【Field exercise 2】
Disaster Risk Assessment Exercise

1. Kauman area
Prof. Kim Dowon
Prof. Tashiro Akiko· Divide into two groups· Move to fieldwork venues by car

15:3016:30【Group Discussion】

9:00【Lecture 8】
Disaster Imagination Game

2.

Tamansari and thesurrounding settlement
The Phoenix Hotel

19 October (Thursday)

12:00
13:0015:30
10:30 ~10:45
15:3016:30

The Phoenix Hotel

Break for Lunch【Field exercise 3】
Disaster Imagination Game
· Divide into two groups· Move to fieldwork venues by car

Prof. Kim Dowon
Prof. Tashiro Akiko

1. Kauman
2. Tamansari【Group Discussion】

The Phoenix Hotel57

20 October (Friday)
9:00【Lecture 9】
DRM Planning and Implementation - examples from different countries

Prof. Tashiro Akiko

10:00【Lecture 10】
Emergency Response and Recovery through DRM Plan

Prof. Kim Dowon

13:0016:30【Group Discussion and Preparations for Presentation】

The Phoenix HotelProf. Kim Dowon
Prof. Tashiro Akiko

21 October (Saturday)
9:00【Presentation and discussion session】I-Pilot Plan of Disaster Risk Management

12:00

Break for Lunch

13:00【Presentation and discussion session】II-Pilot Plan of Disaster Risk Management

15:00

58

【Closing Session】- Summary by Prof. Kim Dowon- Remarks by Prof. Tashiro Akiko- Remarks by ACCU
- Certificate Handover Ceremony

Training participants, lecturers
The Phoenix Hotel
Yogyakarta
Prof. Kim Dowon,
Prof. Tashiro Akiko,
Dr. Khaerunnisa, ACCU

2. Course Summary
The course was held in Yogyakarta, Republic of Indonesia, on the theme of disaster risk management for cultural heritage from16 October to 21 October. The venues were the Tamansari and Kauman areas, which are parts of the Cosmological Axis
of Yogyakarta and its Historic Landmarks, designated as a World Heritage Site last year. The on-site training course combined
fieldwork and classroom-style lectures (see the programme for more details).
Upon deliberation with the Directorate of Cultural Heritage Protection, Ministry of Education, Culture, Research,
and Technology, Republic of Indonesia, the co-orgainser, we decided to implement a human resources training course on
disaster risk management for cultural heritage. Following this request, upon consulting with the coordinator, Prof. Tashiro
Akiko, associate professor at Hokkaido University, we requested Prof. Kim Dowon, associate professor at the Institute ofDisaster Mitigation for Urban Cultural Heritage, Ritsumeikan University who has experience in organising international
training programmes on disaster mitigation for cultural heritage in Japan, and Prof. Maki Norio, professor at the Disaster
Prevention Research Institute, Kyoto University who has carried out disaster mitigation projects in Indonesia, to deliverlectures for a one-week workshop around the following themes:
1. Heritage values assessment
2. Risk assessment for cultural heritage
3. Disaster imagination game
4. Disaster risk management plan for cultural heritage (presentation)
The eighteen heritage practitioners from different regions of Indonesia formed four groups, and participated in onsite training which involved developing disaster mitigation plans for two districts that have received World Heritage
designation.
16 October■Opening Ceremony / Orientation
First, the organisers, Mr Morimoto Susumu, Director of ACCU Nara, and Mr Judi Wahjudin, Director of Directorate ofCultural Protection, Ministry of Education, Culture, Research and Technology, made opening remarks. This was followed
by a welcome address by Ms Dian Lakshmi Pratiwi, Head of Office of Cultural Affairs, Special Region of Yogyakarta, inwhich she expressed her gratitude to the organisers, ACCU and the Agency for Cultural Affairs, Japan, and encouraged theparticipants to make the most of this training opportunity and leverage what they learn to promote cultural heritage protection.

Opening speeches by organiseres (Left: Mr Judi Wahjudin, right: Mr Morimoto Susumu (ACCU))

59

Left: Opening address by Ms Dian Lakshmi Pratiwi, Head of Office of Cultural Affairs, Special Region of Yogyakarta
Middle: Commemorative photograph of organisers at the opening ceremony, Mr Wahjudin and Mr Morimoto
Right: Address by Mr Anton Wibisono, Head, Division of World Cultural Heritage Nomination■Lecture 1: The Cosmological Axis of Yogyakarta and its Historic Landmarks: values, previous disasters and theirimpact on cultural heritage
Lecturer: Dian Lakshmi Pratiwi (Head of Office of Cultural Affairs)
The first lecture provided a detailed explanation regarding the value of, and individual heritage sites comprising the
Cosmological Axis of Yogyakarta and its Historic Landmarks, the World Heritage Site where the course was to takeplace. Ms Dian Lakshmi Pratiwi talked about the worldview that forms the city of Yogyakarta (centred around the royalpalace, with the south gate, a tower called the Tugu Monument to the north, and Mt Merapi that lies beyond all aligned ina straight line, which represents Javanese philosophical thoughts on human life (from birth to death)), the learnings gained
from past disaster experiences, and Yogyakarta’s disaster mitigation plan, among other things, providing the participants
with the local information necessary for the field exercises.

Lecture by Ms Dian Lakshmi Pratiwi (Head of Office of Cultural Affairs)■Lecture 2: Disaster Risk Management for Cultural Heritage: introduction, core principles, key terminology
Lecturer: Prof. KIM Dowon (Ritsumeikan University)
The lecture covered examples of cultural heritage sites around the world that were damaged due to disasters such as fire,
earthquakes, and flooding, provided a basic overview of disaster mitigation for cultural heritage, and presented the 11
principles that should be considered. The lecturer explained the need to come up with a separate cultural heritage disastermitigation plan for each of the three phases of 1) before disaster (prevention), 2) during disaster (response), and 3) after
disaster (recovery), as well as the need to learn from past disaster experiences and reorganise disaster mitigation plans tomake them more robust. He also explained the key terminology related to disaster mitigation that would frequently be usedin the course; of these, hazard, vulnerability, and exposure mutually impact one another, causing great damage to cultural
heritage. Therefore, the lecturer highlighted the importance of identifying the 1) various hazards, 2) various vulnerabilities,
and 3) degree of exposure of the cultural heritage in question, as well as the potential impacts, before risk management
measures can be considered. This was followed by a Q&A session with the lecturer.

60

Lecture by Prof. Kim Dowon (Ritsumeikan University)■Lecture 3: Disaster Risk Management for Cultural Heritage in Indonesia: current situation and issues
Lecturer: Dr Khaerunnisa (Universitas Atma Jaya Yogyakarta)
Dr Khaerunnisa provided an overview of the types of cultural heritage in Indonesia and the evolution of the legal
frameworks to protect them, shared some examples of cultural heritage sites that have been damaged due to natural
disasters in Indonesia (which are a frequent occurrence in the country), and outlined the development process and content
of the disaster management principles for the Indonesian World Heritage Site Borobudur. Lastly, she summarised theissues with, and features of, disaster risk management (DRM) in Indonesia.
Based on the lesson from the earthquake that hit the Kotagede district in 2006, when numerous heritage buildings
were lost because they were hastly rebuilt immediately after the disaster––Dr Khaerunnisa stressed the crucial importanceof advance preparation and planning. She also emphasised how damage to cultural heritage can be reduced by enhancing
the disaster response capabilities of local residents through regular education and training, among other measures. She
noted that DRM plans must be feasible to be implemented, and asked the participants to consider the importance ofexecuting such plans. The participants gained understanding of the challenges that needed to be addressed in Indonesia.

Lecture by Dr Khaerunnisa (Universitas Atma Jaya Yogyakarta)■Lecture 4: Standards of Disaster Risk Management for the World Heritage Sites
Lecturer: Prof. TASHIRO Akiko (Hokkaido University)
Prof. Tashiro talked about the establishment of the World Heritage programme, the types of heritage, and the details of thenomination process, criteria, and nomination/operation guideline. In the Operational Guidelines for the imprementationof the World Heritage Convention, the UNESCO Committee recommends that State Parties include disaster, climate change
and other risk preparedness as an element in their World Heritage Site management plans and training strategies. UNESCO has
recently issued a manual for DRM measures as well. Through this lecture, the participants acquired a basic understanding of
the World Heritage Site designation procedure, and learned there is a need to formulate DRM plans before and after World
Heritage Site designation and about the importantce of DRM in the monitoring and management of heritage.

61

Lecture by Prof. Tashiro Akiko (Hokkaido University)

17 October■Lecture 5: Pre-disaster Recovery Planning for Urban Settlements
Lecturer: Prof. MAKI Norio (Kyoto University)
Prof. Maki delivered a lecture focused on urban disaster mitigation. The training venue, Yogyakarta, is a cultural heritage
situated in an urban area, and there are areas where people actually live in heritage sites. With reference to the example ofurban disaster mitigation in Kyoto City, Prof. Maki provided an overview of the ‘recovery image training’ conducted for
officials of Kyoto City Government. First, two goals were set as a framework for this project: ‘early rebuilding of life’ fromcitizens’ perspective, and ‘safe and secure recovery of urban areas’ from the local government’s perspective. Specifically,
the following tasks were involved: adding local information (e.g. townscape preservation conditions, road width, parks,
densely built-up areas, house types (wooden structure, flat, etc.) to a map, assuming various degrees of damage (totally
destroyed, partially destroyed, completely destroyed by fire) to individual buildings, and creating a plan detailing therecovery work after the disaster. A notable feature is that interviews were conducted with individual residents to grasp theirfamily structure, occupation, dwelling history, etc. and to find out what sort of community recovery the residents wanted
before a disaster occurrence. These preparations lead to swift recovery in the event of a disaster. Interacting with residents
and visualising information were tasks included in the scheduled workshop, so this example from Japan enabled theparticipants to gain a good idea of the practical aspects of such projects and to understand the goals that lie ahead.

Lecture by Prof. Maki Norio (Kyoto University)62

■Lecture 6: Heritage Values Assessment for DRM & Explanation of the Field Exercise
Lecturer: Prof. Kim Dowon
The field exercise involved the following tasks:
1. Heritage Values Assessment
2. Disaster Risk Assessment
3. Disaster Imagination Game
4. DRM Planning and Implementation
In the first lecture, Prof. Kim outlined the workflow of the tasks above and explained the lecture’s topic, value assessment.
Value assessment is a process to clarify what it is that we want to protect. The lecturer explained that it is possible to identify
various types of values by viewing a heritage from multiple angles: the first step in DRM is to consider what values theheritage has––historical, social, artistic, religious, etc.––and to understand where these elements are present. In addition, as
information about the disaster mitigation-related values of a heritage (such as the availability of an open space for evacuation orof waterways, ponds, or other resources necessary for fire extinguishing), is beneficial from a disaster mitigation perspective,thelecturer instructed the participants to add this kind of information to their maps. The participants learned what on-site information
to record, and how to record it, on a map prior to the field exercise.

【Field exercise 1】Values Assessment Field Exercise
Lecturers: Prof. KIM Dowon and Prof. TASHIRO Akiko
After the lecture, in the afternoon, the participants formed two teams to work on-site. The field exercise took place in twoareas within the World Heritage Site: Tamansari Royal Garden Complex and the residential area surrounding it, and the
Kauman area that is home to the Great Mosque Complex. On the first day, the participants visited the royal palace area, anessential part in any consideration of the value of Yogyakarta’s World Heritage Site, learned the story of the heritage, andgathered information relevant to their respective areas.

Participants visited the royal palace area, an essential part of the value of Yogyakarta’s World Heritage Site

The participants walked around the allocated area for about two hours, plotting the heritage values on the maps of theirrespective areas and summarising what types of value they identified. They interviewed local residents in the process ofdetermining the values.
The participants returned to the lecture venue at 4 pm. to organise the information they gathered and share their results ina team presentation. They had formed four teams in total, two teams working on each area. The teams that worked on thesame area made presentations from different perspectives, which enabled their members to deepen mutual understanding. The

63

Value assessment work at Tamansari (left) and Kauman area (right)

lecturers advised the participants to include in their consideration the value of not only immovable properties but also movablecultural properties held in museums and intangible heritage such as festivals, and to consider economic value as well.
18 October■Lecture 7: Disaster Risk Assessment for Cultural Heritage
Lecturer: Prof. KIM Dowon
The lecturer first explained the objectives of risk assessment. Risk assessment allows one to make an informed judgment on
the nature of the risks to the cultural heritage site during the pre-disaster, emergency, and post-disaster phase, assess the level/
extent of risk, and prioritise actions for risk mitigation. In addition, it gives an idea of the goals of the DRM plan. On-site
surveys conducted in risk assessment involve gathering the following information: 1) information on damage dealt in pastdisasters, 2) whether the existing disaster mitigation plan is effective, and 3) whether the local area has a risk reduction
system. The participants needed to conduct fieldwork to find out what kind of hazards and vulnerabilities existed withrespect to the values plotted in the field exercise on the first day. The participants had heard of risk but were not familiar withhazard and vulnerability, so the lecturer explained these concepts. Based on examples, the lecture rexplained that there are
two types of hazards: those that occur suddenly, such as natural disasters and accidents, and those that occur gradually due
to temperature and humidity. With examples given, he explained vulnerability from environmental factors such as threeperspectives: 1) structural issues with cultural heritage, 2) those caused by environmental factors such as the ground conditions,and 3) those caused by human factors such as lack of maintenance.

Group work of risk assessment by each group

Evaluation of risk assessment categories by Prof. Kim and additional explanation about the on-site work64

【Field exercise 2】
Disaster Risk Assessment Exercise
Lecturers: Prof. KIM Dowon and Prof. TASHIRO Akiko
For the field exercise, the lecturers instructed the participants to identify hazards and vulnerabilities, including their negative
impact, through interviewing the local residents. They were given about two hours. Each team member was assigned a role, e.g.
taking pictures, filling in the map, interviewing residents. Prof. Kim and Prof. Tashiro provided instructions on-site as necessary.
The participants returned to the lecture venue at 4 pm. Each team added the information they had gathered in thefield exercise to their maps in different colours (for example, pink for hazards, orange for vulnerabilities, and blue for negative
impacts) and then shared their results. They filled in the listed items (primary hazard, secondly hazard, vulnerability, attribute,loss of value) based on their survey and then made a presentation on the heritage values that were expected to suffer in a disastersituation.
The lecturers remarked that the Tamansari group had presented the following important observations and risks: theneed to educate residents who are not aware of the values, the risk of fire in a scenario where the numerous power cablesin the area are damaged, and the lack of signs in this densely built-up area showing the evacuation route in the event offire. As for the Kauman group, the lecturers pointed out the following important observations made by participants: therisk of movable cultural heritage theft as the area is home to a museum, the fact that the waterways running through thearea could be used in the event of a disaster, and that the history of past incidents had been researched and included in therisk. As advice the lecturers added that it is important to organise the heritage attributes, as this will highlight the hazards to beprioritised in the mitigation process.

On-site work at Tamansari. Participants asked residents about past earthquake memories.

On-site work at Kauman. Participants checked possible disaster risks and existing vulnerabilities.

19 October■Lecture 8: Disaster Imagination Game
Lecturers: Prof. KIM Dowon and Prof. TASHIRO Akiko
The Disaster Imagination Game (DIG) implemented in this lecture is a training activity where a disaster occurrence isassumed to identify the issues associated with disaster mitigation measures. First the lecturers explained the DIG Workflow
based on implementation examples from Japan; then they presented the following disaster scenario:“At 5 pm on DD/MM, an earthquake of magnitude 10 occurs in Yogyakarta. Wind is blowing from the west at 6 to 7 metres/
hour.”

65

The participants were asked to imagine the collapse of buildings, the outbreak and spread of fire, the movement of local
people in the early evening, and other factors to get an idea of the preparations necessary to minimise damage.
To implement DIG, the participants first needed to write down the local information they had gathered on a map.
Therefore, in the morning, they went to their respective survey areas to confirm the following: 1) attributes, 2) risks, 3)
mitigation measures (water sources, extinguishers, etc.), 4) places with a high concentration of tourists, 5) places where
people who can direct others to evacuation routes, such as tour guides, are stationed, and 6) classification of road width (A:less than 4 m, B: 4–8 m, C: 8 m or more). After this, they wrote down each piece of information on tracing paper placed on
their maps to organise their findings.
In the afternoon, each team made a presentation on the estimated damage and mitigation measures, and thelecturers offered specific advice regarding each point. Each group organised all this information and prepared for thedisaster mitigation plan presentation scheduled for the following day.

Work in groups to put survey results on a map

66

20 October■Lecture 9: DRM Planning and Implementation - examples from different countries
Lecturers: Prof. KIM Dowon and Prof. TASHIRO Akiko
Prof. Tashiro began her lecture by outlining the current state and issues of planning and implementation of disaster risk
management, based on examples from Yemen, Japan, and Indonesia. Next, she talked about the emergency survey andrecovery process in Padang, West Sumatra that sustained huge damage due to the earthquake of September 2009. In the researchshe conducted in Padang, Prof. Tashiro classified the buildings by their function and created a map showing the distributionof buildings that were damaged. This map enabled to identify which type of building suffered the most damage, as well as thereasons for this. Prof. Tashiro explained that the research revealed a change in townscape that occurred in the recovery processduring the period from year one to year eight after the earthquake. She emphasised that although the restoration of historicalbuildings was completed within two years, many small, undesignated structures had been urgently restored using temporary,and inappropriate repair methods. Lastly, Prof. Tashiro raised the issue of how to deal with buildings that have cultural heritage
value but are not designated as conservation areas in Indonesia.
In the second half of the morning lecture, Prof. Kim talked about emergency measures to protect cultural heritage
in disaster situations and post-disaster needs assessment (PDNA). The participants asked questions such as: “Do overseas
rescue teams that perform emergency measures after a disaster occurrence have knowledge about local cultural heritage?”“Do you have a disaster mitigation network for cultural heritage in Japan?” “Are there cases where historical buildingsthat suffered severe damage due to an earthquake lose their designated status as a culture heritage?” and “In the recovery
process, how do you strike the balance between the intangible and tangible heritage values?”
In the afternoon, the participants were given the following assignments: 1) create a disaster scenario for the
Kauman and Tamansari areas, where they had already conducted hazard and vulnerability assessment, and 2) develop
disaster mitigation measures for cultural heritage. As these assignments were to form part of the final presentation scheduled forthe following day, each group worked on them until 4:30 pm.

Lecture by Prof. Tashiro

Q&A session with the participantsProf. Kim giving a lecture and explaining the assignments

67

Prof. Kim giving a lecture and explaining the assignments

Participants working on an assignment

21 October【Presentation and discussion session】Pilot Plan of Disaster Risk Management
Lecturers: Prof. KIM Dowon and Prof. TASHIRO Akiko
In the morning, Prof. Kim delivered a summary lecture, after which each group prepared for the final presentation.

Summary lecture by Prof. Kim

In the afternoon, each team made a presentation on their DRM plan within their respective groups. First, they set a
scenario, and then explained the type and extent of damage and how to mitigate it with existing resources. Furthermore,they identified areas that could not be mitigated and shared perspectives to be incorporated in future disaster mitigationplans. Each presentation lasted 10 minutes, followed by a 20-minute Q&A session in which the four teams had a lively
discussion.
Below are some of the perspectives presented in the groups’ disaster mitigation plans:

68Kauman Teams:
Kauman is home to many places where people gather, such as a museum and mosque, and a settlement with narrow alleys
is formed around the mosque. The team took these local characteristics into account when identifying the hazards, which
included the following: the roads are narrow (fire engines cannot enter, the evacuation route is blocked), the power cables
are exposed (risk of fire), the museum has large trees (damage to museum artefacts due to collapse), there is a petrol station
within the settlement (fire), presence of mosque (increased risk due to people gathering for festivals or prayers). The teampredicted that a fire would occur after the earthquake, and that damage would spread unless appropriate preparations are
put in place. Existing resources that could be used included fire extinguishing equipment and waterways, and the squarein Kraton (royal palace) was identified as a potential evacuation site. The team placed particular emphasis on the need forsigns indicating the evacuation route, as well as the need for fire prevention measures in narrow alleyways, such as regularinspections of fire extinguishing equipment and training for residents in using the equipment. The lecturers suggested
considering measures to prevent theft from the museum, what to do in case the curators are absent (after 5 pm), and shortto long-term disaster mitigation plans, and commended the team for taking road width into account.

Group presentation of Kauman teams

Tamansari Teams:
Tamansari is home to cultural heritage such as the gardens and bathing facility of the royal palace, and a settlement situatedaround the palace dotted with restaurants and souvenir shops. Based on these local characteristics, the team predicted thatvaluable heritage buildings would collapse due to the earthquake, and identified hazards such as tourists getting injured
due to the debris, tourists panicking in the heritage sites, and people not knowing the evacuation route due to the absenceof maps, as well as the risk of fire due to the exposed power cables. Therefore, mitigating the risk to human life posed by
the collapse of buildings and guiding tourists were identified as issues to be addressed. The team pointed to site guides
and the community around the heritage sites as resources that could help guide tourists to the evacuation route, and raised
the need to educate, and clarify the roles of, guides and residents; create a tourist management plan, and develop laws andother frameworks to support these activities. Specifically, one of the teams which included a member of the Provincial
Government of Yogyakarta raised the need to review the current framework to create a cooperative framework between
the national, provincial, and municipal governments. The lecturers made the following suggestions: include the perspectiveof utilising existing community networks, and examine what kind of repairs were done to buildings that collapsed whenthe earthquake hit Tamansari in 2006. Additionally, they noted that training heritage site guides is a good perspective.

Group presentation of Tamansari teams

69

Finally, the lecturers offered the following advice: after creating a DRM plan, it is crucial to implement, revise, andcontinuously improve it.
The closing session was held from 4 pm. The ACCU director handed a certificate of completion to all participants
who had completed the assignments. Additionally, the participants received souvenirs from ACCU staff and the Provincial
Government of Yogyakarta that cooperated with the programme. A commemorative picture was taken, and the programme
was concluded.

Group photo of all participants and guests

70

3. Course Evaluation
Eighteen participants completed the training course and submitted the course evaluation. Participants were cultural heritage
practitioners who had gathered from different regions of Indonesia. The Workshop on the theme of Disaster Risk Management
for Cultural Heritage was the first time for ACCU to implement, but it was very well received overall. It was observed thatthe implementation of training courses on the same theme in disaster-prone areas can be highly beneficial for the participants,
as they can receive training in their own countries and on the examples of cultural properties, which they are familiar with.
On the other hand, there were many comments that there was not enough time, both for on-site work sessions and classroomstyle lectures. The duration of the training course is an issue that must be considered in the future. We would like to reflect on
the information obtained from the following questionnaire in the next curriculum development.
(1) Overall
Overall Course Evaluation

Relevancy to Work

Excellent,
18,100%■Excellent■Good■Normal■Bad

Scope of Course Contents

Relevant,
18,100%■Relevant■Not Relevant

Proportion of Lectures and Work Sessions· The training course was very
Toointeresting,broad,2,11%and I am satisfied because I could go through it with clear understanding (4participants).
· The instructions of the teaching material and on-site practical sessions were very good throughout the training. On-site
Need more
observation was a very good experience for learning how to imagine an actual
disaster occurring (2 participants).
work sessions,· This was a very valuable experience in learning about dealing with disasters
at World Heritage Sites.
5,28%
Appropriate,· The lecture structure of classroom-style lectures and work-sessions was outstanding, bothbeing interrelated to existing
10,55%
situations, and the whole training course was widely applicable (2 participants).
■Appropriate· The explanations of Appropriate,the16,89%
lecturers were clear■Appropriate
and easy to understand (2 Needparticipants).
more■Need more
broad
· The theme of the training course was very ■Toosuitablefor the protection oflectures,Indonesian cultural heritage, and lectures
this was a very
■Too narrow
3,17%■Need more
important and beneficial training course for those involved in cultural heritage
in Indonesia (3 participants).
work sessions
Relevancy to Work

Relevant,
18,100%■Excellent■Good■Normal■Bad

1%■Relevant■Not Relevant

Proportion of Lectures and Work Sessions· Indonesia
is a disaster-prone area, as is my place of work, so the theme was very appropriate (almost all participants).
· My place of work is in a disaster-prone area, and I was able to gain basic knowledge on handling and preparing for disastermitigation of cultural heritage sites in this course.
more related to my work as a Cultural Analyst at the Directorate of Cultural Protection. As part of our· The theme Needis closely
work sessions,
initiatives to protect
5,28% cultural heritage, this course helped me understand how to imagine and think about disaster preventionof cultural heritage.
Appropriate,
10,55%■Appropriate■Too broad■Too narrow

Need morelectures,
3,17%■Appropriate■Need morelectures■Need morework sessions71

· This theme was relevant to my specialised duties and roles that are related to the building maintenance of the Yogyakarta
Palace.
· OverallThis training
course was very beneficial to executing, and essential
to the management of the Management Plan we prepared
Course Evaluation
Relevancy to Workfor the World Heritage the Cosmological Axis of Yogyakarta and its Historic Landmarks. This workshop is also beneficial in
helping decide future management policy for world heritage sites.
· My place of work is on the western coast of the island of Sumatra, which is extremely vulnerable to earthquakes, so theknowledge I have gained from this course is extremely valuable to creating disaster mitigation plans for cultural heritage
sites in this area.
· The workshop theme was relevant to my work, which involves evaluating cultural heritage site mapping and zoning, as it was
the basis for incorporating
the concept of disaster risk management.
Excellent,
Relevant,· This was a very beneficial
theme
heritage sites are located near a volcano
in Ternate, North■Relevant
Maluku Province
18,100% as many cultural
18,100%■Excellent
Relevant■Good■Not(Gamalama Mountain on Ternate Island, Kie Matubu Mountain in North Maluku).
■Normal· The course materials were very helpful for■Bad
my work in protecting and maintaining cultural heritage sites.
Scope of Course Contents

Too broad,2,11%

Proportion of Lectures and Work Sessions

Need morework sessions,
5,28%
Appropriate,
16,89%■Excellent■Good■Normal■Bad■Appropriate■Too broad■Too narrow

Need morework sessions,
5,28%

72

■Appropriate■Need morelectures■Need morework sessions· The course scope was set appropriately.
· Each step of the course was consistently communicated in full to participants. The content was good, clear and easy tounderstand (3 participants).
· The workshop content covers all important points that a person working with cultural heritage sites needs to know (frommethods to DRM practices in other countries).
Relevancy
to Work· The
materials
provided were more than adequate in providing knowledge related to risk mitigation management of
cultural heritage, especially basic yet important concepts.
· The scope of the materials was very broad.
· It was really wonderful and very helpful in understanding DRM.
· The contents of this workshop were appropriate for the conditions of the people involved, the restrictions, and heritage
sites of Indonesia where DRM is yet to be developed.
· The contents of this workshop were appropriate as they explained the required actions at each of the stages of before,
Relevant,
during and after a disaster.
18,100%■Relevant· The workshop was important as it placed■Not
significanceRelevant on the steps before a disaster in an urban heritage area, and onplanning preparatory action through the Disaster Imagination Game.
Proportion of Lectures and Work Sessions■Appropriate■Too broad■Too narrow

Need morelectures,
3,17%

Appropriate,
10,55%

Need morelectures,
3,17%

Appropriate,
10,55%■Appropriate■Need morelectures■Need morework sessions

· There was not enough time for work sessions (5 participants). There was not enough time for data collection on-site and,as we were in a bit of a hurry, the data collected was not very detailed neither in terms of references nor writing.
· There was not enough time for lectures (3 participants). If it could be a little longer, I think it could be made more in
depth, including technical issues such as quantified disaster impact assessment methods.
· Instructions using materials both in lectures and in on-site work sessions were very well balanced, with theories/concepts
being well-correlated with the reality on the ground (5 participants).
· As the lectures are rich in content, and practices in the field are very broad, it requires more time. According to Professor
Kim, his workshops usually take 3 weeks, but I think 2~3 weeks is enough.
· I think if more time was spent on the session for understanding basic ways of thinking about disaster risk management (thecourse on the first day), it would be even better.
· Materials and practice are well-balanced, but it would be optimal if it was held for a longer period of time.
Lectures that were Interesting· All lectures are relevant and important. The whole course was very interesting (4 participants).
· All materials shown were very interesting, and relevant to application (2 participants).
· I thought that Professor Kim’s materials, especially the evaluation section, were very good because I believe that material
can be practiced best by Indonesian cultural heritage professionals.
· The presentations of lecturers’ materials were interesting as they were accompanied by case studies that aided understandingof the materials provided.
· As almost all participants were taking part in DRM courses for the first time, it was a very important resource for participants
to have as a basis for their thinking in future discussions of disaster issues. They were very useful lectures.
· The lecture on the basic concepts of DRM is very important, and not just in terms of understanding implementation of
DRM in the framework of heritage conservation.
· I was very interested in the materials regarding disaster risk management standards for World Heritage sites. Through thismaterial, I was able to understand the importance of World Heritage sites, its conservation and management, and in particular
about disaster risk management in World Heritage sites.
· I found the training session on risk assessment and its application to cultural heritage to be the most interesting session.
Relevancy of Work Sessions (multiple answers allowed)

15

Disaster Imagination Game

14

Disaster Risk Evaluation Session

12

0

5

10

Value Evaluation Work Session

15

20· I enjoyed to learn with the Disaster Imagination Game as it covered all concepts that were being taught, and was well visualisedon the map.
· As my job involves managing World Heritage sites, the value evaluation work session is indispensable. It was a session formeasuring what sort of values the attributes of cultural heritages would have.
· Basically, everything was interesting and relevant.
· As my place of work is on the western coast of the island of Sumatra, which is extremely vulnerable to earthquakes, it is very
important to immediately undertake training to evaluate disaster risks against the cultural heritage sites in my workplace.
· All three are a series, which begins with the Value Evaluation Work Session, then the Disaster Risk Evaluation Session,
followed by a simulation with the Disaster Imagination Game. Therefore, all three are relevant.
· The work session regarding value evaluation of cultural heritage was interesting. The Disaster Imagination Game was also
very interesting as it facilitated the understanding of the possibility of disasters occurring in cultural heritage areas, andrescue operations. The Disaster Imagination Game material is particularly very unique (2 participants).
· The all lectures were very interesting.

73

Venue Selection for On-site Training
Inappropriate,1,6%

Appropriate,17,94%■Appropriate■Inappropriate

How did you find the speaking speed in the videos?

How well did you understand the lecture content?
About half,1,8%

Well understood,11,92%■Well understood■About half■Not well

Language used in videos· I would like it to be held in a different area in Indonesia (in order to learn about characteristics of heritage sites outside of urban
areas). It would be better if there were other options such as heritage sites in urban areas, and heritage sites in rural or semiurban areas (3 participants).
· The venue selection was appropriate. Tamansari and Kauman are areas with tightly knitted narrow streets and alleyways
that are densely populated, which provided examples of cultural heritage sites that were highly vulnerable to disasters.
· Tamansari, a cultural heritage site visited by many tourists, as well as being a residential area (densely populated area), wasan appropriate venue as it is an attribute that characterises the World Heritage the Understood,12,
Cosmological Axis of Yogyakarta and its
Just right,12,
100%
right
■Understood
Historic Landmarks site,
and a place where■Just
disasterrisk management needed to be undertaken,
from disastermitigation
100%
long
to
planning (precautionary measures) as part of■Toodisasterprevention, to the evacuation phase during, and the ■Difficult
disaster recovery
understand■Too slow
phase after a disaster (7 participants).
· Since the Tamansari site became a part of the World Heritage Site, a lot of visitors come to see it. There are also both tangible
and intangible cultural heritages due to the presence of the community around it. There are various vulnerabilities in thisarea, most notably the increase in space requirements due to the high population density and the narrow roads which makeit a relatively high-risk area in the event something dangerous happens. Therefore, selecting Taman Sari as the venue may
represent the importance of disaster risk management in cultural heritage areas and surrounding residential areas.
· The venue selection for the training course was appropriate. However, it may have been a good idea to provide opportunities
for all participants at the beginning of the course to visit two different venues so that everyone could clearly grasp the values
and environmental characteristics of two different venues.
· As two different areas have different characteristics, their DRM also differ. It is very useful in broadening the knowledge ofparticipants.
Are there any topics which you would like to learn but were not covered in this workshop??
· The frameworks of foreign government in relation to dealing with disasters, particularly disasters related to cultural heritage
sites.
· Topics related to coordination and network building methods between the relevant parties (international organisations, central
government, local government, academics, the conservation community, heritage related associations, and general public)
related to DRM of cultural heritage sites.
· Topics about technical planning when implementing disaster prevention of cultural heritage sites.
· SOP (technical) that explains in detail who should do what, when, where and how for each stage (prevention/mitigation,
preparation, emergency response, post-disaster) of disaster risk management.
· A management plan regarding disaster management that is actionable by all stakeholders that outlines who does what, anda comprehensive process that deals with all of these.
· Utilising geospatial data from historical disasters in the DRM process.
· Topics related to technology and methods for collecting information from communities around heritage sites.
· Disaster risk management for underwater sites (2 participants)· Disaster recovery management for undesignated cultural properties (buildings)· Success indicators for risk management of cultural heritage sites and their restrictions· Topics related to the nomination, creation of explanatory texts, recommendation of importance, designation, andconservation of World Heritage Sites.

74

IV. International Workshop
1. General Information
2. Evaluation

1. General Information
International Workshop for Senior Professionals 2023
Disaster Risk Management for Cultural Heritage in the Asia-Pacific Region
Current State and Issues (3): Disaster Mitigation and Preparedness for Resilience Building

1. Background and Objectives
Each year the countries of Asia and the Pacific face disasters caused by natural hazards such as floods, landslides, typhoons(cyclones), earthquakes, tsunamis, storm surges, volcanic eruptions, and so forth. How to protect cultural heritage from thesedisasters is a common issue for all the countries throughout the region.
In 2021, a three-year project International Workshop on Disaster Risk Management for Cultural Heritage in the AsiaPacific Region was initiated to promote the sharing of experience, expertise, and case studies on the issues created by natural
disasters in the Asia-Pacific countries, and to discuss the ways of minimising the damage to cultural heritage by undertaking
measures on an everyday basis.
In the first year of the workshop, case studies of emergency response in the Asia-Pacific region were shared, andissues of cultural heritage relief during the disasters were brought to attention. In 2022, the second year of the project,
the efforts and difficulties in cultural heritage restoration and regional recovery were examined under the theme of postdisaster recovery and resilience-building. The final year of the workshop aimed to reflect the issues raised during the past two
years and stimulate the discussion on disaster mitigation and preparedness for cultural heritage in normal times, throughday-to-day initiatives and efforts. Such initiatives include two main elements: disaster mitigation efforts to reduce thedamage caused by natural disasters, and advance preparations for rapid and effective rescue operations and emergency treatmentin the event of damage. We examine disaster mitigation efforts that can be undertaken during normal times from these two
perspectives.
Each country in the Asia-Pacific region has a different cultural heritage context, natural environment, customs andpolicies. Yet, the establishment of partnerships between organisations and local communities, as well as the initiatives toimplement various training and awareness-raising activities, are common concerns to all countries. This year's international
symposium invited the speakers to present the current thinking in the field as well as various examples – from different regionsof Asia-Pacific – of how heritage can be better protected from disasters while contributing to the resilience of societies. At
the same time, the workshop sought to support the development of leaders in this field and establish networks among theprofessionals in charge of Disaster Risk Management for Cultural Heritage in the Asia-Pacific Region.
2. OrganisersThis workshop was organised by the Agency for Cultural Affairs, Government of Japan (Bunkacho); Cultural Heritage
Protection Cooperation office, the Asia-Pacific Cultural Centre for UNESCO (ACCU Nara) and National Institute forCultural Heritage, Cultural Heritage Disaster Risk Management Center, Japan in partnership with the International Centre
for the Study of the Preservation and Restoration of Cultural Property (ICCROM). Support was provided by the National
Research Institute for Cultural Properties (Tokyo and Nara); Nara Prefectural Government; Nara City; and Institute ofDisaster Mitigation for Urban Cultural Heritage, and Ritsumeikan University in collaboration with Japan Consortium forInternational Cooperation in Cultural Heritage.
3. Dates and Venue
13-15 December 2023 at Nara Prefectural Convention Center, Nara City, Japan
DAY1: 13 December (Wed): Opening Ceremony, Keynote Speech (1), Case Study Reports
DAY2: 14 December (Thu): Keynote Speech (2), Panel Discussion
DAY3: 15 December (Fri): Site visits in Nara Prefecture77

4. Programme
Day 1 | WEDNESDAY, 13 December 2023
Opening Ceremony
Organisers’ Welcome and Opening Address
Keynote Speech (I)SHIMOTSUMA Kumiko
Professor, Department of Tourism and Community Development, Kokugakuin University, Japan
Preparing for a Large-scale Disaster
Case Studies
Yuhan GUO (Project Manager, CONSERVISION Consulting Co., Ltd, China)
Disaster Risk Management in Kulangsu after Typhoon Meranti
Hari SETYAWAN (Cultural Heritage Preservation Advisor, Conservation Technician, Museum and Cultural Heritage,
Unit of Borobudur World Heritage, Ministry of Education, Culture, Research, and Technology, Indonesia)
Borobudur Temple Compounds Disaster Risk Management PlanTOH Takahiro (Chief Documentation Specialist, Wakayama Prefectural Archives, Japan)
Efforts for the “Disaster Memories Project” in Wakayama Prefecture
ANG Ming Chee (General Manager, George Town World Heritage Incorporated, Malaysia)
Community-Based Disaster Risk Management in George Town UNESCO World Heritage Site, Malaysia
SHAKYA Lata (Associate Professor, Kinugasa Research Organization, Institute of Disaster Mitigation for Urban
Cultural Heritage, Ritsumeikan University, Japan)
Disaster Memory for Disaster Mitigation Planning: Focused on the Spontaneous Emergency Evacuation Shelters in
Historic City of Nepal
Amanda OHS (Senior Heritage Advisor, Heritage Team, Planning and Consents, Christchurch City Council, New
Zealand)Strengthening Disaster Resilience for the Heritage Resource after the Canterbury earthquakes in Ōtautahi – Christchurch,
Canterbury Region, Aotearoa-New Zealand78

Day 2 | THURSDAY, 14 December 2023
Keynote Speech (II)Aparna TANDON (Senior Programme Leader, ICCROM)
Navigating the Climate Poly Crisis and Mitigating Overlapping and Cascading Risks to Heritage
Panel Discussion Summary
Moderator: SHIMOTSUMA Kumiko
Panellists: Aparna Tandon, Yuhan Guo, Hari Setyawan, TOH Takahiro, Ang Ming Chee, Shakya Lata, Amanda Ohs
Commentators:
KOHDZUMA Yohsei (Cultural Heritage Disaster Risk Management Center, Japan)
MORIMOTO Susumu (ACCU Nara)
Guest Speakers:
IKAWA Hirofumi (Cultural Resources Utilization Division, Agency for Cultural Affairs)
SHODA Shinya (International Cooperation Section, Nara National Research Institute for Cultural Properties)
KODANI Ryusuke (Cultural Heritage Disaster Risk Management Center, Japan)

DAY 1: Opening Address by Organisers (Top: Yamashita Shin’ichiro (Agency for Cultural Affairs), Bottom left: Morimoto Susumu (ACCU
Nara), Bottom middle: Kohdzuma Yosei (Disaster Risk Management Center))

79

DAY1: Keynote Speech 1: Shimotsuma Kumiko (Kokugakuin University)

Case Study 1: Yuhan Guo (China)

Case Study 3: Toh Takahiro (Japan)

80

Case study 2: Hari Setyawan (Indonesia)

Case Study 4: Ang Ming Chee (Malaysia)

Case Study 5: Shakya Lata (Nepal)

Case Study 6: Amanda Ohs (New Zealand)

DAY 2: Keynote Speech 2: Aparna Tandon (ICCROM) via Zoom

81

DAY 2: Panel Discussion with all participants and guest speakers

DAY 2 : Summary and Conclusion82

Townscape of Imai-cho

Lecture by Mr Hayashi at Hanairaka

At the front of Hanairaka traditional building

Visitor map inseted in the road

Each house equipped with fire fighting equipment

83

Disaster prevention plaza (left) and its facilities (right)

At the entrance of Imanishi Family House in Imai-cho; National Important Cultural Property

Nara Prefecture Historical and Artistic Culture Complex

Hands-on woodworking experienceDay 3 | Friday, 15 December 2023
Lecture by Mr HAYASHI Yoshihiko (Former Head of Cultural Heritage Department, Nara National Research Institutefor Cultural Properties)
Introduction to Japan’s Townscapes and Preservation Districts, examples of townscape disaster mitigation measures andcommunity involvement in Japan
Lecture by Mr NAKAGAWA Tomoyuki (Assistant Director, Kashihara Municipal Board of Education, Imai-cho TownscapePreservation and Development Office)History, Protection and Disaster Risk Management of Imai-cho Townscape84

5. Secretariat, cooperators and cooperating organisations
ACCU Nara and the National Institute for Cultural Heritage, Cultural Heritage Disaster Risk Management Center,
Japan were responsible for the overall management of the symposium. We obtained cooperation from Ms Li Hong from
WHITRAP Shanghai, Mr IKAWA Hirofumi, Project Manager, Programmes Unit, ICCROM, for recommending panellists.
We received cooperation from ICCROM, National Institutes for Cultural Heritage, Ritsumeikan University, Japan
Consortium for International Cooperation in Cultural Heritage for publicising the symposium.
Excursion to Imai-cho Townscape Preservation Area / Nara Prefecture Historical and Artistic Culture Complex (Bankamura)
After the two-day symposium, the panellists visited Imai-cho Townscape Preservation Area in Nara Prefecture and a newly
opened facility –– Nara Prefecture Historical and Artistic Culture Complex, that exhibits and displays the repair and restorationof cultural heritage.
Mr Hayashi Yoshihiko, expert of townscape preservation, provided lecture on System of Preservation Districts
for Groups of Traditional Buildings in Japan at the lecture room in a traditional building named Hanairaka, in Imai-cho town.
Mr Nakagawa Tomoyuki, Vice Director of Imai-cho Townscape Preservation and Development Office, briefed the historyof Imai-cho townscape protection with the efforts of residents, while also introducing the disaster prevention plan. After thelecture, the participants toured the townscape and observed the disaster prevention facilities installed in each house and thedisaster prevention plazas planned for each area. The plaza is equipped with a quake-resistant water tank hydrant andevacuation facilities.

852. Evaluation
The workshop took place from 13-15 December, 2023. Two keynote speeches and six case studies were presented,
followed by a panel discussion. Nine panellists participated from the venue in Nara, and one keynote speaker joined in via
Zoom.
Seven out of ten participants filled in the questionnaire.
1. Overall
How satisfied are you with the networking opportunities presented at this symposium?
Neutral,1,14%Very Satisfied,
3,43%■Very Satisfied■Satisfied■Neutral■Dissatisfied

Satisfied,3,43%· This symposium enhanced my knowledge in dealing with disasters that have not yet occurred and are likely to occur on
my sites, due to climate change issues.
· While the previous two years sessions (2021 and 2022) covered technical matters to some extent, it was meaningful toexchange opinions on the common concerns of participants as local site managers.
· It was a very meaningful conference. It made me think about how to go about thinking about the situation since the advanced
efforts in Japan and the situation in other countries are different.
· Great opportunity to know how different countries deal with threats with different concerns and methods, especially how
people and heritage live with disasters memories. Really inspiring.
· It was a good opportunity to reflect on our current work from a fundamental perspective relative to our current work.
· Very useful, and we have developed strong friendship through this event.
· Attending the symposium in person was a highly valuable experience, as I developed my international network, andbroadened my understanding of international approaches, as well as developing my perspectives on collaboration andshared issues and opportunities in the Asia Pacific region. The experience has increased my resolve to improve risk
preparedness and reduction in line with international best practice in my local context.
2. Event Organisation
Fixed time for the Keynote Speeches: 45 minutes

Fixed time for the case studies: 20 minutes

Short,1,
14%

Appropriate,6,
86%■Short■Appropriate■Long

Q&A: Fixed time (10 min.) and its arrangement(after each presentation)
Excellent,1,
14%
Fair,1,
14%

86

Appropriate,7,100%

Fixed time for the panel discussion

Long,1,
14%

Short,1,
14%■Short■Appropriate■LongAppropriate,6,86%

Appropriate,7,100%■Short■Appropriate■Long

Fixed time for the panel discussion

Q&A: Fixed time (10 min.) and its arrangement(after each presentation)
Excellent,1,
14%
Fair,1,
14%

Long,1,
14%■Excellent
■Good
■Fair
■Poor

Good,5,72%■Short■Appropriate■Long

Short,1,
14%

Appropriate,5,72%■Short■Appropriate■Long

How satisfied are you with the engagement and support from ACCU staff pre and during the event?
Satisfied,1,
14%

Very Satisfied,6,86%■Very Satisfied■Satisfied■Neutral■Dissatisfied

How helpful/relevant was the pre-workshop meeting online?

Neutral,2,29%Helpful/relevant,5,71%■Helpful/relevant■Neutral■Irrelevant

Any final thoughts or suggestions on how to improve the symposium in future?
· Need more time for general discussion as there was not enough time to exchange ideas with the observers in the audience.
· Wish to have more time to review and discuss the whole program and its outcomes of the three years.
· May be try to do it in early December, as mid December have a lot of work to be completed back home.
3. Site-visits: 15 December
How suitable were the excursion venues to the Workshop theme?

Both were suitable,
4,100%■Imai-cho Historic District was a suitable venue■Nara Prefecture Historical and Artistic Culture Complex was a suitable venue■Both were suitable■None of them were suitable

Was the objective of each site-visit clear?

87

4,100%■Imai-cho Historic District was a suitable venue■Nara Prefecture Historical and Artistic Culture Complex was a suitable venue■Both were suitable■None of them were suitable

Was the objective of each site-visit clear?

Yes,4,
100%

■Yes
■No

Panel Discussion: Topic and the Flow
The Number of Panelists
Are
there any topics you would like to see covered in future international
symposium?
· Sustainable and self-financing site management in the face of infrastructure development and policy changes.
· Cultural Landscape
Fair,2,· Sustainable Cultural Heritage Disaster Prevention and Recovery for owners(governments and individuals), local
18%
Fair,4,communities(users?), and local communities (users?, managers?) and professionals in sustainable cultural heritage
36%
Excellent,5,
disaster prevention
andrestoration.
Excellent,6,46%· Community was one of55%
the most frequent word in this symposium. I would
like to see more discussion and shared case
Good,4,36%
studies about the practice of community
involvement and leadership.
■Excellent■Excellent
■Good
■Good
· Discussion
dedicatedtodisasterprevention
andconservationof
movableculturalproperties
Good,1,
■Fair
■Fair
9%
· The implementation of the proposed strategy
■Poor
■Poor
· Climate change
Venue Management(Simultaneous Interpretation Included)

Good,3,27%
Excellent,8,
73%

88■Excellent
■Good
■Fair
■Poor

V. Appendix
1. Group Training Course
2. Thematic Training Course
3. Regional Workshop
4. International Workshop
5. Staff Members of ACCU Nara

1. Group Training Course
A. List of Participants
Bangladesh
Tania Sultana
Assistant Director, Department of Archaeology, Ministry of Cultural Affairs

Bhutan
Dorji
Project Manager, Heritage Sites and Archaeology Division,
Department of Culture and Dzongkha Development, Ministry of Home Affairs

Cambodia
In Crisna Sothea
Officer, Safeguarding and Preservation of Monuments, General Department of Heritage, Ministry of Culture and Fine Arts

India
Maulishree Mishra
Principal Architect, Studio MANDALA; Artefacts and Habitats Sustainable Solutions LLP

India
Sneha Borate
Consultant Architect, World Heritage, Archaeological Survey of India, Ministry of Culture

Indonesia
Galih Sekar Jati Nagari
Data Processor /Archaeologist, Directorate of Cultural Protection,
Directorate General of Culture, Ministry of Education, Culture, Research, and Technology

Iran
Atefeh Amraei
Executive Advisor/ Head of International Affairs,
World Heritage Office, Ministry of Cultural Heritage, Tourism, and Handicrafts

Kiribati
Tawake Eriata
Assistant Cultural Officer, Culture and Museum Division, Ministry of Internal Affairs

90Lao PDR
Orlany Phanthavong
Technical Staff, Monuments and Sites Division, Department of Heritage, Ministry of Information, Culture and Tourism

Malaysia
Rohayah Che Amat
Senior Lecturer, Science,Management and Design Department, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia

Mongolia
Ariunzaya Batdorj
Architectural drafting specialist for architectural monument,
Historical building and architectural monuments, National Center for Cultural Heritage

Nepal
Arpan Bhuju
PhD Scholar/Lecturer, Social Science division,
Department of Nepalese History, Culture and Archaeology, Tribhuvan University

Philippines
Donking Obdin RoqueArchitect II, Architecture Section, Historic Preservation Division, National Historical Commission of the Philippines

Timor-Leste
Joanita do Rêgo Soares
Archaeologist, Archaeology Historia and Ethnography (DAHE), Secretariat of State for Art and Culture (SEAC)

Uzbekistan
Tokhir Norkobilov
Head of the Department, The Department of Art and Ethnography, The State Museum of History of Uzbekistan

B. Lecturers and Resource Persons
Unit 1Gamini WIJESURIYA

Unit 2
KANAI Ken

Special Advisor, International Centre for the study of the Preservation andHead, Resource and Systems Research Section, Japan Centre for International

Restoration of Cultural Property (ICCROM)

Cooperation in Conservation, Tokyo National Research Institute for Cultural
Properties

INABA Nobuko
Professor Emeritus, University of Tsukuba

INAGAKI Tomoya

Special Advisor, International Centre for the study of the Preservation andSenior Cultural Properties Specialist, Agency for Cultural Affairs, Government

Restoration of Cultural Property (ICCROM)

of Japan91

KIYONAGA Yohei
Licensed Architect-1st Class, Senior Specialist for Cultural Property in

Unit 5
KANADE Michiru

charge of architecture, Agency for Cultural Affairs, Government of Japan

Adjunct lecturer, Tokyo University of the Arts

ADACHI Hiroshi

MATSUMOTO Keita

Professor Emeritus, Kobe University

Chief, Cultural Properties Section, Shirakawa Village Board of Education

MURAKAMI Yasumichi

WATANABE Yasushi

Professor, Kyoto Tachibana University

Specialist for Important Preservation Districts for Groups of Traditional
Buildings (Former specialist of Shiojiri City Board of Education, Nagano

NISHIYAMA Marcelo

Prefecture)

Associate Director/ Chief Curator, Takenaka Carpentry Tools Museum

Rohit JIGYASU
Unit 3
Alejandro MARTINEZ

Project Manager on Urban Heritage, Climate Change and Disaster Risk

Assistant Professor, Kyoto Institute of Technology

Restoration of Cultural Property (ICCROM)

TOMODA Masahiko

C. Interpretation and Translation of Materials

Deputy Director General and Director, Japan Center for International
Cooperation in Conservation, Tokyo National Research Institute for Cultural

Management, International Centre for the study of the Preservation and

HATA Chiyako

Freelance Interpreter

Properties

Unit 4KONDO Mitsuo

D. Narration of Materials
Shaun Ian Mackey

Researcher (Archaeology)

Conservation Architect, Technical Advisor, The Japanese Association forConservation of Architectural Monuments (JACAM)

E. Co-organisers and Cooperation Bodies(Co-organisers)

TAI Tadatsugu

YAMASHITA Shin’ichiro

Chief Engineer, Wakayama Prefecture Cultural Heritage CenterCouncillor for Cultural Properties, Agency for Cultural Affairs, Governmentof Japan

TANAKA Izumi

KANAI Ken

Conservation Architect, Chief Engineer, Todai-ji Temple

Head, Resource and Systems Research Section, Japan Center for International
Cooperation in Conservation, Tokyo National Research Institute for Cultural

YOSHIDA Mitsuyoshi

Properties

Assistant Director/ Conservation Architect, Cultural Property Preservation

SEINO Takayuki

Division/Cultural Property Preservation Office, Culture, Education and

Director, Department of Planning and Coordination, Nara National Research

Creative Living Department, Nara Prefectural Government

Institute for Cultural Properties

SHODA Shinya
YAMASHITA Hideki

Head, International Cooperation Section, Department of Planning andConservation Architect/Head of Kashihara-Jingu Shrine Conservation

Coordination, Nara National Research Institute for Cultural Properties

Office, Cultural Property Preservation Office, Culture, Education and(Cooperation)

Creative Living Department, Nara Prefectural Government

MORII Masayuki
Director, Cultural Resource Utilization Division and World Heritage

ONO Yusuke

Office, Culture, Education and Creative Living Department, Nara Prefectural

Conservation Architect (O-Jinja Shrine Conservation Office), Cultural

Government

Property Preservation Office, Culture, Education and Creative Living

MATSUURA Iwami

Department, Nara Prefectural Government

Director, Cultural Properties Division, Nara Municipal Board of Education

IWANAGA Yuichiro

F. AssistantConservation Architect (Horyu-ji Temple Conservation Office), Cultural
Property Preservation Office, Culture, Education and Creative Living
Department, Nara Prefectural Government

92

Zifan WANG
Master Program in World Heritage Conservation, University of Tsukuba

G. Acknowledgements for Cooperation■Nara Prefectural Government
YAMASHITA Makoto
Governor■O-jinja Shrine■Horyu-ji Temple■Shiojiri City Board of Education, Cultural Property Section
NAKAMURA Kotoe■Shiojiri City
MOMOSE Takashi

Director

Mayor

Assistant Director

SHIOBARA Masaki
IMAFUKU Daisuke■Kobe City Board of Education
MAEDA Yoshihisa

Cultural Property Officer

Cultural Heritage Specialist

Officer■Todai-ji Temple■Cultural Property Preservation Office, Culture, Education
and Creative Living Department, Nara Prefectural Government
KANEKO Takayuki■Tezuka Family Residence
TEZUKA Takuro

Assistant Director/ Conservation Architect

YATANI Saki
Chief

SAKURAYAMA Hiroshi

Owner■BYAKU Narai
TAKAYAMA Kyohei
Manager■ITO Kanji Lacquer Shop

■Kashihara-jingu Shrine

2. Thematic Training Course
A. List of participants
Kazakhstan
Denis Sorokin
Archaeologist /Architect, International Institute for Central Asian Studies (IICAS)

Kazakhstan
Farukh Khabibullayev
Project Manager (Documentation / Measured Drawing), International Institute for Central Asian Studies (IICAS)

Kazakhstan
Mikhail Gurulev
Researcher (archaeology), International Institute for Central Asian Studies (IICAS)

Kyrgyz Republic
Aibek Moldokmatov
Restoration Specialist(objects), National Historical Museum of the Kyrgyz Republic

Kyrgyz Republic
Emil Sultanov
Researcher (archaeology), Institute of History, Archaeology and Ethnology,
National Academy of Sciences of the Kyrgyz Republic

93

Uzbekistan
Gulmira Kattayeva
Chief Lecturer (archaeology), Department of Archaeology, Termez State University

Uzbekistan
Mirqosim Tilovov
Research Engineer, Department of Archaeology, Termez State University

Tajikistan (Residing in Uzbekistan)
Odiljon Khamidov
Research Supervisor (archaeology), Department of Archaeology, Termez State University

B. List of Lecturers and Resource Persons

C. Interpreters

YAMAGUCHI Hiroshi

Freelance Interpreter

Researcher, Archaeological Research Methodology Section, Center for

Rustemova Aktolkyn

Archaeological Operations, Nara National Research Institute for Cultural

Freelance Interpreter

Kobijaeva Mariya

Properties

NAKAMURA Akiko
YAMAFUJI Masatoshi
Senior Researcher, Archaeology Section 2, Department of Imperial Palace

Director

Sites Investigations, Nara National Research Institute for Cultural Properties

Director General, Archaeological Expertise Scientific Organization

WAKIYA SoichiroHead, Conservation Science Section, Center for Archaeological Operations,

Nara National Research Institute for Cultural Properties
SHODA Shinya

Nara National Research Institute for Cultural Properties

Head, International cooperation Section, Department of Planning and

YANAGIDA Akinobu

Coordination

Senior Researcher, Conservation Science Section, Center for Archaeological

KASAHARA Tomoyo

Operations, Nara National Research Institute for Cultural Properties

Associate Fellow, International cooperation Section, Department of Planning

FUKASAWA Atsuhito

and Coordination

Chief Curator, Gunma Prefectural Museum of History

3. Regional Workshop
A. ParticipantsAceh, Sumatra
SofianiConservator, Cultural Preservation Office of Region I

West Sumatra
Titin Nofita Handa Puteri
Conservator, Cultural Preservation Office of Region III

94

D. Acknowledgements for Cooperation

International Institute for Central Asian Studies (IICAS)
Dmitriy Voyakin

Independent researcherBengkulu - Lampung (Sumatra)
Yanto HM Manurung
Pamong Budaya Ahli Muda (heritage expert), Cultural Preservation Office of Region VII

Bali
Ari Murdimanto
Pamong Budaya Ahli Pertama, (heritage expert),
Cultural Preservation Office of Region XV, Safeguarding and Rescue

Central – West Sulawesi
Haerani Umar
Archaeologist, Cultural Heritage Expert, Cultural Preservation Office of Region XVIIISouth – Southeast Sulawesi
Adang Sujana
Cultural Heritage Expert, Cultural Preservation Office of Region XIX

MalukuSandy Maulana Yusuf
Heritage Preservation Analyst, Cultural Preservation Office of Region XX

North Maluku
Faozan Salim
Conservator, Cultural Preservation Office of Region XXI

Yogyakarta – Central Java
Chandra Harimurti
Pamong Budaya Ahli Pertama (heritage expert), Cultural Preservation Office Region X

Yogyakarta – Central Java
Khairul Ula
Pamong Budaya Ahli Pertama (heritage expert), Cultural Preservation Office Region X, Publication and Documentation

Yogyakarta
Anglir Bawono
Heritage Expert, Cosmological Axis of Yogyakarta Management Unit, Planning
Yogyakarta Special Region Cultural Service, Division of Cultural Heritage Maintenance and Development

95

Yogyakarta
Marendra Mikaton
Division Head of Preservation Cultural Heritage Objects,
Yogyakarta Special Region Cultural Service, Division of Cultural Heritage Maintenance and Development

Yogyakarta
Danang Samsurizal
Head of Division, Regional Disaster Management Agency of Yogyakarta Province, Preparedness and ReadinessJakartaMuhammad Fadlullah Al-Kilmani
Cultural Analyst, Ministry of Education, Culture, Research, and Technology,
Directorate of Cultural Protection, Division of World Cultural Heritage

Jakarta
Doni Prasetyo
Cultural Analyst, Ministry of Education, Culture, Research, and Technology,
Directorate of Cultural Protection, Division of Cultural Heritage Stipulation

Jakarta
Bimo Adriawan
Cultural Analyst, Ministry of Education, Culture, Research, and Technology, Directorate of Cultural Protection

Jakarta
Yogi Abdi Nugroho
Data Analyst, Ministry of Education, Culture, Research, and Technology, Directorate of Cultural Protection

Yogyakarta
KRT. Kusumonegoro (RM. Enggar Pikantaya)
Head of Division, Kraton Ngayogyakarta Hadiningrat

B. Lecturers
JAPAN(Coordinator)
TASHIRO Akiko

INDONESIA(Lecturers)
Dian Lakshmi Pratiwi
Head, Office of Cultural Affairs
Special Region of Yogyakarta

Associate Professor, Graduate School of International Media, Communication
and Tourism Studies Hokkaido University

Khaerunnisa(Lecturers)
KIM Dowon

Head Master of Architecture Program, Universitas Atma Jaya Yogyakarta

Associate Professor, Institute of Disaster Mitigation for Urban Cultural

C. Interpreters

Heritage, Ritsumeikan University

NUMAZAWA Urara
Freelance Interpreter

96

MAKI Norio

Dina Mardiana

Professor, Disaster Prevention Research Institute, Kyoto University

Freelance InterpreterD. Co-organiser

Desse Yussubrasta■Directorate of Cultural Protection, Ministry of Education,
Culture, Research and Technology
Judi Wahjudin

Head, World Cultural Heritage Working Group

Director

Putri Sekar Ayu

Anton Wibisono

Cultural Analyst, World Cultural Heritage Working Group

Head, Division of World Cultural Heritage Nomination

Ariesta Sicilia

Galih Sekar Jati Nagari
Cultural Analyst, World Cultural Heritage Working Group

Cultural Analyst, World Cultural Heritage Working Group

4. International Workshop
A. Panellists■Moderator/Keynote Speaker
SHIMOTSUMA Kumiko
Professor, Department of Tourism and Community Development, Kokugakuin University, Japan■Keynote Speaker
Aparna TANDON
Senior Programme Leader, First Aid and Resilience for Cultural Heritage in Times of Crisis, ICCROM■Case Study Presenters
Yuhan GUO (China)
Project Manager, CONSERVISION Consulting Co., Ltd

Hari SETYAWAN (Indonesia)
Cultural Heritage Preservation Advisor, Conservation Technician,Museum and Cultural Heritage, Unit of Borobudur World Heritage, Ministry of Education, Culture, Research, and Technology

TOH Takahiro (Japan)
Chief Documentation Specialist, Wakayama Prefectural Archives

ANG Ming Chee (Malaysia)
General Manager, George Town World Heritage Incorporated

SHAKYA Lata (Nepal)
Associate Professor, Kinugasa Research Organization,
Institute of Disaster Mitigation for Urban Cultural Heritage, Ritsumeikan University

97

Amanda OHS (New Zealand)
Senior Heritage Advisor, Heritage Team, Planning and Consents, Christchurch City Council■Commentators
KOHDZUMA Yohsei (Japan)
Director, Cultural Heritage Disaster Risk Management Center, National Institutes for Cultural Heritage

MORIMOTO Susumu (Japan)
Director, Cultural Heritage Protection Cooperation Office, Asia-Pacific Cultural Centre for UNESCO (ACCU)

B. Lecturers and Interpreter (Excursion)(Lecturers)■National Institute for Cultural Heritage, Cultural Heritage
Disaster Risk Management Center, Japan
KODANI Ryusuke■Imai-cho Townscape Preservation District
HAYASHI YoshihikoSupervising Manager

Cultural Heritage Expert (Architect)

Researcher

NAKAGAWA Tomoyuki

AMANO Chiyoko

Assistant Director, Imai-cho Townscape Preservation Office, Kashihara

Officer, General Affairs

City Board of Education■Tokyo National Research Institute for Cultural Properties
KANAI Ken

■Nara Prefecture Historical and Artistic Culture Complex
HAGIYA Midori

NAKASHIMA Shiho

Head, Resource and Systems Research Section, Japan Centre for International

CuratorCooperation in Conservation

KAGAMIYAMA Satoko■Nara National Research Institute for Cultural Properties
KATO Shinji

CuratorDeputy Director(Interpreter)

SHODA Shinya

HATA Chiyako

Head, International cooperation Section, Department of Planning andFreelance Interpreter

Coordination

C. Acknowledgements for Cooperation■Nara Prefectural Government
MORII Masayuki■Imai-cho Townscape Preservation Office, Kashihara City
Board of Education
YAMASHITA Yoshitaka

Director, Cultural Resource Utilization Division and World Heritage Office,Director■Nara City Government
MATSUURA Iwami■Public Interest Incorporated Foundation, Association for The
Imanishi of Tochiagatanushi clan Preservation■Nara Prefecture Historical and Artistic Culture Complex
FUJIMOTO Shota

D. Co-organisers and Coopetation Bodies■Agency for Cultural Affairs, Government of JapanYAMASHITA Shin’ichiro

98

Culture, Education and Creative Living Department, Nara Prefectural
Government

Director, Cultural Properties Division, Nara Municipal Board of Education■International Centre for the Study of the Preservation and
Restoration of Cultural Property (ICCROM)
IKAWA Hirofumi
Project Manager, Programmes Unit

Councillor for Cultural Properties■World Heritage Institute of Training and Research-Asia andPacific (WHITRAP Shanghai)
Li Hong

IKAWA Hirofumi

Programme Specialist

Cultural Resources Utilization Division■Institute of Disaster Mitigation for Urban Cultural Heritage,
and Ritsumeikan University■Japan Consortium for International Cooperation in Cultural
Heritage5. Staff Members of ACCU Nara
Cultural Heritage Protection Cooperation Office,Asia-Pacific Cultural Centre for UNESCO (ACCU)
Nara Prefecture Historical and Artistic Culture Complex,
Restorations and Exhibition Wing 2F; 437-3, Somanouchi-cho,
Tenri, 632-0032, Japan,
TEL: +81-743-69-5010
FAX: +81-743-69-5021
URL: https://www3.pref.nara.jp/bunkamura/Email: nara@accu.or.jp■Programme Operation Department
WAKIYA Kayoko
Vice Director, Programme Operation Department

Tamar MELADZEDivision Director
International Cooperation Division

YOSHIDA Machi
Staff (Project Planning)

MORIMOTO Susumu

International Cooperation Division

Director

NAGANO Sekiroh
YATOMI Naoki

Assistant Staff

Vice Director

International Cooperation Division■Planning Management Department
HORIKAWA Kazuko
Division Director of General Affairs
Planning and Coordination Division

IEDA Akiko
Staff
Planning and Coordination Division99